HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Vote2016 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Vote2016

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Feb 3, 2016, 11:52 PM
Number of posts: 1,198

Journal Archives

I'm with her


Why are all the Presidents Christian?

Tell me why no Jews?

A candidacy ends on election day. A movement doesn't. Whether Sanders wins the nomination or not,

the movement goes forward. Whether Sanders (or Hillary or Trump) wins the general election, the movement goes on.

Call it occupy the DNC.

This is an ongoing effort to pull both the Democratic Party and the country back to FDR's values.

If Sanders isn't the nominee, we fight for progressive candidates across the nation from the top of the ballot to the bottom, we fight to pull Hillary back from her worst third way neoliberal instincts, we fight to get the stench of lobbyist money and influence out of the DNC.

If Sanders is the nominee, we still fight for progressive candidates across the nation from the top of the ballot to the bottom right up to election day and then starting again the next day after the election, we continue campaigning from day one after the inauguration to build and solidify consensus on progressove goals and to achieve or expand majorites in Congress (every day is campaign season), we fight to pull those senators and representatives from both parties who oppose progress back from their reactionary instincts by campaining directly to their constituencies and focusing on progressive goals the majorities of voters in both parties support, we fight to get the corrupting influence of Citizens United money and lobbyists out of the process.

If Hillary is the nominee (and of course she's the favorite), the movement doesn't stop. Some (probably most) may think joining the Hillary campaign is the best way to keep her honest on what she has promised progressives during the campaign. Some (probably many in non-battleground states) may think writing in for Sanders is the best way to show that there is a constituency on the left that will hold out for an advocate of our values and will not fall in line behind a neoliberal, and some may conclude that the best way to show the DNC that it must pander to the left with the same sickening gusto it shows when pandering to the right is to grow the Green Party by voting for Jill Stein. No matter what path we choose at the top of the ticket, we will fight for progressive candates everywhere and in every race on the ballot.

Eager to switch from policy debates to a twitter-fueled fight about Bill & Hillary's personal life?

Then you are ready for the primary to be over.

Do you want to continue debating fair trade policy vs. free trade policy or are you ready to switch the debate to Paula Jones vs. Gennifer Flowers?

Do you want to continue discussing the merits of investing in domestic infrastructure vs. investing in foreign interventionist nation building or are you eager to discuss right-wing Whitewater talking points vs. right-wing Benghazi talking points instead?

Do you want to continue the debates about campaign finance, Wall Street and banking regulation, private prison reform, TPP, progressive taxation, fracking, minimum wage, and marijuana decriminalization or is it past time that we change over to Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey?

Seriously - why are Hillary supporters whining about Sanders focusing on his policy differences with Hillary and why are they so eager to switch over to a Trump-style general election fight?

Nate Silver and the 538 crew have let their personal biases skew their results. If you make a living

making predictions, it must be tempting to pick the favorite and dress it up as a careful calculation.

Spoon has the best expression of the lesson Nate apparently forgot:

You got no time for the messenger
Got no regard for the thing that you don't understand
You got no fear of the underdog
That's why you will not survive
I want to forget how conviction fits
But can I get out from under it?
...
Uh-huh 'cause you don't talk to the water boy
And there's so much you could learn but you don't want to know
You will not back up an inch ever

The 538 crew has had some phony soul searching about lessons learned, but that missed the point.

Nate failed to adequately reassess pollsters and polling methods that were way off contest after contest. Whether he felt too insecure to speak truth about his industry being lost (polling and professional political prognostication around the globe have been bizarrely inaccurate for the past couple of years) or he failed to question dubious data that reinforced his personal political views, Nate blew it.

More importantly, Nate clung desperately to the failed "party decides" model despite the evidence Democrats no longer follow or particularly value the party (establishment support was more a neutral factor than a boost) and Republicans are at war with the party (establishment support was a negative factor). You cannot have congressional approval ratings akin to the approval polling for chlamydia without those views casting shade on both parties' establishments.

This is a change election. The Democratic and Republican parties will not be the same a year from now regardless of who wins. Either Nate doesn't get this or he does, but cannot publicly acknowledge it.

Cruz dropped out and Sanders notched yet another win in yet another state where the establishment

gave the grassroots no chance of success.

I will sleep soundly tonight.

"Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled ....

"Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.

George Orwell

"Jill Stein: The Democratic Party 'fakes left,' marches right"

It is not too late to avoid the "marches right" part of this astute analysis by a real liberal progressive who shares the values of FDR's Democratic Party:

Washington (CNN)There's an independent senator -- a democratic socialist, no less -- with climate change on the brain making a real play for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton, who exudes establishment politics...."Forward movement is a good thing, but I always include that it's not enough, and we have to have a base where we can truly build," Stein told CNN. "That cannot be done inside of the corporate, establishment political parties." ..."I think we share very similar values and visions," Stein said. "I just happen to be working in a party that supports those values and those visions."

