Support NeoGAF

[Y2Kev]

That Bush ad is amazing.

Again, Bush can't get the message straight. Is he trying to consolidate the establishment lane? If so, going after Rubio makes sense. But then why does he spend his debates working up things to stay about The Trumpster?

 

[Grief.exe]

Actually, most Blue Dog Democrats are/were (given there's not that many left now) in Southern states, so they had a much larger proportion of black voters than average. The majority of their vote may be white, but they wouldn't be able to win election on solely white votes - just as Obama may have had far more white voters than black voters, but would have failed to win in '12 without black votes. That gives the black vote as a united bloc a far amount of political leverage, which goes unused if it won't be wielded. Obviously there are limits to this - for example, if the policy would alienate more voters than it appeases black voters it represents a net loss - but in general that leverage is still useful for some common sense policies that politicians who are electorally risk averse are avoiding.

Also, 2010 happened 100% because liberals were unenthused. It wasn't a conversion election, Republicans didn't win because people suddenly switched to them. The same number of Republicans as last time turned out and liberals thought "fuck it, why bother". In this case, I don't actually think it was because Obama didn't do anything progressive, I think it's because he did a very bad job of marketing his achievements - in fairness, because a large part of his party very stupidly shut him down on them (and paid the price). The DNC is not actually very good at electioneering and is quite lucky they have a demographic advantage for the presidency.

It's interesting to me that Conservative media (Rush, Fox, etc) would consistently claim these gains as a position of party strength going forward rather than looking at the demographics and political climate involved.

Case in point, I heard an analyst on the radio yesterday claim that 2016 would be a landslide 94% of states going to the GOP, citing the 2010 midterms.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

They're distributed at the state convention months later. The caucus selects the delegates to the state convention. This is why Ron Paul walked away with 90% of the Iowa delegates in 2012 despite finishing 3rd in the straw poll.

Doesn't that mean Bush is even more fucked? That seems to favour grassroots and momentum based candidates massively. At current polling, he'll get maybe 2 delegates who will probably be persuaded by the convention when his run has cratered anyway.

But thanks for clarifying. Is there are threshhold at the state convention?

 

[Elaugaufein]

How many more cycles? They've been living on promises since 1996. That's starvation rations.

You're being generous there. (Bill) Clinton's entire campaign thing was Third Way Centrism , beyond team colors you'd have a hard time calling his first term a major win for the left. Clinton was very mixed even in the beginning. Better for the left than Bush Sr ? Sure but that's not a metric for winning.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I disagree. Almost all significant change from both the left and right comes from conviction politicians. Reagan didn't do what the public wanted. He persuaded them to want what he wanted. Ditto FDR, and same story in other countries - Attlee and Thatcher in the United Kingdom, De Gaulle and Mitterand in France. When you just follow what the public already wants, you end up with insipidness like the Blair government or the later Clinton years.

No this isnt what happened. What happened was conservatives organized and pressured their politicians to enact their goals. Reagan didn't invent the conservative movement, he co-opted it. It had organized in the 50s and started small and over 3 decades pushed politicans until 1980 when they finally won. Same with all the others.

FDR didn't propose collective bargining, public works, and social security, these were demands that preexisted him. He saw them as a force to attract voters and they did!

Again, this is a fundamentally incorrect reading of history.

Politicians should pander. Its a good thing because it means they change their mind and are receptive to democratic pressure. Its half the reason why I support clinton over sanders. He can't change his opinion when he's wrong (though he's changed a bit on things like immigration and guns this race, because again voters matter not politicians!)

No, it really doesn't. These groups increase pressure, they don't always or even usually dictate specific terms or policies.

Vague directionless pressure does nothing. Occupy did nothing until people like warren realized ideas needed formulating and started to propose policies (on the outside and with the help of think tanks and community groups who had been calling for these things for year)

 

[disastermouse]

That Bush ad is amazing.

Again, Bush can't get the message straight. Is he trying to consolidate the establishment lane? If so, going after Rubio makes sense. But then why does he spend his debates working up things to stay about The Trumpster?

Rubio is the establishment target for votes but Trump has taken personal digs at Bush. He has to answer them or look weak (a death sentence in Republican politics). Also, he's trying to sound like the voice of reason.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Kasich is actually doing a better job of it.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

That Bush ad is quite something. Why is he so focused on Marco? Is he fighting to come in 3rd? The amount of denial coming from Jeb!'s campaign is staggering

 

[disastermouse]

You're being generous there. (Bill) Clinton's entire campaign thing was Third Way Centrism , beyond team colors you'd have a hard time calling his first term a major win for the left. Clinton was very mixed even in the beginning. Better for the left than Bush Sr ? Sure but that's not a metric for winning.

Yes, I was being generous. The second term was 'the end of welfare as we know it' and tougher crime laws that disadvantaged minorities.

 

[disastermouse]

No this isnt what happened. What happened was conservatives organized and pressured their politicians to enact their goals. Reagan didn't invent the conservative movement, he co-opted it. It had organized in the 50s and started small and over 3 decades pushed politicans until 1980 when they finally won. Same with all the others.

FDR didn't propose collective bargining, public works, and social security, these were demands that preexisted him. He saw them as a force to attract voters and they did!

Again, this is a fundamentally incorrect reading of history.

Politicians should pander. Its a good thing because it means they change their mind and are receptive to democratic pressure. Its half the reason why I support clinton over sanders. He can't change his opinion when he's wrong (though he's changed a bit on things like immigration and guns this race, because again voters matter not politicians!)


Vague directionless pressure does nothing. Occupy did nothing until people like warren realized ideas needed formulating and started to propose policies (on the outside and with the help of think tanks and community groups who had been calling for these things for year)

Occupy was directionless, yes. Most mass movements aren't leaderless or directionless, but they don't offer specific terms or policies often because they're not entirely sure what's reasonable or actionable.

You can't compare BLM to Occupy. One is amateur but determined, the other was leaderless by conscious decision.

 

[Cheebo]

That Bush ad is quite something. Why is he so focused on Marco? Is he fighting to come in 3rd? The amount of denial coming from Jeb!'s campaign is staggering

Jena campaign is entirely focused on NH. Rubio is second to Trump there.

 

[benjipwns]

Doesn't that mean Bush is even more fucked? That seems to favour grassroots and momentum based candidates massively. At current polling, he'll get maybe 2 delegates who will probably be persuaded by the convention when his run has cratered anyway.

But thanks for clarifying. Is there are threshhold at the state convention?

The county conventions are on March 12th, district conventions on April 9th and state convention on May 21st.

The "invisible primary" and straw polls will have weeded out candidates well before then.

Remember on January 3rd, 2012. Santorum won the straw poll 24.6% to 24.5% for Romney, 21.4% for Paul, 13.3% for Gingrich, 10.3% for Perry and 5% for Bachmann.

The Iowa State Convention was held on June 18th. All of those candidates except Romney and Paul had dropped out and Paul nearly swept the convention vote 21-1 (6 uncommitted).

Minnesota was similar, straw poll on Feb 7th had Santorum with 45% of the vote, Paul with 27.2%, Romney with 16.9% and Gingrich with 10.8%. May 19th Convention went 32-2-1-5 (Paul-Santorum-Romney-Uncommitted).

 

[Holmes]

Jena campaign is entirely focused on NH. Rubio is second to Trump there.

Are we calling Jeb Jena now?

 

[PBY]

Are we calling Jeb Jena now?

Lets not do this.

 

[disastermouse]

Lets not do this.

We don't have to. Trump will.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

snip

No. When politicians pander, eventually, people give up on them. The ultimate example of that, I think, comes from British politics right now. Tony Blair's New Labour party was essentially Clintonism perfected. It had 13 years in power and three electoral victories. During this time, it did very little of any consequence after the first ~2-3 years; it aimed exactly to annoy as little people as possible and be as uncontroversial as possible to make sure it always won. By the time it left office in 2010, it had become so out of touch with the grounds roots that 5 years letter, Jeremy Corbyn beat the Blairite candidate Liz Kendall in the Labour leadership election by 56.5% to 4.5%.

That's not a typo. That's *actually* 4.5%.

Just as a heads up, Corbyn makes Sanders look like Koch. You could get odds on Corbyn being picked as Labour leader at 300-1 at the start of the campaign. He is so much of a political outsider it would be roughly equivalent to the American population electing Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson. This happened precisely because the Blairite method of pandering caused people to lose all confidence. What was the point in winning elections if you didn't do anything with your wins? Politics has a purpose, political representatives have a purpose, campaigns have a purpose. People *like* and respect politicians who have firm stances - even if they don't agree with them. That's why Sanders' favorables make Clinton's look so bad. Clinton herself is even exhibiting a slightly less bad version of what happened to the Blairites - saying that people ought to vote her because she's moderately less bad than the other people, effectively, and it's putting voters off. It'd be nice to suppose voters vote that way, but stupid to act like they do.

In an ideal political world, you have proportional voting system, and a set of genuinely principled people who all try to convince the voter that their principles are correct, or that their solutions to the voter's problems are correct. The voter then decides between them based on how compelling the conviction was. This works because these people spend their lives and have their jobs as figuring out exactly what the right thing to do is. They are far more informed than any voter could possibly hope to be and have the expertise the voter does not.

Yes, there is point to advocacy groups - that's why we have groups like the NAACP, so that particular interest groups can exert at least some policy preference over politicians. But these aren't the same as the average voter and should never be expected to. No political system that requires complete engagement in the policy drafting process of voters to work will ever work, because most voters have children, a dog, a car, a mortgage, a steadily less paid job, a negative bank account balance, and so many other things to worry about.

 

[Cheebo]

Are we calling Jeb Jena now?

iPhone autocorrect. I love it so I am not going back to edit it.

 

[benjipwns]

It's worth noting that the Obama campaign in 2008 did the same thing with the caucuses, and the Clinton campaign rather famously didn't know how delegates were allocated. So Hillary kept splitting primary allocations, while Obama was locking in caucus delegates despite the straw polls.

 

[HylianTom]

How many more cycles? They've been living on promises since 1996. That's starvation rations.

I really don't know. Timelines are difficult.

This conversation seems to ignore the idea that the Dems don't exist in a bubble by themselves. There's an opposition - a very successful opposition, I might stress - that fights against every step of the way, while also happily turning things even further backwards. Why, it wasn't very long ago that we got to witness the gutting of the Voting Rights Act along party lines.

If I recall correctly, it was that centrist's husband's appointee who wrote a rather compelling dissent in that case. (!)

I see a few potential timelines branching from 2016.

One where the Dem wins. Either Dem is willing to restore VRA and nominate justices who are willing to protect it, along with CRA, AA, etc. Both Dems appear willing to work with BLM movement leaders while also running a sympathetic Justice Department. If anything supportive of the cause miraculously gets through Congress, either candidate will sign it.

One is where the GOP wins. The VRA is pretty much dead. AA is gone once challenged. Maybe the CRA comes into the crosshairs at some point. The President is ambivalent at best towards the movement's interests, and anything major reaching his desk from Congress that his base hates will certainly be vetoed. It will take years to get back to where we are today in 2016.

Again, my discussion is centered on the general, so it should go without saying that I'm not going to bash anyone over their primary preference. That having been said, there's clearly a logical course of action once a nominee is selected, yes? One would think that there are ways to hold a politician's feet to the fire without slitting one's own wrists. And this is the major problem that I have with the author.

What does your roadmap look like? It's easy to vilify and claim distrust as a trump over anything that's offered. How do you think we realistically reach movement goals? Let's say that Dem primary voters nominate the centrist. Where does the movement go from there?

 

[The Technomancer]

On the economic views of Silicon Valley elites. [Vox]




I had family dinner on Sunday night (my grandma hit the big 9-0) and had the chance to chat with one of my cousins, who works as a 'financial writer' at an investment company on Wall Street, basically as a ghostwriter for the important rich owners of the company (her salary is six figures). It was sort of amusing to see how being in the work environment of nice and generally wealthy people has colored my cousin's view of what the real problems with America are. Reading the Vox article about the views that Silicon Valley elite hold made me think that my cousin would probably agree with this.

Eh, sounds about right, as a guy knee deep in that culture right now. They're "generally liberal" for a given definition of liberal but these views seem accurate

 

[Deleted member 231381]

IMO there are three legislative/executive priorities for any Democratic president. They are a) restore the Voting Rights Act insofar as it possible, b) nominate strongly liberal judges to the Supreme Court, and c) reform campaign finance. The combination of these three means that the preferences of Americans in future elections are more accurately represented, which turns out to be a winner for the Democratic party because they stand more closely to the average American than do the Republicans. If you're more likely to win in the future, you can do other things then, the focus should be on killing gerrymandering and moneybombing and killing the capacity of Republicans to halt those things (i.e., the Supreme Court).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Quinnipiac Iowa

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia01122016_Icg427p.pdf

Sanders 49
Clinton 44

 

[benjipwns]

B "solves" the other two.

 

[PBY]

Quinnipiac Iowa

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia01122016_Icg427p.pdf

Sanders 49
Clinton 44

lawd

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yes, that's Q-pac, which, like Monmouth, normally *heavily* favours Sanders. For reference, that was 6 from Clinton to Sanders, 3 from Don't Know to Sanders - very similar movement to everyone else.

 

[Cybit]

No. When politicians pander, eventually, people give up on them. The ultimate example of that, I think, comes from British politics right now. Tony Blair's New Labour party was essentially Clintonism perfected. It had 13 years in power and three electoral victories. During this time, it did very little of any consequence after the first ~2-3 years; it aimed exactly to annoy as little people as possible and be as uncontroversial as possible to make sure it always won. By the time it left office in 2010, it had become so out of touch with the grounds roots that 5 years letter, Jeremy Corbyn beat the Blairite candidate Liz Kendall in the Labour leadership election by 56.5% to 4.5%.

Just as a heads up, Corbyn makes Sanders look like Koch. You could get odds on Corbyn being picked as Labour leader at 300-1 at the start of the campaign. He is so much of a political outsider it would be roughly equivalent to the American population electing Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson. This happened precisely because the Blairite method of pandering caused people to lose all confidence. What was the point in winning elections if you didn't do anything with your wins? Politics has a purpose, political representatives have a purpose, campaigns have a purpose. People *like* and respect politicians who have firm stances - even if they don't agree with them. That's why Sanders' favorables make Clinton's look so bad. Clinton herself is even exhibiting a slightly less bad version of what happened to the Blairites - saying that people ought to vote her because she's moderately less bad than the other people, effectively, and it's putting voters off. It'd be nice to suppose voters vote that way, but stupid to act like they do.

In an ideal political world, you have proportional voting system, and a set of genuinely principled people who all try to convince the voter that their principles are correct, or that their solutions to the voter's problems are correct. The voter then decides between them based on how compelling the conviction was. This works because these people spend their lives and have their jobs as figuring out exactly what the right thing to do is. They are far more informed than any voter could possibly hope to be and have the expertise the voter does not.

Yes, there is point to advocacy groups - that's why we have groups like the NAACP, so that particular interest groups can exert at least some policy preference over politicians. But these aren't the same as the average voter and should never be expected to. No political system that requires complete engagement in the policy drafting process of voters to work will ever work, because most voters have children, a dog, a car, a mortgage, a steadily less paid job, a negative bank account balance, and so many other things to worry about.

This.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

fuck it, this is threadworthy, see y'all on OT

#ToTheBernMobile

 

[disastermouse]

No. When politicians pander, eventually, people give up on them. The ultimate example of that, I think, comes from British politics right now. Tony Blair's New Labour party was essentially Clintonism perfected. It had 13 years in power and three electoral victories. During this time, it did very little of any consequence after the first ~2-3 years; it aimed exactly to annoy as little people as possible and be as uncontroversial as possible to make sure it always won. By the time it left office in 2010, it had become so out of touch with the grounds roots that 5 years letter, Jeremy Corbyn beat the Blairite candidate Liz Kendall in the Labour leadership election by 56.5% to 4.5%.

Just as a heads up, Corbyn makes Sanders look like Koch. You could get odds on Corbyn being picked as Labour leader at 300-1 at the start of the campaign. He is so much of a political outsider it would be roughly equivalent to the American population electing Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson. This happened precisely because the Blairite method of pandering caused people to lose all confidence. What was the point in winning elections if you didn't do anything with your wins? Politics has a purpose, political representatives have a purpose, campaigns have a purpose. People *like* and respect politicians who have firm stances - even if they don't agree with them. That's why Sanders' favorables make Clinton's look so bad. Clinton herself is even exhibiting a slightly less bad version of what happened to the Blairites - saying that people ought to vote her because she's moderately less bad than the other people, effectively, and it's putting voters off. It'd be nice to suppose voters vote that way, but stupid to act like they do.

In an ideal political world, you have proportional voting system, and a set of genuinely principled people who all try to convince the voter that their principles are correct, or that their solutions to the voter's problems are correct. The voter then decides between them based on how compelling the conviction was. This works because these people spend their lives and have their jobs as figuring out exactly what the right thing to do is. They are far more informed than any voter could possibly hope to be and have the expertise the voter does not.

Yes, there is point to advocacy groups - that's why we have groups like the NAACP, so that particular interest groups can exert at least some policy preference over politicians. But these aren't the same as the average voter and should never be expected to. No political system that requires complete engagement in the policy drafting process of voters to work will ever work, because most voters have children, a dog, a car, a mortgage, a steadily less paid job, a negative bank account balance, and so many other things to worry about.

Involving workers in management and ownership in the workplace would do exactly what you're saying can 'never happen'. So would reducing the definition of 'full-time', hours- and wage-wise. If you want people invested in the details of government, they need training and precedent as well as time and motivation (ownership would provide that and it could extend to at least local politics).

We haven't had a reduction of work hours with wage increases to counteract since the 1930s here in 'Murica.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Involving workers in management and ownership in the workplace would do exactly what you're saying can 'never happen'. So would reducing the definition of 'full-time', hours- and wage-wise. If you want people invested in the details of government, they need training and precedent as well as time and motivation (ownership would provide that and it could extend to at least local politics).

We haven't had a reduction of work hours with wage increases to counteract since the 1930s here in 'Murica.

Okay, yes, but at least in the short-term it's unlikely. Little steps.

 

[benjipwns]

Crab, are you Cenk Uygur?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Crab, are you Cenk Uygur?

There's no need to be uncalled for.

 

[Holmes]

benji and Crab being shady about Cenk is giving me life

 

[Deleted member 231381]

benji and Crab being shady about Cenk is giving me life

You probably needed some after Quinnipiac, amirite?

 

[CCS]

Be pretty cool if Sanders won to be fair. Have we ever had the British, French, German, and American left all implode simultaneously?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hillary Clinton's holding a press on Sanders' polling results in Iowa, livelink here.

 

[disastermouse]

I really don't know. Timelines are difficult.

This conversation seems to ignore the idea that the Dems don't exist in a bubble by themselves. There's an opposition - a very successful opposition, I might stress - that fights against every step of the way, while also happily turning things even further backwards. Why, it wasn't very long ago that we got to witness the gutting of the Voting Rights Act along party lines.

If I recall correctly, it was that centrist's husband's appointee who wrote a rather compelling dissent in that case. (!)

I see a few potential timelines branching from 2016.

One where the Dem wins. Either Dem is willing to restore VRA and nominate justices who are willing to protect it, along with CRA, AA, etc. Both Dems appear willing to work with BLM movement leaders while also running a sympathetic Justice Department. If anything supportive of the cause miraculously gets through Congress, either candidate will sign it.

One is where the GOP wins. The VRA is pretty much dead. AA is gone once challenged. Maybe the CRA comes into the crosshairs at some point. The President is ambivalent at best towards the movement's interests, and anything major reaching his desk from Congress that his base hates will certainly be vetoed. It will take years to get back to where we are today in 2016.

Again, my discussion is centered on the general, so it should go without saying that I'm not going to bash anyone over their primary preference. That having been said, there's clearly a logical course of action once a nominee is selected, yes? One would think that there are ways to hold a politician's feet to the fire without slitting one's own wrists. And this is the major problem that I have with the author.

What does your roadmap look like? It's easy to vilify and claim distrust as a trump over anything that's offered. How do you think we realistically reach movement goals? Let's say that Dem primary voters nominate the centrist. Where does the movement go from there?

You're talking to a Marxist. My long term goals would involve a Marxist political party tied to workers cooperatives starting locally to pass favorable tax and regulatory platforms for long enough to expand worker ownership as a legitimate third option in an increasingly extractive and self-defeating capitalist system. Basically, expand working class consciousness along worker-owner lines based in private property biases that are unassailable in a capitalist system (as opposed to union organization that is inherently and obviously antagonistic to managerial and ownership classes).

Short term? I'd sit it out and let the right destroy its own legitimacy. Then again, I'm a white man so the effects won't be as bad for me. A more conciliatory plan of action would be to scare the living shit out of left-centrists by threatening low turnout while appealing to radical right populism by not threatening gun rights and not having total disdain for freaked out middle and lower class whites. That would involve radically expanding social safety nets and dis-engaging health care from job status. It would mean extending benefits to lower middle class folks and not just the demonized poor and minorities a la Roosevelt with Social Security.

 

[disastermouse]

Okay, yes, but at least in the short-term it's unlikely. Little steps.

Little steps are local and state/regional skewing of laws toward worker ownership. The funding issue has to be solved. Some suggest organizing around credit union boards, but better laws/policies would help. A liberal enough candidate could secure state backing a la Vermont, but it can't be relied upon.

The key is expanding the sector until it's mature enough to thrive and instilling it with hard-headed long term goals and not hippy new age reliance on the 'basic goodness of people'.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You're talking to a Marxist. My long term goals would involve a Marxist political party tied to workers cooperatives starting locally to pass favorable tax and regulatory platforms for long enough to expand worker ownership as a legitimate third option in an increasingly extractive and self-defeating capitalist system. Basically, expand working class consciousness along worker-owner lines based in private property biases that are unassailable in a capitalist system (as opposed to union organization that is inherently and obviously antagonistic to managerial and ownership classes).

Short term? I'd sit it out and let the right destroy its own legitimacy. Then again, I'm a white man so the effects won't be as bad for me. A more conciliatory plan of action would be to scare the living shit out of left-centrists by threatening low turnout while appealing to radical right populism by not threatening gun rights and not having total disdain for freaked out middle and lower class whites. That would involve radically expanding social safety nets and dis-engaging health care from job status. It would mean extending benefits to lower middle class folks and not just the demonized poor and minorities a la Roosevelt with Social Security.

Letting the right destroy itself got us Obama. Realistically the most liberal candidate who could have won in 2008.

This argument needs to be put to bed. Four years of Donald Trump would not cause the American people to go in the complete opposite direction.

 

[Daniel B·]

Is anyone following MoveOn.org's endorsement of Bernie?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/sanders-campaign-endorsed-moveon-36233860

MoveOn says the Vermont senator was supported by 78.6 percent of its membership in an online vote of more than 340,000 members. Hillary Clinton received 14.6 percent and Martin O'Malley received 0.9 percent with the remaining members urging no endorsement.

I guess Hillary had 30% back in 2008, so she's way down in favorability amongst members.

Wait a minute!!! That 78.6% figure looks an awful lot like the Democratic debate "online poll" results, that the majority of PoliGAF posters dismissed, except this one has "Great White" sized teeth :

"MoveOn members are feeling the Bern," said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action. "We will mobilize aggressively to add our collective people power to the growing movement behind the Sanders campaign, starting with a focus on voter turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire

The group lists 8 million members and says it will mobilize nearly 75,000 of its members in Iowa and New Hampshire, which hold the campaign's first two contests.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Little steps are local and state/regional skewing of laws toward worker ownership. The funding issue has to be solved. Some suggest organizing around credit union boards, but better laws/policies would help. A liberal enough candidate could secure state backing a la Vermont, but it can't be relied upon.

The key is expanding the sector until it's mature enough to thrive and instilling it with hard-headed long term goals and not hippy new age reliance on the 'basic goodness of people'.

Yes, but sans revolution, you have to elect people to do this, and under the current electoral system that means making your argument and not just following what people want because people don't even know they want this because the media won't talk about it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

You're talking to a Marxist. My long term goals would involve a Marxist political party tied to workers cooperatives starting locally to pass favorable tax and regulatory platforms for long enough to expand worker ownership as a legitimate third option in an increasingly extractive and self-defeating capitalist system. Basically, expand working class consciousness along worker-owner lines based in private property biases that are unassailable in a capitalist system (as opposed to union organization that is inherently and obviously antagonistic to managerial and ownership classes).

Short term? I'd sit it out and let the right destroy its own legitimacy. Then again, I'm a white man so the effects won't be as bad for me. A more conciliatory plan of action would be to scare the living shit out of left-centrists by threatening low turnout while appealing to radical right populism by not threatening gun rights and not having total disdain for freaked out middle and lower class whites. That would involve radically expanding social safety nets and dis-engaging health care from job status. It would mean extending benefits to lower middle class folks and not just the demonized poor and minorities a la Roosevelt with Social Security.

The past fifty years have shown the right going more right and losing none of their own legitimacy. Half of America stop being conservative will never happen, no matter how much you think "heightening the contradictions" will help matters.

The lower and middle class whites have already proven they'll happily vote against benefits for themselves if any of those benefits go to brown or black people. You're not going to get people to vote for Bernie Sanders as long as Bernie Sanders doesn't want to kick out everybody whose last name ends with -z or who goes to a mosque.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Wait a minute!!! That 78.6% figure looks an awful lot like the Democratic debate "online poll" results, that the majority of PoliGAF posters dismissed, except this one has "Great White" sized teeth :

I agree. Lots of Bernie Sanders supporters will click a link on Facebook. The question is, will they spend four hours at a VFW hall in the dead of winter arguing with 60 year old Hillary Clinton supporters at a caucus or remember to get their shift off at Starbucks to wait to vote in a primary.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I agree. Lots of Bernie Sanders supporters will click a link on Facebook. The question is, will they spend four hours at a VFW hall in the dead of winter arguing with 60 year old Hillary Clinton supporters at a caucus or remember to get their shift off at Starbucks to wait to vote in a primary.

They spend far more time volunteering than Clinton supporters. Sanders' phonebank numbers are incredible. That's a good sign, surely?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

All in all, I am pretty glad to see some polls showing Bernie doing well. I still think he's got the odds against him, but I'm a fan of both candidates, so it's pretty fun watching the numbers swing around. I still expect that Iowa and New Hampshire might just be his best states, but it's fun to watch at least. Some days I think that he might be the best guy to take on Trump. I mean, Hillary would probably do better against most of the establishment guys, but if one is concerned about Trump stealing Democrat voters away, Bernie is the perfect counter to that.

Still expecting Hillary to win the nomination though, and I'll still be happy either way.

The only thing that concerns me is this unidentified man who keeps following the both of them around. Who is he? Maybe he's controlling them all behind the scenes? He keeps appearing in pictures, and showing up at the debates, standing just off to the side, watching Bernie and Hillary. Almost like he's making sure they don't go off script or something. Verrrrrrrry suspicious.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I agree. Lots of Bernie Sanders supporters will click a link on Facebook. The question is, will they spend four hours at a VFW hall in the dead of winter arguing with 60 year old Hillary Clinton supporters at a caucus or remember to get their shift off at Starbucks to wait to vote in a primary.

Big unknown is ultimately going to be about turnout like you alluded to.

