Politics isn’t about having good positions and sending messages. Politics is about getting elected and then enacting programs and laws.
I’m worried that a lot of Sanders supporters are more concerned about making a point than they are about winning.
I would distinguish between Obama and Bill Clinton. Obama seems to be staying above the fray so that he can unite the party around whoever wins. And that is indeed a hugely important role that no one else can play. Bill is not quite in the same position these days and he has more freedom to rally around Biden and make sure he gets the money and endorsements he needs to make the most of a likely SC win.
Interesting. I have the same concern about the never-Sanders crowd.
I’ve previously linked to scholarly research that shows a huge (3% or thereabouts?) handicap for a black Presidential candidate, based on correlating 2004-Kerry and 2008-Obama results in districts with high objective racism scores. Obama won in 2008 only because the Ds were heading for a landslide anyway.
And yes, I’m afraid the Shields-Brooks-Slacker tune may be the “correct” tune. The Ds have worked hard to achieve Ineffable Tragedy. 
I strongly endorse Little Nemo’s message.
On an off-topic matter:
[quote="dalej42, post:201, topic:848393"]
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
[/QUOTE]
[quote="dalej42, post:202, topic:848393"]
I think there’s a big gap between union activists and many union members.
[/QUOTE]
How do you do that? Whenever I try this, I'm rebuked with a "This is a duplicate post" message and not allowed to proceed.This doesn’t conflict with my understanding of the Justice Democrats. If I’m right, then this work will pay off with wins in some of those districts in the future, and attention they paid to those districts early will be a big part of why those districts flipped.
Future? Are we speaking of the 2030’s, or as early as 2026? Are you sure U.S.A. will still have a recognizable form of democracy then?
Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
I think it’s due to the software problems the board is experiencing. I double posted yesterday.
Do you have any reason to think that future pay-off will ever occur? The Republicans are working on setting up a one-party system. Every year they stay in power consolidates their grip. By the time your plans reach maturity, they won’t matter. Conservatives will be able to ignore any opposition to their rule.
We need to get the Republicans out of power now and stop the bleeding. Once we’ve restored democracy, we can start making plans for where we want to go in the future.
No, the never-Sanders crowd are the people who refuse to vote for a socialist. They’re not making a point; they’re just voting.
Sounds good! I think we can do both things - fight the Republicans now and try to set the stage to change solid red seats in the future. We’ll see.
You still have provided no evidence that they weren’t targeting swing seats or that it would make any sense for them not to target them (unless they actually understand their brand of politics only appeals to dark blue districts which I have seen no evidence of either). Everything I read suggests that they did target those seats but they utterly failed to flip any of them.
Their endorsements are public. I went through the list - as you are free to do as well, if you’re interested. I didn’t see any vulnerable swing district Democrats targeted, but maybe you can find them and prove me wrong.
Not really sure that the USofA currently has a recognizable form of democracy. Has kind of a rank, oniony smell to it.
I’m not a news junkie, and wondered if Mr. Slacker were exaggerating.
But Get a load of “Bernie Sanders’ Rise Prompts Media Meltdown, Establishment Panic: A Closer Look”
“End of days.” “Fall of France in 1940.” “Cheering … executions in Central Park.”
And anyway, to paraphrase Chuck Todd — does that oaf need his own Pit thread? — the “centrists” (51%) do “much better” than the “progressives” (47%). :eek: What’s the criterion for becoming “Political Director for NBC News”?
When NBC replaces Todd, will they look for a high-school dropout?
Anyway, Obama had his chance and didn’t Save the Union. @ Mods - Close this thread.
I may not be a top-notch political pundit, but I know the rules of baseball. In the bottom of the ninth, with your worst batter up, you don’t throw in the towel. You cheer and root for a home run! Come together, Democrats!
Actually, we’re only six (or 6.5) days into the 9 days described, which are up on Tuesday. But Jim Clyburn may have done the job Obama was too faint of heart to tackle.
And each of the remaining candidates chimes in:
Right now, over me!
Here’s some interesting (though imperfect) data on the relative size of that crowd:
You’re right, it’s pretty big, perhaps bigger than the “Bernie or bust” folks.
You and I are not saying the same thing. I said our priority should be getting Trump and the people who support him out of power. If you think we can and should be doing “both things” then you’re saying it isn’t a priority.
And I’d like a firmer plan than “We’ll see.” As I wrote in another post, we won’t be able to redo the election if it turns out Sanders can’t beat Trump. We have one shot to get Trump out of power and I think we need to make it the one that has the best chance of working.
I think a lot of Sanders supporters see the priority as getting Sanders the nomination. Sure, they may lose the general election but by getting the nomination they will have raised their ideology to a new level. These people see advancing the cause of their ideology as more important than stopping Trump. For them, Sanders losing the nomination would be a bigger defeat than Sanders losing the election.
I agree that our priority should be (and is) getting Trump and Republicans out of power. I think the actions of Bernie and AOC are entirely consistent with that goal, and especially when it comes to Bernie, critical to that goal. If I didn’t think that Bernie was our best chance to beat Trump, I wouldn’t support him. He has weaknesses, but I think the weaknesses of the other candidates are far more of a risk.
You don’t think having a documented history as a Socialist is a weakness in American politics?