Matt Breunig has written a couple of good posts about Jeremy Corbyn’s rise in the UK, one of which points out the dilemma that left wing candidates face in the current media/political environment:
So, you can’t run as a third-party because you might split votes. You also can’t run in the primary if you have any chance of winning the nomination because then you increase the risk that the “party” (so defined) will lose the general election. What, then, can you do? What is the center-left’s view on how the left is supposed to interact with electoral politics? It seems that the actual view is that they shouldn’t involve themselves at all, except as voters to a centrist party that does not accomplish (or even aim to accomplish) the left’s political goals.
That excerpt doesn’t do the whole piece justice, so read it, since it uses Corbyn as an example of what Sanders is going to face if his campaign gets any real traction. We’ve been watching the spectacle of the Republican primary field in a race to the bottom (mainly in vain) to be more xenophobic and anti-feminist than Trump. The pack of lies dished out by all the candidates is only challenged after the fact and tepidly, while the insults are front-and-center in the campaign reports. Yet I doubt anyone reading here will be surprised if Sanders is treated like the next coming of Stalin, as well as a danger to the delicate sensibilities of the average American, if and when he is finally taken seriously.
kped
One thing Sanders has going for him – the media may think he is a left wing nut, but, the media loathes the Clintons. Hillary in particular. So, I don’t think we’ll see much of that. Truthfully, I still see far too many “OMG, Sanders has made this a race and may win” and not enough talk about the fact that he’s barely moved the needle anywhere with the large group of the base – women and minorities (guess what? In the non-99% white areas of the primaries, he is going to struggle mightily. But, good for him for doing well in Idaho and NH. As we all should know, those are not representative of the Democratic base).
So honestly, I see him being protected by the media who hates Clinton, and a lot of the left wing blogs who also kind of dislike the Clintons. Bernie will be fine. He’ll likely lose, but I doubt he’ll be treated to a 10th of the venom and insanity that Hillary Clinton has already been subject to.
smintheus
Even before that, if Sanders did starting winning primaries, we’d hear chorus after chorus about he can’t win elections; and if he were to become the front-runner, before he could be painted as Stalin there’d be all kinds of helpful advice forthcoming about how he needed to stand down for the good of the party.
Hunter Gathers
My problem with Sanders isn’t his policies.
I just don’t believe he can successfully parry the ‘Socialist!’ charge.
The second he admits to being a socialist, he’d be a dead duck in the general.
Most people equate socialism with communism.
He’d get the shit kicked out of him.
Anyone who thinks an avowed socialist can get elected POTUS is delusional.
Marc
It stretches the definition of words to call Corbyn center left. What person that holds elective office in the UK is to his left on anything?
benw
I’m lifting this from SiubhanDuinne a few threads ago because it’s so damn good:
You can’t spell SANDERS without NADER.
Concisely explains how the center of the Democratic party feels about Bernie – even if it has no relation to reality.
SANDERS/STALIN 2016
Belafon
@kped: You’re not thinking past the primary.
smintheus
@Marc: You missed the point. Breunig is saying that the former Labour leadership and the center left generally couldn’t conceive of a credible role for a leftist like Corbyn (aside from shutting up and going away).
smintheus
@benw: You also can’t spell SANDERS without SS. What’s the point?
Amir Khalid
Why do people listen to this vile woman?
PhoenixRising
@smintheus: You’re not anywhere close to that stupid.
benw
@smintheus: In fact, SANDERS is what you get when you combine NADER with an SS. I feel the leftist jackboots breathing down my neck…
Suzanne
I think having people like Sanders involved in electoral races is that it moves the Overton window to the left, which is valuable even if they don’t win. Sanders and Warren, among others, have made a lot of opinions that used to be dismissed as radical crazy talk now fall within the bounds of reasonable viewpoints.
You know, Libertarians don’t really win office in large numbers, but now it’s seen as acceptable on the right to say that you favor legalization of marijuana. It’s not that everyone agrees—it’s probably still a minority view on that side of the aisle—but it isn’t considered unreasonable or heretical.
This is how change happens. Slowly and inconsistently and you need assholes on your side. Same as it ever was.
Chris
@Amir Khalid:
To the long, long list of stupidities uttered by quite possibly the stupidest woman in the United States of America, we can now add “does not know a clock when she sees one.”
Davis X. Machina
What’s wrong with tradition? Form a vanguard party. Organize. Strike. In chosen sectors, then a general strike.
Followed by the complete supplanting of the existing mode of production, and the socio-political structures it created and that support it. But seriously….
Sanders’ website headline is:
“Organize
Ready to Start a Political Revolution?”
And he doesn’t actually mean it.
His problem is that he’s stuck in the Uncanny Valley of political change.
Raise the prospect of change big enough to be scary, without the root-and-branch work needed for big change.
He’s not the second coming of Stalin. He’s Jesse Jackson ca. 1998
This is not a personal failing on Sander’s part. It’s the risk of any non-radical, meliorist, Fabian politics, regardless of country.
I notice BTW Corbyn won’t even restore Clause IV to the Labour program — just something about re-nationalizing British rail.
Joel
@Hunter Gathers: I also have concerns about Sanders’ ability to get elected (or govern) — but not because of “socialism” — because that particular call of “wolf” has been used far too many times on Obama. My concern with Sanders is that he won’t get the backing of the national party. And a candidate without that solid base of machine support is vulnerable even if elected. Think Carter.