Sanders has made changing the Democratic Party a key pitch to his voters. Stein's disdain for the Democratic Party is key to hers.

"I have long since thrown in the towel on the Democratic and Republican parties because they are really a front group for the 1%, for predatory banks, fossil fuel giants and war profiteers," Stein said.... "The party allows progressive faces to sort of be their figurehead for a little while, but while it does that, while it sort of fakes left, the party continues to march toward the right," Stein told CNN.

Stein said the Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, represented corporate interests and has not allowed progressives to take charge. The story she told of the Democratic Party was one of a party that had used its "kill switch," in the form of packed primary days, like Super Tuesday, and super delegates, to take down "very good and principled campaigns" over the decades.
These progressive campaigns "are invariably sabotaged by the (Democratic) party," she said.

Progressive Northeasterner vs Establishment Centrist Popular in the South vs Republican Entertainer

Imagine a race where the Republican primary rejected up-and-coming Senators and popular Governors and, instead, the Republicans nominated an "entertainer" that the Democrats (and even some country club Republicans) thought of as a joke.

Imagine a Democratic primary where almost the entire party establishment was behind a centrist candidate who was very popular among Democrats in the South but the campaign was showing weaknesses elsewhere, and the underdog Democratic challenger was a Northeastern progressive who was beloved and encouraged by the liberal base but who the Republicans (and even some conservative Democratics) dismissed as a socialist.

Imagine that.

Get that scenario firmly planted in your head.

Imagine that the Republicans nominate an "entertainer" with a history of saying goofy things that - somehow - don't sink his campaign(even though they should). And imagine the Democrats must choose between a centrist who is popular in the Deep South and who is supported by almost the entire Democratic establishment and who offers more status quo at a time when some feel left out of the hit-and-miss economy versus a progressive underdog from the Northeast who is adored by the liberal base but dismissed as too controversial by some conservative Democrats.

Are you imagining all of that?

Now imagine if we could go back and choose Ted Kennedy over Jimmy Carter and avoid Ronald Reagan defeating Carter.

Imagine how much better America would be today if we had taken a different path and we never had 8 years of the Reagan administration and - instead - we had a new Kennedy administration to fulfill the legacy of JFK and FDR.

I would fight for that alternative.

In life, we seldom get the chance to go back and replay a moment in time to make a different choice and restart down a promising path we mistakenly rejected in the past.

Please join me in supporting Bernie Sanders. I don't think this year's status quo centrist - even with the support of almost the entire Democratic establishment - will beat this year's Republican who we dismiss as an entertainer.

When Hillary was "inevitable," was she planning to lose NH, CO, MN, OK, VT, NE, KS, ME, MI, UT, ID?

Bill Clinton is rightly beloved in the Deep South as the kid from Hope, Arkansas, who won a Rhode scholarship to Oxford and went on to win the Presidency. Hillary Clinton is rightly beloved in the Deep South as Arkansas' former First Lady who has fought side by side with Bill as his "two for the price of one co-president" and for all she has done since.

Of course Hillary did well in the Deep South. You need not place a phony racial story line on this fact.

Hillary has a Southern accent (when she's speaking in the Deep South) and Sanders has a distinct Brooklyn accent no matter where he speaks. You don't need to fabricate a phony racial construct on this primary to guess which candidate's accent is more welcome in the Deep South.

The Bible Belt is the most Christian-church-going region (and also the region least progressive in accepting GLBT and reproductive rights as a result). Hillary is the least progressive candidate who talks about her Christian faith when campaigning in the Bible Belt. Sanders is a progressive Jewish candidate, but doesn't wear this Jewish identity on his sleeve no matter where he campaigns. A fake racial meme is unnecessary to predicting which candidate will have more appeal in the Bible Belt.

Leaving race aside, Hillary won all 13 states of the Deep South and you don't need race as a mental crutch to understand that.

By the end of the day, however, Hillary will likely have lost over two thirds of of the states outside of the Deep South (she has already lost 11 states, Illinois was a delegate tie, Sanders is favored in 3 more states today, and she won - mostly narrowly - 6 states).

When do we analyze this voting pattern without someone trying to say "it's racist to point out Hillary's not doing well outside the Bible Belt"?

If Hillary underestimated Sanders and underperforms in the contests outside of the Deep South, when do we ask whether she's also underestimating the Republican candidates and why should we expect her not to underperform in a general election if we nominate her?

If Hillary's primary campaign has been weak and her supporters unenthusiastic and her predictions of running the table have been way off the mark, why should we expect these problems to vanish in the general election?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »