Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalFirst of all, so-called social issues aren't "pet" issues.
In fact, so-called social justice concerns (racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.) help give rise to and maintain economic injustice. If you address those matters, you effectively address economic disparities, because things like racism and sexism are used to justify those disparities.
Also, a POC can be wealthy and still get treated like sh*t by various institutions, such as law enforcement.
And while the approach may differ or not be radical enough for one's liking (including my own), mainstream Democrats such as Clinton do, in fact, make an effort to reduce economic disparities.
Lastly, nominating someone who can't win doesn't help those in need. Sanders would have faced an onslaught of attacks unlike anything he's ever seen before. Photos of him being arrested might impress his supporters, particularly the young and rebellious, but they wouldn't go over well in a general election campaign. Nor would photos of his supporters burning the US flag. Nor would his essay about women having a rape fantasy. Nor would his tax proposals, which would be twisted into something they aren't. And so on. Nominate on principle and then lose in November...sorry, but that lacks appeal.
Systemic change happens from the bottom-up.
1) Clinton wins big
2) Clinton wins by a small margin
3) Trump wins
Which of those scenarios is most likely to help enable the masses to lay the groundwork for progressive change? I think the answer is clearly #1, especially since #1 also means Dems have won more of the down-ticket races than they would in the other scenarios. Trump winning would send a horrible message (particularly to POC, women and the international community). A narrow victory for Clinton would give her administration even less reason to push for progressive legislation.
I know you said you'll be voting for Clinton, so the above is more for the benefit of others.
More to the point of your thread:
I get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and of the US political system as a whole. I really do. But I also think our individualistic culture overemphasizes the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. Sanders was never viable and his was a message campaign (and, as a result, his campaign could promote a platform that never would have been realized), but even if he were to become POTUS, his administration would either end up operating in similar fashion to the Obama Admin or he'd be completely stymied.
And our instant gratification culture has an unrealistic expectation of how (and how quickly) systemic change happens. I don't invest much energy in national politics, as I think local politics and local organization are key to bringing about systemic change. Bottom-up, not top-down. Planting seeds in the collective consciousness, recognizing that the extent of change I'd like to see won't be fully realized in my lifetime (some--young and old alike--simply can't accept that, so they cling to unrealistic expectations, which is not the least bit constructive).
As for money in politics, campaign contributions don't have as much impact on election results or even legislation as many believe. The big money in politics problem is the way politicians are getting rich while in office (by having access to insider stock knowledge, by pushing legislation that increases the value of land they own back in their home state, etc.).
Consider the 3 (most likely) potential outcomes:
1) Clinton wins big
2) Clinton wins by a small margin
3) Trump wins
Which of those scenarios is most likely to help enable the masses to lay the groundwork for progressive change? I think the answer is clearly #1, especially since #1 also means Dems have won more of the down-ticket races than they would in the other scenarios. Trump winning or even coming close to winning would send a horrible message (particularly to POC, women and the international community) and give a Clinton Admin even less reason to push for progressive legislation.
I get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and of the US political system as a whole. I really do. But I also think our individualistic culture overemphasizes the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. And our instant gratification culture has an unrealistic expectation of how (and how quickly) systemic change happens. I don't invest much energy in national politics, as I think local politics and local organization are key to bringing about systemic change. Bottom-up, not top-down. Planting seeds in the collective consciousness, recognizing that the type of change I'd like to see probably won't be fully realized in my lifetime.
If most who voted for Obama vote for Clinton, she wins in a landslide.
Sure, some Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. I imagine quite a few of those folks have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, meaning they'll have no impact on the result unless they're voting for Trump (most, I'm guessing, will vote for Stein or won't vote for any presidential candidate).
And there will no doubt be some Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton, even though a Clinton Admin would operate in more or less the same fashion as the Obama Admin has.
Most independents are party loyalists, and there are few actual swing voters. I doubt Trump will win over many of those swing voters.
So, as long as most of those who voted for Obama vote for Clinton, Clinton will win with ease. I know it's popular on DU and some other message boards to suggest that Clinton will lose (and lose badly), but that certainly defies the general consensus. The electoral college map is very favorable for the Democratic candidate.
Clinton's VP shortlist
My apologies if this has already been posted: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11954878/hillary-clinton-vice-president-veepstakes
Based on all of that, I'd go with Tom Perez.
Highlighting one part of Taibbi's article.
A Matt Taibbi article is a point of discussion in another thread, but I wanted to highlight one particular passage.Taibbi indicates that this is because Democrats are "dense."
If you agree with the passage above, do you think it's because Democrats are "dense?"
Do you think Democrats don't want to win more often and more easily?
Stupidity or a desire to lose? Does anyone really think either of those factors constitute the root of the problem?
Let's try this again. Re: "...the Democrats' Racial Rift"
Let me start by saying that I think the vast majority of Clinton and Sanders supporters are decent and kind people, who wish to reduce suffering and inequality. That's certainly true of those I know personally. As great a tool as the Internet is, the anonymity does not lend itself to civility.
And let me add that I'm someone who recognizes the need for major systemic reform. But I also recognize the POTUS has limited parameters within which he/she can operate. It's up to the masses to expand those parameters. Too much focus is placed on individual actors in our very individualistic culture, while systemic forces are underestimated. I think the expansion of those parameters begins at the local level. As Julio Huato wrote, "I believe that the greatest promise lies, not in national struggles (where, IMO, one way or another, we'll be operating within the strictures imposed by the system), but in smaller scale local battles. Let's go local. Let's work seriously to take over PTAs, unions, municipal governments -- entities charged with managing resources for specific public purposes, even if those resources are meager and shrinking. Let's go after them. If we think we can change the system within our lifetimes, then this certainly will feel like small change. What I envision is taking over a town and turning it around. To the extent possible, converting that town into a small, democratically managed, proto-socialist island. Let's show the world and ourselves how the left can help people manage (and manage well) their public affairs at a local level. Let's go wherever the fruit hangs lowest. That is the kind of work that, sooner than we think, will ripen things at the national level."
I think, too, we must recognize the need to live our lives differently. For instance, if we crave cheap goods and relatively cheap fossil fuels, we can't very well expect much change in terms of international trade, foreign policy, etc. While understandable (given the pressure to make ends meet), let's face the fact that many who get amped up during an election continue to live day-to-day lives that contradict values they espouse.
With all of that said, I'll get to the point of why I started this thread. Much has been written about how POC are key to winning the Democratic Party nomination. I myself wrote about this here. And here. And also here.
Whenever this issue is brought up, there seems to be a defensive reaction based on the notion that Sanders or his supporters are being labeled racist. Have some made accusations of racism? Yes. And, yes, there is some disturbing evidence that white millennials are more ignorant about racial matters than they think. And, yes, implicit bias tests demonstrate that most people have prejudices against POC (thanks in part to a culture that has long promoted negative images of POC). I think we can all agree that racism, systemic and otherwise, needs to be tackled. It's certainly a passion of mine, which is why I'm deeply involved in 2 local racial justice organizations (I encourage everyone to get involved in local organizations focused on issues about which you are passionate--like Julio Huato, I think that's how we "ripen things at the national level"
.
***BUT*** the point of articles such as the one that was recently posted by bravenak is ***NOT*** to accuse Sanders or his supporters of being racist. There's no need to get defensive, especially if you haven't actually read the article. I'm going to post some lengthy excerpts (some of which may rub you the wrong way) and the link to the article, because I really think it's worth your thoughtful consideration.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948
“That refusal to accept the necessity of compromise in a winner-take-all two-party system (and an electorate in which conservatives still outnumber liberals) is characteristic of a certain idealistic style of left-wing politics. Its conception of voting as an act of performative virtue has largely confined itself to white left-wing politics, because it is at odds with the political tradition of a community that has always viewed political compromise as a practical necessity. The expectation that a politician should agree with you on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.”
As perceptive as that analysis is, it fails to fully account for the racial divide. The tensions within the party aren’t only about purity vs. pragmatism; they have to do with how life is lived and perceived. And though millennials aren’t stuck in the mud on race the way the generations that came before them can be—in large part because they don’t have scars from the 20th century's contentious civil rights battles—they are not ushering the country into a post-racial age as some have claimed.
People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance. That’s why they are much more enthusiastic about the Affordable Care Act—which has helped minority Americans the most— than white progressives who have either been lukewarm or, in some cases, even hostile to health reform because they don’t believe it was radical enough.
Minority voters are more likely than white Democratic voters to giddily give Obama credit for an economic recovery that has shaved the unemployment rate in half, produced the lowest level of jobless claims since the ‘70s, and an unprecedented monthly job creation streak that has lasted more than six years, all coming on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And he got Osama bin Laden, saved the domestic auto industry, ushered through the largest economic stimulus in history—one derisively dismissed as too small by many liberals—and the first significant Wall Street reform in a generation, while advancing gay rights like no president before him despite the initial reluctance by his numerous religious black voters to embrace same sex marriage.
Why? Because many white Democratic voters missed the sentiment shared among black Obama voters in 2008 that, once again, the “first black” was being handed a seemingly impossible task—two ground wars, a collapsing economy, a record deficit—and if he wasn’t able to perform a miracle, it would not only be his failure, but that of black people in general. To downplay what he has been able to achieve despite the obstacles, which also included an unprecedented level of obstruction from the GOP, confirms a fear shared by many people of color—Democratic or otherwise—that no matter what they achieve, it will never be enough. Sanders and Susan Sarandon may sincerely believe things are so awful only a revolution can heal the country’s ills. But their overwrought rhetoric, and no more than lukewarm support of Obama’s accomplishments, taps into that deeply-held frustration among minorities.
That’s why, despite what looks like intractable problems to white Democrats, minority voters are more optimistic about the future than their white counterparts. That Obama was able to become president and get stuff done is an enormous source of not only pride, but hope. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than half of young black and Latinos believe their lives will be better than their parents, compared with less than a third of young white people. On many measures, black people have seen much worse days—the black unemployment rate neared 17 percent at the height of the Great Recession and is less than half that now—even as they continue fighting decades-long struggles. Things aren’t perfect, but the progress that has occurred during the Obama era isn’t something they want ignored or downplayed.
Even if Sanders supporters come around to vigorously try to defeat Trump, as most expect to happen come November, the racial reckoning would only have been delayed. The GOP has whiffed on the emerging racial dynamics of the country because it seems stuck in a defensive crouch, borne of having to weather (oftentimes) unfair and exaggerated claims of racism. But the GOP remains willfully blind to the racial angst that animates too many in its party, or the disparate racial impact of some of the party’s signature policies, such as voter ID laws, and the hostility its base has for comprehensive immigration reform.
But Republican vulnerabilities are not automatically Democratic strengths. Democrats may end up whiffing on this issue, too, because the party may succumb to the myth that an increase in diversity is a balm for deep, racial wounds that date back to before this country’s founding. Diversity, they should realize, brings its own set of problems and tensions.
Many Sanders supporters believed his push to regulate Wall Street and solve economic inequality would resonate with minority voters. It didn’t because minority voters know that liberal policies alone won’t reverse decades of racial inequalities. They have been loyal members of liberal unions where white Democrats received plush jobs, even if they were no more qualified than their black colleagues. They’ve seen the same thing in liberal Hollywood and the supposedly liberal world of the media, whose top ranks remain mostly white.
Even though the senator from Vermont began speaking about criminal justice and other types of racial reform, minority voters weren’t convinced he would make those policies a priority. Democrats can waste time debating why minority voters should have connected better with Sanders—and get caught in a condescending discussion about why white Sanders supporters know what’s better for minority voters than minorities do themselves—or they can begin the more difficult work of coming up with strategies to deal with a divide that will show itself in a more pronounced and public way once Trump exits stage left.
