Yog ain’t no conservative. Probably one of lefty-ist of the lefties on this MB. Doesn’t care much for mainstream Democrats, though. I think a firm Sanders supporter, but with (IMO) an irrational hatred for HRC. I mean, I don’t care much for her either, but I think she’ll be a perfectly adequate president even if she wouldn’t be my top pick.
Well, you gotta admit Trump is Obama’s fault.
Bobby Jindal and Jeb Bush have said so.
She’s more than adequate from an entertainment standpoint. I anticipate oodles of juicy scandals to come.
What does this have to do with the OP? That was foolsguinea.
Same here. I’ll be holding my breath and voting HRC in November, unless Sanders pulls a major rabbit out of a hat. One can hope.
He’s had big political aspirations for a while it seems. Now that he’s finally decided to run, he’s pandering to his voters. I suppose Trump has become the opposite of Obama, but I fault Trump’s supporters, not the President.
:smack: I mix them up. They have similar political leanings. But yes, I should have said foolsguinea, not Yog[sosoth]. The irrational hatred thing was in reference to this thread. which was started by foolsguinea.
But, it’s not a positive program, lately it consists almost solely of obstructing the Democrats.
And I’m not that lefty-ist, just saying some people need killin’
Or, you know, “scandals”.
Nah. They’re not a bloc. The only thing they call can agree on is keeping SS and Medicare in place. And probably the Millennials will swing more electoral clout anyway.
You might find this to be an interesting article: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/01/bernie-sanders-super-pac-money-democratic-rivals.html
The text says that despite Sanders’s claims, he actually takes quite a lot of PAC money. As of early February, the article says, “As a matter of pure uncontested fact, there has been more super PAC money spent thus far in express support of the Sanders campaign than for either one of his Democratic rivals.”
A Sanders supporter might argue that the money he gets is different in some ways than the money funneled to Clinton or to Republicans, that somehow it’s okay to get money from labor organizations, just not from corporations, or that nurses are somehow above reproach, or that, I don’t know, it isn’t *his *PAC…
I don’t buy it, but I suppose you could make that argument. But even if you buy that argument all the way to the bank, your statement that Sanders is “funded entirely by individual supporters” is flat-out wrong.
It’s a common misconception, by the way. In my experience a lot of Sanders supporters do genuinely believe that Sanders gets all his money from $27 donations from ordinary Joes. Now, maybe they’re “closing their eyes to a situation they do not wish to acknowledge,” as Harold Hill put it, but I think it’s more likely that they haven’t heard the truth. Which means that Sanders’s PAC money hasn’t been talked about much by the media or by Clinton supporters. Which means in turn that it’s silly to argue that Sanders needs to avoid connecting with other politicians because his enemies might make political hay out of his allies’ connections to PACs. If the senator is not getting grief for what he’s doing himself, why would he get grief for something his political friends are doing?
Not that it matters, really. My point is simply that Sanders had the opportunity to make this an actual movement. He could have chosen to encourage and assist truly progressive candidates at lower levels–people who would be his allies from the moment they were elected, people who would create change even if Sanders himself wound up falling short, people who could carry through on Sanders’s vision for this country. For whatever reason, he decided not to do that. As a result, people like the OP have nowhere to go (except home, angry and disillusioned) if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, because Sanders wasn’t interested in building an effective movement, wasn’t interested in the long game. The thing is that it didn’t have to be that way. Sad!
Fuck that shit. America needs a Progressive Party more than it needs practically anything else right now, and we ain’t gonna find one anywhere else.
Assuming the article you linked is correct (and I really wish they’d cite their sources better… repeatedly linking to a whole category of other articles to have to wade through? Eek!), why wouldn’t money from a labor organization be different from money donated by corporations? One is intended to look out for the workers’ interests, while the other is inclined to look out for big business interests. What’s wrong with making that argument at all?
Here are some other articles, if you didn’t like or entirely trust that one:
Did you really not know about the PAC money? I guess the Sanders campaign has done a better job of obfuscation even than I thought.
As for unions vs. corporations, I suppose I am not as convinced as you are that labor unions necessarily = good and corporations necessarily = bad.
I agree that unions are indeed “intended to look out for the workers’ interests,” but I’d argue that they often don’t do a great job of it. There’s a long history of racism and sexism in unions, for instance. Much of it is gone. Not all of it is.
I also am not convinced that the interests of union leaders necessarily align with the interests of the rank and file (a point made by Sanders in a somewhat different context after Planned Parenthood endorsed his opponent–you may recall his claim that the leadership was not listening to the membership). According to my articles, the nurses’ union used member dues to fund the PAC. I don’t know if nurses had the opportunity to opt out, to withhold their dues if they wanted to support some other candidate. If they didn’t, I find that problematic–and undemocratic. (I would be happy, btw, to see a cite that union nurses are not forced to donate to a candidate through their dues.)
As for corporations, do you see them all as bad? A lot of progressives I know seem to think there are a lot of “good” corporations out there–Apple, maybe, or Target, or Whole Foods, or something. I just got an email this afternoon from MoveOn, of all organizations, encouraging me to sign up with a particular energy corporation. If MoveOn isn’t willing to say that all corporations are evil, who is?
In any case, you’re welcome to make that argument. I understand where you’re coming from if you do; in general I trust unions more than corporations for the reasons you state. But I’m not willing to make it myself–I guess I see too many shades of gray. Nor does it matter, when you come right down to it. My point was that Sanders says he doesn’t take outside money (and is apparently very convincing about it)–and that is simply untrue.
I’d been up too long when I wrote the OP. I at least had the presence of mind to put it in the Pit, where I figured nasty hyperbole had a home.
Funny thing is, now that I’ve slept, I’m not convinced I was entirely wrong.
There is most of a base for a more Sanders-esque socialdem party. There is most of a base for a President Hillary Clinton fan club for a few years. The question is whether the two can actually work together to build an enduring coalition. I’m guessing not.
The Democrats are a mess of mismanagement. They are also largely staffed by professionals who dislike much of the very progressivism of the millennial voters. We have a more progressive generation coming up in a system with two neoliberal parties, and little prospect of a new party replacing either.
Usually, I’m a more optimistic Bernie supporter. It looks like there is a more socialistic swing coming. This thread’s OP is mostly about the danger of assuming that will happen automatically, without actual concessions made to those potential voters. There’s not a lot of turnout for “the lesser evil.”
And yes, economics matters. The problem with the 2008-2009 response is less that Wall Street was bailed out than that the common man was left to drown.
Good for her. That’s a point in her favor. And against Sanders, I suppose.
Too bad that having a slate of candidates is not the same as having a base of voters and a program to attract them.
Look at that committee’s name again. Not “the New Democratic Party Fund;” instead “the Hillary Victory Fund.” It’s relying on her cult of personality to win, which is almost all she has. That’s not enough for a whole national party.
Imagine that Sanders pulls out the nomination somehow; difficult but not impossible. How much money will the Hillary Victory Fund have for those candidates? No, she’s tying them to her, and to her career; I don’t think that’s going to be enough long-term.
Let me rephrase that last bit:
Imagine that Sanders pulls out the nomination somehow; difficult but not impossible. How much money will the Hillary Victory Fund have for those candidates? How much will it raise?
Where will they be in eight years? Who knows?
She’s tying them to her, and to her career; I don’t think that’s going to be enough long-term, if they aren’t also credible in their own right. And if they follow her through umpteen triangulations, they won’t be.
Most of your base are belong to us.
If the Democrats disappear from America, it’ll be because the blue states wised up and seceded to join Canada.
Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got 'tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,–legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!
But please do make an exception in Donald Trump’s case, Selah, Omeyn.
You realize the OP is losing his/her shit because Sanders is going to lose to Clinton? This lament was not written because Sanders is the Democratic nominee and lost to some Republican like Trump in the Presidential election, or because Sanders is the presumptive nominee but it’s somehow obvious that the Democratic party can’t get their shit together and is going to lose. This lament was written because it’s obvious Clinton will now be the Democratic nominee and she is likely to win the Presidency precisely because the Democrats have their shit together relative to the Republicans.
And I can understand that the OP is going to feel a bit frustrated. Maybe the OP is to the left of Clinton and is truly disappointed that some of the his/her most cherished legislation will be ignored at the federal government level. That doesn’t mean there isn’t work to do at the state or more local level. For example, it sucks that something as simple and obvious as ENDA hasn’t passed at the federal level. Yet it is the law in several states. What can be done to make it law in several more states? What can be done to include gender identity in more of these state laws?
I remember feeling massively disappointed when Dukakis lost to Bush because the executive was just not going to represent the problems I was interested in, but getting upset because Sanders has lost to Clinton is just fucking stupid. It’s hideously stupid.
Just about all the things I listed are the result of successes at more local levels eventually transforming the entire country. If you lose an election it’s not the end of the world, there is a lot you can do to change the world for the better. That philosophical view is how I’ve dealt with Democrats losing to Republicans. I can’t believe I have to say it to someone whose favorite Democrat lost to another Democrat. How different are these two people, really?
Which elections would a truly Progressive Party win?
Just what I thought when I saw the OP, well said.
BTW OP, I would vote for Bernie in the general election if he was the nominee, so I would had expected that knowing how Trump could get closer to the nuclear button to be enough of reason to join all Democrats if Hillary is the candidate then.