Caucused before 52-41 Clinton-Sanders
First time- 65-26 Sanders-Clinton

Can Bernie get them out and will it be a big enough number/percantage to offset Clinton's advantages among her demographics.

18-29 made up 22% of the Democratic primary electorate in 2008.

 

[disastermouse]

Letting the right destroy itself got us Obama. Realistically the most liberal candidate who could have won in 2008.

This argument needs to be put to bed. Four years of Donald Trump would not cause the American people to go in the complete opposite direction.

No, because Trump would likely be competent and would attach to working class benefits like single payer. He wants to be adored and would do it for that reason.

It's the Rep congress that will implode, and Trump's other policies would get liberals to freak out and give a shit.

 

[benjipwns]

Be pretty cool if Sanders won to be fair. Have we ever had the British, French, German, and American left all implode simultaneously?

The closest is maybe...
1979 - UK - Thatcher becomes PM
1980 - US - Reagan wins Presidency, GOP wins Senate
1982 - GER - Kohl becomes Chancellor
1983 - UK - Thatcher gets almost 400 seats in the House of Commons
1984 - CAN - Mulroney gains 111 seats and 50% of the vote for 211/282 seats.
1984 - US - Reagan landslide.
1986 - FRA - "Right" takes National Assembly, Le Pen gains 35 seats (as many as Communists) though it didn't last long, and Mitterand was President the entire time.

The other could be:
1952 - US - Eisenhower landslide, GOP takes control of Senate and House.
1953 - GER - Adenauer gets 45% of the vote, +105 seats
1955 - UK - Tories win 50% of the vote and 345 seats.
1956 - US - Eisenhower re-election landslide.
1957 - GER - Adenauer adds another 28 seats for absolute majority in Bundestag
1957 - CAN - PC's sweep to power.
1958 - FRA - de Gaulle sweep, Communists and SFIO lose a combined 195 seats.
1958 - CAN - PC's gain 97 seats, 54% of the vote and 208/265 seats.
1959 - UK - Tories bump up to 365 seats.

France is always the outlier it seems, going the other way, refusing to cooperate with the rest of the Western nations, like usual.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yes, turnout will be critical. If Sanders has got the ground game, he'll win Iowa, I think. If he doesn't, he won't. That's probably a fair test for the nomination, though - ground games are an important part of electability. The same goes for Clinton - if she wins (still more likely than not), but loses Iowa, that will be a *very* valuable signal she needs to get her act the fuck together.

EDIT: benji, Mitterand was totally powerless as president during '86-88. In cohabitation years, the French president is basically just a figurehead. Really, 1987 was the peak year for the global right, I'd say.

 

[disastermouse]

Yes, but sans revolution, you have to elect people to do this, and under the current electoral system that means making your argument and not just following what people want because people don't even know they want this because the media won't talk about it.

Right. Start local, run it as local advocacy, fund left democrats until you can field your own candidates. Starting small and building is the key along with increasing class consciousness and self-management ability.

It's the ownership stake and the ties to local communities that gets it off the ground. We're talking 30+ years of work. Should have been started 30 years ago, but that's no reason not to start tomorrow - in lieu of a time machine.

 

[disastermouse]

The past fifty years have shown the right going more right and losing none of their own legitimacy. Half of America stop being conservative will never happen, no matter how much you think "heightening the contradictions" will help matters.

The lower and middle class whites have already proven they'll happily vote against benefits for themselves if any of those benefits go to brown or black people. You're not going to get people to vote for Bernie Sanders as long as Bernie Sanders doesn't want to kick out everybody whose last name ends with -z or who goes to a mosque.

Most of America isn't conservative except in a few issues that the left should drop because they keep getting clobbered by them because they speak to identity issues. Identity politics has been keeping the left down for 30 years or more.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Most of America isn't conservative except in a few issues that the left should drop because they keep getting clobbered by them because they speak to identity issues. Identity politics has been keeping the left down for 30 years or more.

Identity politics lol like civil rights, gay marriage and immigration. Yeah lets give that up!