And here's a link to a complementary article that was written back in January: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
I very much get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and a valid critique of the US political system as a whole (and I suspect most supporters of both Clinton and Sanders feel the same way--really, I don't think there's as much of a divide on that score as some seem to think). But I encourage people to think critically about how best to bring about systemic change. I personally don't get real invested in national politics, as I think local organization is far more worthy of time and effort. And I'm not going to tell anyone else how to vote. I will say, though, that I can hold my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate for POTUS (little time and effort required), because the alternative will only make the local struggles more challenging. Bernard Chazelle wrote years ago that "America has lefties but no left." The groundwork must be laid for systemic change. That becomes a more difficult task if someone such as Trump becomes POTUS. It's a little less difficult if Trump loses by a slim margin. It's still a difficult task but easier to accomplish if Democrats retain the White House (by winning in a landslide) and gain seats in Congress (unity and coalition-building begins by sending a resounding message to the international community and the US populace that most people reject the bigotry of Trump and a Republican Party that gave rise to him through decades of toxic messaging). Yes, there will still be reason to be pissed off about how the US government conducts itself. Yes, a Clinton Admin (like the Obama Admin) will make decisions that disappoint. But that's why laying the groundwork starting at the local level is so vital.
Garrett
If voter suppression is a concern of yours, you should advocate for doing away with caucuses.
A caucus is not amenable to folks who can't invest hours just to cast a vote. Many working people, parents, persons with disabilities, people who wish to keep their vote private and others are simply not going to participate.
Replace caucuses with primaries, have polls open over the course of a few days (Thursday through Saturday) and have a mail-in option.
Can't something be done about repeat threads?
Day after day in GDP, there are numerous threads about the exact same topic. It's clutter. It pushes other threads to page 2 and beyond.
Perhaps GDP could be broken up into multiple categories, or there could simply be a moderator who merges repeat threads.
Let's review why it was clear by mid-March who was going to end up with more pledged delegates.
It was suggested in another thread that saying Clinton's ultimate pledged delegate majority was evident by mid-March is a form of fantastical thinking. But it really isn't. As we near the end of the primary season, let's review why:
Following Super Tuesday (March 1) and Clinton's 5-state sweep on March 15, it was very apparent that Clinton was stronger in diverse, delegate-rich states. And that Clinton was stronger in primaries, as opposed to vote-suppressing caucuses. You see those patterns, you look at the contests to come, and you see the writing on the wall.
While Sanders hadn't been mathematically eliminated from reaching 2026 (even now he's not mathematically eliminated), there was no reason to believe those patterns would suddenly get flipped upside down (it would have taken something truly monumental). One could see that Clinton's lead would ebb and flow a bit, but it wasn't going away. And that's precisely what has happened. Not because some of us are fortune tellers, but because patterns were quite evident. We weren't reading tea leaves. We were simply observing what was obvious.
Numerous requests were made back in March for someone to demonstrate with delegate math a realistic path to victory for Sanders, and delegate calculators were readily available for use. The *only* attempt I ever saw was one dubbed The Bern Path, but it was utterly unrealistic, as I pointed out at the time (it had Sanders winning by large margins in PA, NY, NJ and CA, while only losing by 10 points in MD and 16 points in DC). And even then The Bern Path had Sanders just barely finishing ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates. Why was this unrealistic example the only one put forth? Because there simply wasn't a realistic path for Sanders, not after those aforementioned patterns became so evident. The denial of mathematical and demographic realities (or simply a failure to recognize them) justifiably earned the term BernieMath.
By the way, Clinton does better (overall) in urban areas. Urban areas are where polling place shortages are most likely to occur, which blows a pretty big hole in the theory that contests are rigged in Clinton's favor.
Technically, of course the primaries weren't "over" in mid-March. And of course nothing is "official" until the convention. Practically speaking, however, the writing was on the wall months ago.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
