He’s blaming people who did not vote in the previous elections for the consequences we’ve seen since. That is a way to caution people who are considering not voting *this *time for the consequences we’d see of that. It’s the same point.
You can’t lead without people willing to follow. People who refuse to listen, or to pay attention to current affairs, or to consider that there might really be a difference that really matters, are *themselves *at fault for their own intellectual laziness and shortsightedness. No excuses.
Tell us, how do you convince someone who’s convinced that Clinton and Cheney are interchangeable? We’ve seen that in this very forum recently, for instance.
No, that is not “certain” for why Millennials don’t bother to vote during midterms. Frank’s theory seems to be (and I personally agree) not that the particular Congressional, state, and local candidates don’t matter to them, but that they have an unrealistic sense of the political process and do not understand that voting in those races matters to accomplishing any change just as much as voting for President does.
They want to sprint on race day every four years but not wake up every morning to train all year round, even when it is raining.
Let it be known that Barney Frank isn’t pure enough for camille. Nobel Laurrette Al Gore wasn’t pure enough for Nader supporters either. I’d address her points in greater depth, but they were basically all ad hominem anyway.
Here’s a counter-hypothesis. Barney Frank has a big mouth, a keen intellect, and a sharp nose. What he smells from the Sanders camp is a whiff of bull.
Look. Barney Frank was one of the hardest left members of Congress. But his strategy involved sausage making rather than being a gadfly. I think both strategies are valid. But in the end I respect those who actually craft legislation a lot more.
The substance of Frank’s argument bears repeating: Dems have figure out how to boost turnout during off year elections. That’s what Sanders needs to pivot to. I suspect he very well might, as it coincides with this 50 state strategy.
First, it’s tough to call it five in a row since the same day that he won UT and ID Hillary won AZ. But aside from that, every one of those five states was a caucus. Hillary, just before that, won between five and seven states in a row, depending on how you count it, all primary states. Get where I’m going here?
Bernie supporters want to paint it as momentum, but it really isn’t. I’m not saying Hillary will win every primary state, but she’s polling ahead in every one of those big states, and CA, and PA.
Here’s an article where Barney Frank goes after Sanders…in 1991! Sanders has been pissing people that should be his allies off since he’s been in congress.
It used to be a tradition in mine own country, that top coppers would relax away from top coppering at the Yard and from the tiresome demands of family by spending their evenings at Lodge Meetings, in company with top felons and assorted thugs; doing all the weird Freemason stuff: holding hands, dancing Ring-a-Ring-a-Rosie, pretending to stab each other, discussing constitutions, all that sort of stuff, and maybe taking home unmarked bills in plain brown envelopes at the end of the night.
This made them better regulators of the criminal class.
[URL=“http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/bank-reform-barney-frank-wall-street-213412”]
Oh, this is so golden. Thank you for posting this! (Also: shocker.)
Assuming you are referring to me, I bolded what was bolded in the original article. The bolded part is the interviewer, the plain text was Barney Frank. Sorry for any confusion: I thought that was clear.
QFT
I see this meme going around, that Bernie has been winning the race “since March 1”. Why this is the arbitrary point we should start counting is not clear, but in any case I went back and checked, and in 2008 Hillary won more delegates than Obama did after March 1. So what? *All *of the primaries and caucuses count. This strikes me as being like if San Francisco 49ers fans had said, after Super Bowl XLVII (played in 2013) “Hey, we outscored the Baltimore Ravens 25-13 in the second half, so we should get the trophy.” Ummm…yes, 49ers fans, your team did indeed outscore the Ravens by that margin. But they outscored your team by 21-6 in the first half. So since it’s the points scored in all four quarters that count, the Ravens are the champs, 34-31.
I don’t mean just “millennials.” And I reckoned that as a truism, hardly worth stating: obviously they weren’t inspired to turn out for Dems, because they didn’t.
It’s not that the candidates don’t matter to them, but voting for the candidates doesn’t? What?
That’s true, but that’s not what he said. He put it exactly opposite, assigning fault to voters for their insufficient enthusiasm for Democratic candidates.
It works by both having a President who is as close to your desired perspective as possible and having a Congress that is as close to your desired perspective as possible. Rarely will either, let alone both, perfectly align with your desires.
Still, the farther either are from your desired perspective the more the process works against what you want. That is how the process works.
Those who come out only to vote for in Presidential election years and who do not care enough to be involved in midterm elections (yes a large share of Millennials, and is likely true no matter who the candidates are) may get the President closer to their desired perspective but kneecap him or her by helping assure that (s)he will be dealing with a Congress that will obstruct the desired progress to the best of their ability.
Let me try putting in a different set of terms. Participating in the Presidential election is sexy and allows people to participate in a broad social network. It’s fun! Almost everyone is playing!
Midterms are not so sexy and not so fun. Your local Senator or House or local government candidates … not so likely to be as inspiring as the stars of the national stage. Your friends on your social network feeds, whatever you currently use, are not across the country talking about him or her. Yeah, if you bother to even find out who they are and what they think, one supports most of the policies you support and the other one running, not any, but … yawn. Who bothers to find out let alone to come out? Not so many Millennials.
That is, to my read, what Frank is talking about.
If they want progress to be made they need to participate in midterm years too, even though it is not as exciting or fun.
You can most certainly assign fault to them for their insufficient enthusiasm in non presidential elections. This is a pattern that cannot simply be explained away by not having interesting candidates to get excited over.
Not to mention but a lot of Congressional races (and especially Senate races) have primary challenges. If you really want to shift the party in a certain direction, you can agitate for the challenger who holds your positions. To throw up your hands and say, well, there isn’t anyone there I can vote for is because you don’t even get involved in the process until the day before an election (slight exaggeration) - or after the fact.
Yes, and he’s right and the opposite perspective is wrong. Jesus, I call myself a slacker but this idea that it is all on the candidates to be inspiring enough to get people to get off their couches and be arsed to vote is kind of sickening.
Frank is talking out of his ass. No realistic candidate or party depends on inherent voter enthusiasm to get votes. They know they need an effective ground team to register, energize, canvass, and offer GOTV on election day (inspiring candidates would be nice too, but I stopped expecting that as a given a long time ago). Frank is blaming voters because he won’t say that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as its chair dropped the ball.
As I said earlier, Obama’s OFA was the most impressive organization I’ve seen in over 30 years of working for the Dems. He handed it over to them, literally, and they squandered it. They certainly didn’t utilize it effectively for the mid-terms. I’m not going to speculate as to why, and I no longer care. A lot of us are now working independent grassroots allied with Sanders and other progressive candidates, and I am done with banging my head against the Dem party stupidity.
It is entirely true. The candidates are the ones applying for jobs. The voters have no duty to vote for them. The voters are offered a very short menu of choices for any office. It is entirely on the candidates to inspire the voters to 1) vote at all and 2) for them over the other guy.
It’s not true at all, showing up every four years expecting your chosen candidate to magically fix all problems and not giving a shit during the mid terms and then getting angry cause it didn’t all magically work out is a ridiculous mentality and it deserves the mocking Frank is giving it.