Chris
@Amir Khalid:
To address your question – do people, in fact, listen to her? That wasn’t my impression. Not that they’ve turned against her or anything so dramatic – I just think she’s yesterday’s news. The right wing base has a new crush, and Palin is just so 2008.
sparrow
slightly OT (but still Sanders-related!), but is there some trolling going on here?
jibeaux
I like Sanders fine, but don’t think he can win. I think Hillary can win, but don’t love her. Obama can’t run again and Biden hasn’t thrown his hat in yet, and no one else with any charisma seems inclined to go for it. So for now I’m mostly going to rubber neck at the pile of gristle and bone on the other side of the highway.
mdblanche
@kped: Sanders is very fortunate that the first two contests are Iowa and NH.
@Chris: At this point I’m 99% sure a majority of Palin’s audience is hate-listeners.
Villago Delenda Est
Part of the problem is that people mindlessly buy into the idiotic “narrative” of the utterly worthless MSM.
benw
@mdblanche:
The other 1% is Todd.
kped
@mdblanche:
I really think they should change the format. Stop the stupid “tradition” and hold the first primary in a state more representative of their base. Like, say…New York. Or California. I know, that robs the news of some of the “drama”, but who cares?
gene108
@smintheus:
When did Sanders become a Democrat? For the good of what Party?
He’s an Independent. A Party of one, who has wedged himself into the Democratic Presidential primary.
If he wins the Presidency, running as the Deomcratic nominee will he officially become a Democrat? Or will he still declare he is an Independent?
I am sorry, but an Independent, who games Party rules to run on as the Democratic Presidential nominee, but has not officially gone on record as being a Democrat is going to have a helluva time trying to get anything passed through Congress if he wins.
What limited Party loyalty Congressional Democrats have for a Democratic President is not going to get better for an Independent.
And I do not blame Congressional Democrats.
A President is the leader of his/her Party. Sanders, if he remains an Independent,
I do not see any reason for Congressional Democrats to follow a non-Democrat President.will not be afforded the status as the de facto head of the Democratic Party.Edit: And I do not blame Congressional Democrats for not lining up behind a non-Party member.
Goblue72
@mdblanche: So was Obama. If NY or CA was the first primary state in 2004, we’d be in the second term of the Presidebt Clinton administration right now.
benw
@Goblue72:
Freudian slip?
SiubhanDuinne
@smintheus:
@benw:
@benw:
Just wordplay. I do a lot of (British-style) cryptic crosswords, and I tend to do that to words. Don’t make more of it than it is.
bago
HOLY REDESIGN, BATMAN! This site is usable again!
SiubhanDuinne
@sparrow:
Ahaha! That has to be deliberate!!
smintheus
@gene108: Sort of the way that Congressional Dems gave Eisenhower the cold shoulder while many in the party were encouraging him to run for president as a Dem?
If Sanders should turn out to be the nominee, he’ll be the party’s nominee. Doesn’t mean anybody has to like that fact, but they have the choice of shooting themselves in the foot or accepting the nominee.
Steeplejack
@Chris:
At least Rick Perry knows a stopped clock is right once a day.
schrodinger's cat
Why compare Corbyn and Sanders at all? Hasn’t Corbyn been a Labor MP all his political career, while Sanders, an independent.
mdblanche
@kped: On the other hand this doesn’t matter for Republicans at all. Their primary voters in NY and CA look just like their primary voters in NH and IA.
JimGod
@gene108: Sigh. This tired shit again. He has been in Congress for 25 years. 16 in the House and the last 9 in the Senate. He caucuses with the Democrats now, did it in the House, always has. They accepted him and gave him committee assignments. Still do. They have endorsed him in his elections and encouraged no one to run on the Democratic line against him. He has endorsed and campaigned for Democrats up and down the ballot in Vermont. He ran on the Democratic line in 2006 to stop a Republican from winning the position on the count of Vermont using electoral fusion. And the state party endorsed that move totally. He is not an unknown quantity to these people. If Congressional Democrats are so petty to engage in the kind of behavior you are saying they woud do (not to mention your endorsement of it WTF!), then fuck everything and shut the Democratic Party down, cause it and this country are both utterly finished.
gelfling545
@Hunter Gathers: He has already acknowledged his political philosophy in several venues, including IIRC on Bill O’Reilley’s program. Since he has disdained to conceal it it’s harder to use against him. A lot of things I never thought would happen have surprisingly happened over the last few years, election of a democratic socialist does not seem out of the question.
NobodySpecial
“So, you can’t run as a third-party because you might split votes. You also can’t run in the primary if you have any chance of winning the nomination because then you increase the risk that the “party” (so defined) will lose the general election. What, then, can you do?”
Stand there and be punched whenever a centrist decides they want to be taken seriously by the Village. Everyone has a role to play, after all.
JimGod
@Goblue72: That’s what I don’t get about this whole “race problem” that has been invented for Sanders. When the pasty white whiteys of IA gave Obama the win, it was a great thing. Based on a poll or 2, the potential is there for the white whiteys of NH to gave Sanders a potential win. And that’s a bad thing. It just doesn’t make sense. I think the staggered states thing is stupid, but it’s the system we have. If he gets early momentum from it, then it’s no different than Obama or Clinton in 92.
M31
@Steeplejack:
At least Rick Perry knows a stopped clock is right once a day.
I chortled. Nicely done.
gene108
@smintheus:
Do not know enough about why Ike decided to run as a Republicab, in 1952, when both Parties were courting him. But those folks are probably all dead by now, so I do not know the relevance to today.
People will fall in line for the 2016 election because Sanders will be better than a Republican.
I just do not see a reason Congressional Democrats will have to fall in line for tough votes, if Sanders does not change his Party affiliation.
Obama has helped fellow Democrats where he could, with both endorsements and fund raising.
Will Sanders?
Or will he feel being the guest of honor at a $1,000 a plate dinner in Silicon Valley will compromise his values too much and the DNC can suck it, with regards to the extra cash rubbing elbows with a sitting President would bring, to help have money to regain control of Congress?
Yes, Sanders is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Democrat.
He’s using Democratic Party infrastructure to help his agenda, because of the trouble third parties have in gaining traction.
I think this could cause problems for Democrats should he win. Maybe not immediately, but down the road.
AliceBlue
@Amir Khalid:
I have to admit I’m curious as to why this particular incident has really yanked her chain (and Bristol’s too).
Debbie
@AliceBlue:
Everything he does — everything — yanks her chain.
gene108
@JimGod:
If he is so chummy with the Democrats, why isn’t he a Democrat?
I am sorry, but I have my doubts about electing an Independent to the White House on the Democratic ticket, without him officially declaring himself a Democrat.
I just do not see good things coming from it in the long run.
jl
@smintheus:
@gene108:
I don’t think Sanders has a chance unless he is successful at building an active and organized grass roots movement that will boost turnout a lot. If he can energize that movement to actively participate in pressuring Congress to enact as much of his agenda as possible, then that boosts turnout in midterm primaries and elections.
If that increases the chances of Democratic Congresspeople getting elected, swinging Senate Democratic, or reducing GOP dominance in the House, then I think the Congressional Democratic Caucus will love Bernie and they will not give a shit about his party affiliation (and since he lives in a state that does not have partisan registration, he simply won’t have one until he moves to another state. But I understand he likes Vermont.)
I guess all Democratic Congresspeople just love folks like Lieberman and Manchin because they say they are Democrats.
Ruckus
@jl:
Simpler.
It’s better to have the same ideals and a different label rather than the same label and different ideals.
I like Levi’s but they aren’t the only denim pants in the world.
Princess
@JimGod: He’s not an unknown quantity to them and yet not one of them has endorsed him for president. Not even members of the progressive caucus.
gene108
@efgoldman:
Per the Internet, he is going to shock the world.
I like the idea of free college, etc. but I just do not see how he gets this past Congress.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ran on platforms that included getting close to universal healthcare. Bill’s plan went down in defeat. Obamacare has been a long hard slog to get it passed and implemented.
Pocket book issues are well and good, but I do not think most Americans vote based on pocket book issues.
The Democrats brought in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Family Medical Leave, the miminum wage, Obamacare, etc., but still lose out to Republicans, who cut taxes for the rich, make it easier for companies to merge and thus downsize, etc.
greennotGreen
Here’s how the progressives gain power: do the opposite of what the Greens did in 2000.
In a close election, run a candidate to the left of the Democrats (plenty of room there,) but then have that candidate pull out in exchange for one or more cabinet positions, sort of a coalition government. Absent a real revolution, that’s how we’re going to get more of a progressive agenda accomplished: by accumulating power via cabinet heads or perhaps undersecretaries.
In ten years only a few doddering old fools (a.k.a. Republicans) will still be railing against SSM – everyone else will have noticed that gay people got married and the world didn’t go up in smoke. Same thing will happen with progressives. Get a few in positions of authority and let us show the doubters that Lenin won’t, in fact, rise from the grave.*
*Offer does not apply in the case of Republicans who are immune to fact-based reality.
jl
Not sure the word ‘socialist’ will not hurt Sanders as much as some think. I’ve already seen attacks on Sanders that he is Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Sanders takes every opportunity to confront that issue head on, and clarify that he is a ‘Democratic Socialist’ and point to Scandinavia, Australia, Germany, Canada, and other places with social democratic policies.
If he is a good enough politician to get a grass roots movement big enough, organized enough and motivated enough to carry him through the big Super Tuesday primaries, he will be a good enough politician to defuse that. I see on TPM blog today that Jeb? said that we all can rest assured that he will do a good job on foreign policy because he belongs to the Bush family. I think Sanders has a better chance of living down his personal legacy.
Anyway, as long as Sanders points to things like Medicare for all in Australia, parental leave policies in Denmark and Sweden, as examples of his Democratic Socialism, then eventually that will lead to hard hitting investigative reporting of the nightmare of Yurrrp along the lines of
Stockholm Syndrome part 1
Daily Show
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/yk98ct/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-stockholm-syndrome-pt–1
Srv
Little known lore of BJ, we used to have Civility Thursdays back in the day.
It didn’t last because as you know, liberals can’t be civil. Which dovetails well with the liberal’s pummeling of Sanders, so we Americans don’t have to get dirty punching the dfh’s ourselves.
jl
And
Stockholm Syndrome part 2
Daily Show
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/r43hlb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-stockholm-syndrome-pt–2
Davis X. Machina
@efgoldman: Now the White Mountain village of Hart’s Location has the honors.. The Balsams resort has closed, sothere’s no more Dixfield Notch voting ceremony. They’re trying to resuscitate it, though.
gene108
@jl:
Howard Dean is from Vermont. He’s officially a Democrat. How did he do it, if Vermont does not have “partisan registration”.
Also, Lieberman was a Democrat and probably in line with most of his colleagues until he lost to Lamont and came back as an Independent for one last hoorah.
Can a more liberal politician than Manchin win in West Virginia? The state seems to be trending Republican.
I a, sorry I do not feel the Bern.
Full metal Wingnut
@kped: I saw some Murdoch owned papers pushing some anti-Sanders articles last week.
Not sure why they’d bother doing that so soon. If I’m a Rethuglican, I’m rooting for Sanders during the primary. Although Clinton gives them so much material to work with they might figure that Clinton, polls notwithstanding, can die the death of a thousand cuts over the next 16 months. They’ll just keep cooking up scandals and milking them.
Also, the McGovern comparisons are profoundly silly. 1972 and 2016 are tremendously different years. Hell, if nothing but demographics had changed it would be silly to compare them.
I don’t buy that Sanders is “unelectable”. Not without data. Perhaps more of an uphill climb than Clinton, especially against a decent Republican candidate like Junk Ass Itch. Or Junk Ace Itch, however you pronounce it. But let’s not create a self-fulfilling prophecy here. I’m for Sanders unless and until I see hard data that he is unelectable. At that point l would gladly throw in for Clinton, but I am not holding my nose any earlier than necessary.
VidaLoca
Instead of starting from nothing — no structure in place, no initial work done — to put together national-level campaigns where (as others have pointed out above) a candidate such as Sanders is very much at the mercy of the existing, mostly hostile, party structure why not start by organizing at the state level with the idea of taking power there and then expanding?
Full metal Wingnut
@smintheus: I hear a lot of centrist and more conservative Democrats (in the media and in my social circle) devolving into near-histrionics about how Sanders is unelectable. It’s like, if they make enough noise eventually that meme, “Sanders = unelectable” will sink in until it fades into the background and just becomes an unspoken premise and no one questions it, at least no Serious Person, and if you point this out, you are Not Serious.
Mandalay
@gene108:
This. Although I (financially) support Bernie, it still sticks in my throat a bit that he is using the resources of the Democratic Party to run for the nomination. (Not that I’d prefer him to be running as an Independent – I just wish he’d become a Democrat.)
And if it sticks in my throat I am sure there are Democrats in Congress who feel the same way. Not that they would openly oppose President Sanders, but that they would be less inclined to go the extra mile for him, simply because he is not a Democrat. And I don’t see that as being petty – it’s human nature.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@Davis X. Machina: Glad they’re on top of the important things.
Full metal Wingnut
@Hunter Gathers: The problem is only swing/undecided voters of course. Same as yet ever was. The mouthbreathers who listen to right wing radio/Faux News don’t care about facts-if Rush Limbaugh tells them Obama is a socialist, then by gum Obama is a socialist, facts be damned.
Solid Democrats of course aren’t going to vote for Cruz or Walker. So the question becomes whether the fundamentals, and demographics/voter turnout, already in the Democrats’ favor, tip the scales away from Bernie.
I’m not giving up on Bernie without data. I’m tired of armchair analysts, I’m tired of self-fulfilling prophecies and preemptively giving in.
Anyway, I don’t think this handwringing is necessary because I don’t see Bernie winning the primary. And I think Clinton’s drop in the polls is really overstated-it’s too early to freak out about Hillary-and anyone who says otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is trying to sell you something (newspaper) or get your eyeballs to watch their stupid news program.
Best case scenario, Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire and scares the everloving shit out of the Clinton machine and Democrats like our useless DNC chair. And in the future Democrats take their left flank a little more seriously, like the Republicans are terrified of their religious loonies.
BBA
The left? This is a center-right nation. Now you may not believe that and I may not believe that, but by God, it’s a useful hypocrisy.
jl
@gene108: Is that a serious question? Because he has participated in Democratic primaries and has run as a nominee of the Democratic Party, and has said that he is a Democrat. He cannot be registered as a Democrat in Vermont. He is just a registered voter, is all.
Look, I have serious doubts that Sanders can get past the huge primary days, unless he has hidden political gifts, or his ideas really take fire in a way that is unexpected. And I don’t want to fight with you over the issue of whether Sanders party affiliation is something to worry or get upset about.
But I, behold and listen ye BJ commentariate, I predict (this day Sept 19 2015 CE, 6:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time) that IF Sanders can increase electoral and legislative prospects of Democratic Congressional Caucus, they will not give a damn what he calls himself.
Those who have ears, let them hear.
Full metal Wingnut
@efgoldman: I don’t think he wins the primary, but I meant that in the sense that he’s not unelectable if he secures the Democratic nomination.
Anyway, even if I believed that Bernie were unelectable in a general election, I would still safely support him in the primary because I think he has long odds in the primary. Best case scenario he wins IA and NH and scares the shit out of Clinton. Maybe that gets centrist Democrats to try to shore up their left flank a little more, kind of like how Republicans are terrified of their religious goons. One can hope.
Hell, Sanders is doing better now than I thought he would. It’s funny, because the two most popular candidates currently running (I’ll call Biden a candidate when he ends the cocktease and announces whether he’s running) are a soshulist Jewwwww and that shrill ball busting bitch Hillary Clinton! The Village hates the Clintons so their coverage of her vis a vis Sanders makes him look that much more viable.
gene108
@efgoldman:
Nope. I am done.
Just disappointed I forgot to talk like a pirate today.
A aargh me matey, I be for gettin’.
Mandalay
@schrodinger’s cat:
Because it is easy for ignorant journalists to fabricate meaningless stories based on false comparisons.
Corbyn refuses to sing his national anthem, wants to abolish the Monarchy, leave NATO, cap the pay of CEOs in private industry, renationalize the gas and electricity industries, and supports Northern Ireland leaving the UK and becoming part of Ireland. He is very far to the left.
It is no exaggeration to state that Corbyn is far closer to Castro and Ortega than Sanders politically, and Sanders is far closer to Cruz and Trump than Corbyn politically. But our lazy, ignorant media persist in the absurd comparison.
Full metal Wingnut
@efgoldman: I was being mildly sarcastic. I believe Sanders is electable precisely because I think the amount of undecideds are vastly overstated.
Full metal Wingnut
@Mandalay: Despite self-applying the socialist label, Sanders is basically a solid New Deal/Great Society liberal. Which is fine! But he’s hardly a Bolshevik.
benw
@efgoldman: Me hearties, what be a pirates favorite state? Arrr-kansas.
Full metal Wingnut
@Mandalay: I doubt it. When the Rethugs start pulling their bullshit during a Sanders administration, I don’t see any but the most useless Democrats like Manchin joining them-which he already does. Maybe given the Congresses Carter had to work with, but with modern polarization this doesn’t happen.
Anyway, the Independent label is a vestige of some not-that-interesting intra-state Vermont politics when he first ran for Congress. These days he’s an Independent In Name Only. He’s basically a Democrat-look at his voting record. The Independent thing used to be legit but now it’s mainly a gimmick. He’s basically an Elizabeth Warren-he’s the left side of the Democratic Party.
Also, he’s on good terms with Chuck Schumer. If you don’t think that matters I want some of what you’re smoking.
benw
@efgoldman: Me cullies, their motto be “Live Free Arrrr Die!”
Frank Bolton
One thing that must be noted about the ‘Sanders can’t win the Democratic Party primary without racial minorities!’ meme: Sanders doesn’t have to do well or even decent with all racial minorities. He either needs:
A.) Blacks + whites. That’s the Obama path. Obama actually didn’t do very well with Asians and Latinos in the 2008 primary, only getting 30-35% of their vote.
B.) Whites + Latinos + Asians. That’s the Clinton 2008 path. Note that while it was a (barely) losing combination in 2008 she would’ve squeaked by with a win with 2016 demographics. If Sanders loses blacks by 85-15 but gets the same white vote Clinton did (60%) and gets Asians and Latinos by 60-65%, he squeaks by a win.
Obviously, if Sanders does poorly among both Latinos, Asians AND blacks (or if for some reason, loses the white vote and is buoyed by racial minorities), he’d need like 90-10 white support in order to win.
As far as the ‘Sanders will get destroyed in the general election!’ meme: bah. The Democratic Party is already a national majority at the Presidential level and it’s much more ideologically coherent than New Deal/New Left Dems. As long as Sanders avoids overly alienating any one demographic (and I doubt that he does much worse in the general than Kerry or Gore with blacks; won’t have the same sky-high turnout as Obama, but 90%+ is quite doable) he’ll do about as well as Clinton or Biden would.
The Democratic Party 2016’s challenge, at least at the Presidential level, is to turn out its base demographics. Especially with Millenials and Latinos. And having an almost guaranteed drop in black turnout (2008 and 2012 were MUCH higher than 2000; like 9.5% higher I believe) will be another challenge. We still comfortably won 2012 despite having a, what, 6% drop in Millenial turnout and 2% drop in Latino turnout from 2008? If the Democratic Party can get 2008 turnout levels with its base demographics for 2016, the Republican Party will not stand a chance.
You wouldn’t know this by listening to the media or most Democrats for that matter, who still think that it’s fucking 1972 and that the Democratic Party has to reach outside of its base and hide its more Middle America-alienating policies in order to win.
raven
The chicken was great!
Patrick
@gene108:
Sanders is more of a Democrat than most of the Democrats in the Senate. Heck, 29 Democratic senators voted for the Iraq war back in 2002. Sanders was against it.
Unlike the future leader of Senate Dems, Sen Schumer, Sanders was for the Iran deal.
Maybe it is time to ask what the point is of calling yourself a Democrat?
Chris
@gene108:
LOL. The pirate museum down the street had a “treasure hunt” organized for the kids that came through their place today… which consisted of them going to my and a bunch of other stores and picking up fake pirate coins that had been handed to us before time. Most of the kids were too shy to talk like pirates, but fun day anyway.
jl
@Frank Bolton:
‘ who still think that it’s fucking 1972 and that the Democratic Party has to reach outside of its base ‘
I think Sanders wants to reach outside the Democratic base, just from another angle. Not by trimming and playing goofy political kabuki to regame the Nixonian culture wars, or makes concessions to try to finesse wedge issues, but by hitting the GOP square in the face over their long con that has ripped off their own voting base economically for years. i guess he thinks he can fix waht’s the matter with Kansas. I am doubtful, but an essential ingredient of a good politician is ambition and he has that, both personally, and in terms of making a lasting mark on national politics. I don’t know whether it will work, especially if he refuses to backtrack on racial justice issues and immigration, but so far it looks like he intends to try it without compromising support in the Democratic base.
I’ve given Sanders some contributions, with the same rationale of some other commenters: I think his presence in the primary has been positive so far. Let us see how he does.
Jeffro
Let’s talk about this tomorrow, shall we? Holy cow, in what world is this article properly titled “let’s meet the megadonors” instead of “HOLY SHIT!! A lot of rich people are giving a lot of money to the GOP clown car candidates!!!”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/large-donors/
Hillary is on a par with Christie and Perry, fer chrissakes…
raven
@efgoldman: He had a really crappy sign behind a plane flying over the stadium. We got dropped off and hour after his supposed appearance and they did show one stupid shot of him at a tailgate and there was NO reaction whatsoever. A good portion of the people at the game were half blind for that 6pm kickoff anyway.
Steeplejack
@efgoldman:
Thanks for the tip. I’m sitting on Ole Miss-Bama and gave up wondering which of the other games to check out.
jl
@raven:
” The chicken was great! ”
The great weakness of Jeb? is that he keeps saying stuff that people know isn’t true. And he isn’t even a convincing liar (unlike Fiorina).
Patrick
@Jeffro:
Isn’t this money that has to be spent before the primaries are over? Since the GOP primary is more competitive, their donors are more willing to spend now.
raven
@jl: I’m talking about Georgia kicking the fucking dogs hit out of South Carolina. It was splendid!
raven
@Steeplejack: I got that PIP going on with both of them!
SoupCatcher
@efgoldman:
And, with SJSU up on the Beavers, it’s the first time I can remember with all three bay area teams not trailing at half-time!
Unfortunately, the third quarter has started off horribly for Stanford.
jl
@raven: Oh. Thanks. I thought it was another dumb thing Jeb? said, since he has already said several doozies today, going by the news. Congrats on your sportsball victory today.
Jeffro
@Patrick: It’s PAC money – iirc, they can spend it all the way through the primaries and beyond, win or lose. They’re not bound like the actual campaigns are. You can keep a PAC going forever and have it used for all sorts of wink-wink not-this-immediate-election purposes.
jl
@efgoldman: That was figurative speech on my part.
raven
@jl: It was swell but my ass is draggin. It started fairly hot, upper 80’s but we were in the shade and it was really nice by halftime. My buddy is coming off throat cancer treatment and his energy is just a bit low but he had a really good time.
Chris
@efgoldman:
From where I work. (St. George Street, Saint Augustine, FL).
raven
@efgoldman: There was NO better game nowhere!
Frank Bolton
@jl: I agree. It’s still important for Sanders to reach out, especially if it’s with an issue (economic leftism) that won’t alienate his core supporters. If Sanders can improve the Democratic Party’s voting % among the white working class by 10% and do as well as Obama did with the Obama coalition (racial minorities, urbanites, LGBTers, educated whites) the Republican Party in its current incarnation is completely doomed. Hell, if the Democratic Party can win just 30% of the white vote in the South — instead of the pathetic sub-20% that it currently is — that gets us Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi(!)’s EVs in 2016 even if the Democratic Party don’t improve on any other demographics.
Nonetheless, it’s also important to note that even if racism is such a strong force that Sanders’ platform doesn’t allow him to crack even a little bit into the GOP’s voting base (which is usually the excuse I hear when someone asks ‘why doesn’t the Democratic Party use economic progressivism to try to woo back the white working class’) he can still win by trodding the path that Obama did and by convincing its core voters to vote at at least 2008 levels.
You can see why I’m so hot-to-trot with Sanders’ plan to woo non-Democratic voters with economic leftism/socialism (while also, crucially, solidifying support among its base) and why I also feel that Hillary Clinton’s blend of social liberalism/economic centrism would at best not get us out of the current jam we’re in. Both because she’s not credibly making a play for new demographics and because I feel that it’s not the best way to turn out our current Democratic voting base.
jl
@raven: You went to the game live? I only enjoy doing that for baseball regularly, or maybe a basketball playoff game once in awhile. But if you like to take the sport live, nothing better than to see your team dominate and conquer in flesh in real time. Glad you had a good time.
raven
@jl: I’ve been going to Georgia football for 31 years and Illinois for 18 before that!
jl
@Frank Bolton: As I said, I think it unlikely that Sanders can survive the big primary election days with a lead.
But I don’t worry over Sanders too much because primarily, it is a free country and whoever qualifies can run, so what can I do about it? And I still think it is important to have an interesting and positive contested primary, and so far Sanders is playing a constructive role, so I sent him some small contributions. If he starts doing weird shit, I won’t send any more money.
What will be very important is, whoever wins, whether the two major candidates (which so far will be HRC and Sanders) can come to an agreement to keep their supporters on board for the general election. I think what develops there will be far more important than most of the BS horse race and political gossip stuff that has happened so far.
Other than that, how HRC and Sanders conduct themselves in the debates, and particularly if they can produce some exchanges that captures the attention of the public.
Steeplejack
Oh, man, Ole Miss scores again—17-3. Nelson Muntz “Ha-ha!” to Alabama.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@efgoldman: I kind of like Spurrier. Not that he isn’t eminently punchable, or anything, just that he’s probably the figure in American sports best at playing the heel. I enjoy someone who will publicly engage in a rivalry and not obsess over not providing the other team with bulletin board material.
Zinsky
I think that …. Well, you know what I think.
Frank Bolton
@efgoldman:
Look: I know it’s a convenient fiction, especially for the establishment Dems, to claim that they can’t get the white working class because lol we lost Reagan Democrats so badly in the 80s that it’s pointless to make any significant gestures with the white working class. But let’s deconstruct the hidden assumptions of that premise.
A.) The white working class is interchangeable with Reagan Democrats. This is obviously not true, because A.) Reagan Democrats also included a lot of middle and upper-middle class Democrats. Which is why we got our ass kicked up-and-down the street nationally along with permanently losing the South. But moreover, the current white working class also includes a large number of white Millenials, which is the big reason why the Democrats get 15-35% of the white vote outside of the Northeast.
B.) The white working class is homogeneous through the states. There’s a little thing I like to call urban vs. rural areas. Urbanization is the single biggest predictor of whether a non-black voter will vote Democratic or Republican, and this holds true even in the Rockies and South. Even if the Democratic Party can’t persuade rural whites, they can still get urban working class whites to turn out to make a difference.
C.) The white working class cannot be wooed. This has sort of been lost in the chaff of ‘Romney did Reagan-level with whites and he still lost’, but it’s important to note that the Republican Party has been doing steadily worse with non-Southern whites since 2000. That 60+% of the white vote is being driven solely by the South. Outside the South, the Democratic Party has been holding or actually been doing better with whites each election. The exception to this trend is Appalachia, but 2008 Obama still did better than 2004 Kerry with Appalachian whites.
Goddammit, people. While obsessing over events that happened in 1984 is slightly less pathetic than those that happened in 1972, it was still 30 goddamn years ago. Stop living in the past and drooling gormlessly over the collapse of the New Deal Coalition. Things change and you must adapt or die.
Jeffro
We really ought to talk about this exchange, too (from the GOP “kids’ table” debate):
Oh ho! Sounds like at least one clown has gotten a little tired of the ride…
Matt McIrvin
@Frank Bolton:
One of the few anomalous places where it doesn’t hold true is Bernie Sanders’ home state, which makes me wonder if he’s got the instincts to take it nationally.
Frank Bolton
@Jeffro: Graham’s whining is like whining about catch-22. The GOP simply has to turn out rural whites to even have a prayer at winning. The white turnout percentage has dropped 3% since 2004 and they have to keep coming up with schemes to get the turnout as high as they’re already getting.
So let’s say that the Republican Party comes clean and admits the whole game. And there’s a 3% drop in white turnout in 2016. In combination with white Millenials replacing white elderly voters and their current troubles with racial minorities, that makes the election completely impossible for them to win. But the general election is already completely impossible to win with the Nixon-Reagan playbook Graham loves so much unless Obama gets hit by a surprise recession or scandal. Le sigh.
Cervantes
@gene108:
You do realize that on issues big and small, Sanders has voted with the Democrats more consistently than some Democrats have, yes?
OK. It’s surely a moot point if he’s not the nominee — and if by some marvel of magic and sorcery he is the Party’s nominee, then I suppose one could not vote, or even vote for the registered-and-all-paid-up Republican instead.
Ruckus
@jl:
I’m hoping that in any debates that Sanders and Clinton do not attack each other. That would be bad. They should campaign on their strengths and let the chips fall where they may. Build the dem brand by being the far, far better candidates they are and showing the repubs to be the immature children that they are. Let us make the decision about who we want based on policy, not horse race bullshit.
Matt McIrvin
@Ruckus: They can criticize each other all they want, as long as it’s about substantive disagreements instead of name-calling, accusations of flip-flopping and bogus scandals. I’d be happy about it.
It would, though, be a higher road than Clinton took in ’08; she went after Obama’s ties to Tony Rezko, which didn’t really work and ended up having little impact on the election.
Ruckus
@Matt McIrvin:
Should have defined a bit better. I meant that they should discuss policy, not junior high class president bullshit. Of course in my junior high yrs 4 centuries ago the people running for class president were more mature than the entire clown car, but it was still junior high class president.
jl
@Matt McIrvin: In my dreams, if CNN does one, after Tapper asks Sanders what he thinks about what O’Malley said about HRC, they will all come down on him like a ton of bricks on BS, Tapper flees the room, and then they can just talk for two hours, or whatever.
But I see Anderson Cooper will be moderating on Oct 13: He might do a good job.
Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2016
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@jl: Ed Kilgore said he was hearing that HRC doesn’t object to debates, but she doesn’t trust the moderators; given that they tend to be drawn from the same pool as the Sunday Show/Morning Joe casts, I don’t blame her. I think it was Armando from DKos who was proposing town hall style debates and HRC would be cool with that. I don’t know if he’s officially affiliated with the campaign. I remember in 2012 the town hall debate was the only one in which climate change came up.
Armando and another Clinton loyalist were arguing that there was one primary debate in ’07 or 08 that left HRC particularly scarred, but I don’t remember anything Clintonites should have been upset about.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Don’t know how much stock should be put in that explanation from HRC’s camp, but to be honest, there is some truth to it. There was at least one primary debate, in 2008 I think, where the moderators seemed determined to trash the Democratic candidates and the Party in general.
Debates have gotten progressively worse since the DNC and RNC got control of them, and were all happy because they thought they got what would be best for them. I hope there is a way to get League of Women Voter’s or a similar organization back running them. In the meantime, I hope the DNC has more brains than the RNC. A commenter said the other day that the RNC laid down a bunch of non-negotiable but idiotic rules that allow the candidates to run wild and act like fools, which I don’t think is a good thing for long run political success.
I do think so far the Democratic primary is going very well, and nothing at all has happened to worry about. I think the GOP garbage festival is creating long term damage every day, and I hope that is true rather than just my opinion.
Ruckus
@jl:
One of my fellow employees asked me first thing the next morning if I listened to the republican debate. I cautiously said no and he said he wondered what they were all running for, surly it can’t be president, they are all idiots. I’m taking this as a good sign that if enough people like him, one of those republicans who isn’t a fundamentalist, teaparty moron nor clinically crazy thinks this way, life will not end as we know it and may have another shot at getting better. Especially if they start looking carefully and see that the republican party has been taken over by complete morons. Even if they just stay home that works for me.
RK
Clinton should come down with a bad case of laryngitis for the remainder of the campaign and have Bill do the speechifying. Sanders/Gandhi 2016!!
redshirt
I think Republicans should be rounded up and sent into re-education camps. For reals.
David Koch
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Russert and Brian Williams were big assholes.
In a national televised debate they actually asked Obama if he believed in UFOs. Obama slapped it down as only he can.
Keith G
@David Koch:
That’s the key. Stupid, craven or venial moderators can be played and they can be unmasked. Unfortunately HRC is not a gifted retail politician and seems to be less able to find the correct tone in such circumstances.
Re Sanders: He has been surprising me. And it’s important to understand that many of the folks gravitating to him are not the “purity ponies and Villagers” as imagined by efgoldman. Many that I have spoken to are folks who understand all too well that there is a competition between the classes going on – a competition that they are not allowed to enter on fair terms. One of them, when talking to me about HRC v Sanders said, “I really don’t know what she has done.”
Now that’s a twenty-something who could be more plugged in to politics than he is, but he is not that unusual for his cohort. HRC is known for being the wife of Bill, a Secretary of State, and a candidate with email issues.
Until she changes that – and it is up to her to change that – there are folks who will be confused about her identity and who will find Sanders more compelling.
Cervantes
@Keith G:
Wait — someone thinks “Villagers” are supporting Sanders?
Keith G
@Cervantes: Well, I did use a direct quote.
As you are well aware. ;)
Matt McIrvin
@jl: This is actually one thing I like a lot about Sanders: when people try to goad him into pointless personal drama, he tends to tell them to piss off.
David Koch
@Keith G: Clinton has done a terrible job. That said, what has Sanders done in 25 years in Congress? I tell ya, he has passed a grand total of 3 bills. 1 was a cola increase for vets (wow, who’s against vets) and 2 bills were to rename post offices in vermont. In comparison, Biden past 28 bills in 36 years and Kennedy passed 88 bills in 46 years (none to rename post offices). Sanders had all the power and squandered it so he could grandstand for the cameras.
David Koch
@Keith G:
How does Sanders plan to solve that? a hike in the minimum wage and free college tuition are wonderful, but even if that somehow passed a republican congress it won’t solve income inequality.
De Blasio said he would solve income inequality in NYC by raising the minimum wage and free Pre-K plan. His Pre-K program added 12,000 kids, but only a paltry 195 came from NYC’s poorest zip codes.
Cervantes
@David Koch:
Purple is the color of the sky in your universe.
Davis X. Machina
@Matt McIrvin: “Urban” in VT has a pretty limited meaning. It’s second from the bottom in the percentage of its population living in urban areas, at roughly 40%, and even then, there’s nothing larger than the Burlington urban cluster, 105,000 according to thte EPA. And most of that’s not urban — that’s an urban compact area total.
Frank Bolton
@David Koch:
Whoa, slow down. You kind of buried the lede there. What about minimum wage?
Also, income inequality isn’t in America being driven by a gap between the bottom and 2nd/3rd income quintiles (unlike nations like Japan) so much as it is the gap between the .1% and everyone else. Even if Sanders implemented a serious minimum-wage hike, free college, single-payer health care, household debt forgiveness, increases in SS payouts, and huge amounts of infrastructure spending it’s not going to do much for income inequality without serious efforts to confiscate the wealth of the upper class. The Clinton years saw an increase in income inequality despite the tax hike and wage growth.
Mind you, income inequality is important to keep down because it’s a good measure of power that the upper classes have relative to the lower classes, but improving the quality of life of the lower classes comes first.
The Sheriff's A Ni-*bong*
@Keith G:
Well, you don’t start panicking about polls when Iowa is four months out and nobody will remember jack and squat about September by then. Kerry didn’t overtake Dean in the polls til’ January.
JimGod
@Cervantes: Indeed. The anti-Sanders rants from a select few on this blog are tiring. If you don’t like him personally or his policies or socialism in general, just say it and be done with it. I’ll disagree but it is what it is. But instead, we get crap like he had all the power in the Senate, or he has too many whites supporting him which means he doesn’t care about blacks and browns, and of course, the best one, he’s not a Democrat and the caucus in Congress would refuse to support him because of that. The empirical evidence supports none of these assertions but again and again, we see these same talking points coming up.
name
Instant Runoff (Preferential) Voting.
*drops mic*
Keith G
@JimGod: Indeed.
JimGod
@name: In conjunction with primaries for nomination purposes, or without, in which all Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Socialists and sundry run on the same ballot? If so we’ll easily have 60 candidates for President alone, 5 Dems, 20 Reps, and others. It would be a major change to how things are done in this country, but could potentially work.
Phil Perspective
@Princess: And that changes votes at all? Hahaha!!
Phil Perspective
@David Koch: Russert and Brian Williams were big assholes.
So what Charles Gibson in ’08, if people remember!!