TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
The same could be said about the steady drumbeat of catering the party to swing voters.
Democratic caucuses and primaries
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
The same could be said about the steady drumbeat of catering the party to swing voters.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If you mean swing voters outside the party (like me) of course. If you mean the majority of liberal center lefties inside the party, no.
Americans usually know who is President and which party he represents. Many can’t identify the party in control of the House or the Senate or name their Representative or Senators. They hold the President responsible for not passing legislation blocked by the opposition party.
Democrats lost the House in the 2010 election mostly because working class voters didn’t show up and vote. The recession was technically over. Wall Street was back but Main Street was still suffering. The GOP used control of the House to block any program to help the working class. Tax cuts were the only form of stimulus they allowed. The result was painfully slow economic growth.
That's true if they're limited to only the shortest-term outlook. But when that strategy continues to produce bad long-term results for them, as it has for the past five or more decades, telling the lesser of two evils (at the party level) "we won't help you regain power unless you actually represent us and address our interests" becomes a justifiable position to take.
What's stopping other Dem candidates from adopting a few of Sanders's (or other pro working class) policies to change the mind of those "Bernie or bust" supporters? Their rich and politically connected friends would be annoyed. As long as that remains a good enough reason, I'm expecting Trump or worse.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Liz Warren tried it, IMO.
"We're always trying to help you but the nasty [other party] won't let us! But better vote for us anyway or they'll make things even worse!"
Being a hopeless optimist, I'm looking forward to seeing the last gasps of that deplorable tactic this coming year, or perhaps in 2024.
The problems of growing wealth inequality and the destruction of the working class have been long-term, not a sudden 2010 development. What pro working class policy proposals did the 2010 House voters fail to come out and support? Controlling the wage-depressing effects of illegal immigration by cracking down on employers rather than cruelly and ineffectually punishing the workers? Reducing economic globalization and enacting trade measures to restore reasonable trade balances? Reducing the regulations that make actual small (not politicians' idea of "small") businesses nearly impossible to start? Being less "tough" on marijuana use and other minor crime? Stopping pharmaceutical companies and hospitals from massively overcharging patients instead of bickering about the best way to shuffle funds around to pay for it? Setting tax rates for the rich similar to what they were in 1960s? I might not have been paying enough attention, but I don't recall much discussion of such proposals. I'm pretty sure there was plenty of meaningless blather about better schools and better jobs and a stronger economy, tied to no practical proposed legislation in particular.
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
I've seen this sentiment expressing in lots of areas of life:
"I only have to be a little less worse than the worst you've seen."
As a political philosophy, it makes my stomach churn.
Venom
Philosopher
I always try to remind Bernie or Busters how Sanders operated for most of his Senate career. He's not the type to sit out a vote or protest because he didn't get exactly his way. He voted in favor of the ACA while maintaining that universal healthcare through single payer was his ultimate goal. He doesn't pout and sulk because things aren't going as far as he wants.
Now is that gonna be President Sanders? Tough to be confident in that given his unyielding platform and general honesty. But Bernie or Busters need a better appreciation for how Bernie played the game to get to this point.
Dread Pirate Roberts
Critical Thinker
Well, the early voting for Nevada was kind of a ********, at least at my voting location. Walked in to the school around 11:30, and there were at least 700 people in line. Oh boy. 3 hours later, I discover why. Everyone one files to a room where there are 4 people with iPads who look up your name in the registry. And there are 926 pages of names, with apparently no search function other than being able to select the the first letter of your name and then swipe endlessly until they get to yours. And, 2 of them weren't working the entire time. Once they finally find your name, you get your ballot, which is ranked choice, 3 minimum 5 maximum, which took all of 30 seconds to fill out. Then you head to another room where there was ONE person who logged your name against the ballot number you were given, then you drop the ballot into the box. So 3 hours of my life for a 30 second process. I ******* hate caucuses...
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Do you know how the same day process will resemble the early voting process?
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
And it was working well; her sudden crash started when she turned away from that.
This hand-wringing about "Bernie Bros" supposedly refusing to vote for the final Democrat if it's not him is just another part of the Democrat establishment's desperate campaign of anti-Bernie lies from the start anyway. Bernie's supporters had a significantly higher rate of voting for Hillary than Hillary's had for Obama. There's just no basis for it in reality.
(And even if something has changed since those years, the only thing it could really be anyway is that the Democrat party controllers have since then been showing more & more of their Republicanesque bloodthirsty hatred for Bernie and the peasants, which means they've been working hard to bring it on themselves.)
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
This is the single worst talking point in the history of progressive talking points. Clinton was vastly more ideologically similar to McCain in 2008 than Sanders was to Trump in 2016; we've no reason to expect these defection rates to be similar.
Last edited:
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Why do so many cults have a persecution complex?
Dread Pirate Roberts
Critical Thinker
I don't. This didn't happen in 2016. They looked up your name quickly and then sent you off to a room to do the caucus part. I would guess the process this time would be the same as it was for early voting before the caucus actually starts.
If they just had a good supply of working iPads and a way for them to search for your name it would solve almost all of the problem. Or maybe this crew wasn't trained on how to use Google Docs or something, because they were really struggling. I heard from a friend of mine that had the same problem/delay where he voted, so it wasn't just my location.
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
We have no reason to expect "defection" rates of Sanders supporters if presented with a moderate/centrist candidate against Trump will be the same as the last time Sanders supporters were presented with a moderate/centrist against Trump?
So what do we call people who liked Clinton, but then when Obama got nominated sat it out or voted for McCain?
Are they "defectors" too? Or is that just a smear reserved for people who do it for reasons we personally disagree with? I guess there's some degree of "we won that time, so we won't make a big deal out of it."
ETA: Really the most successful strategy in general for democrats has been "blow smoke up the left's asses and then rule 90% like a republican while trying to get some halfway decent jurists on the bench when we can (but we never can)." It would probably still work just fine, but they literally haven't changed the communications strategy in 30 years and we all see through it without even trying, now.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I called them that in my post, when I compared defection rates (from the Democratic nomination contest to the Republican nominee) across two elections.
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
And even more importantly...
Even if you didn't agree with McCain's policies (and there was a lot to disagree with), he would still probably have been a competent leader. I'm not saying he was perfect (dig deep enough and you could probably find some dirt on him), but he didn't engage in the same sort of racist politics that Trump does. He showed a basic understanding of the geopolitical situation. His policies usually seemed to have some thought behind them.
So Clinton supporters who ended up voting for McCain knew they were picking someone who at least knew what they were doing.
With Trump it was obvious you weren't getting any of that. Instead you were getting a full-blown racist who approved of Torture and other war crimes. Who would wonder why it was so wrong to use nuclear weapons and called global warming a "chinese hoax".
Yet 1 in 10 BernieBros thought that was the preferred choice instead of voting for Clinton.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 30,012
We have to get rid of the whole primary process.
It seems clear that there aren't enough suitable candidates around who are both good campaigners and would make good Presidents.
It seems clear that there aren't enough suitable candidates around who are both good campaigners and would make good Presidents.