Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 31213
Results 421 to 442 of 442

Thread: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

  1. #421
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,708

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    The first 12% voted for Trump. The second didn't vote. How can those be the same people?
    I have no idea what you are trying to say. Based on evidence from NPR, we know that 12% of voters who supported Sanders in the primary voted for Trump in the general election. As far as I know, there is no evidence suggesting that another 12% didn't vote at all. So when I mention the 12%, I mean those we know about who voted for Trump. I have no idea how many didn't vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Whether they realize it and give a S is the question. If not, they can F off twice. They don't need to be in the tent to vote D.

    As for re-entry to the tent, this would be my appeal: if you go on your knees and beg forgiveness, I'll think about it.
    I see you have embraced Trump's behavior and attitude if not his politics.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  2. #422
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,708

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    I would argue that HRC was "installed" as the candidate, because until Sanders tossed his decidedly unwelcome hat in the ring, there were no other serious contenders for the Democratic nomination. I (and lot of others) find it ... difficult ... to believe that after Obama, that nobody else in the Democratic Party was interested in his job.) Pressure was applied to ensure that HRC's ascendency wasn't interfered with -- "Nice career ya got goin' here, buddy. Be a shame if somethin' were to ... happen to it."

    It's not that the DNC "stole" the nomination from the people's choice: they just [tried] to preemptively ensure that there was no choice.
    This makes sense to me. I suppose I'll get ranted at by Oznabrag for saying so.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  3. #423
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    25,512

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Carey View Post
    I would argue that HRC was "installed" as the candidate, because until Sanders tossed his decidedly unwelcome hat in the ring, there were no other serious contenders for the Democratic nomination. I (and lot of others) find it ... difficult ... to believe that after Obama, that nobody else in the Democratic Party was interested in his job.) Pressure was applied to ensure that HRC's ascendency wasn't interfered with -- "Nice career ya got goin' here, buddy. Be a shame if somethin' were to ... happen to it."

    It's not that the DNC "stole" the nomination from the people's choice: they just [tried] to preemptively ensure that there was no choice.
    I can agree with this. I can also understand how Bernie was unwelcome - as he was never a part of the Dem. machine.

    I also have to comment on people's use of "12% of Bernie voters didn't vote for Clinton - so they are evil". Many (or even most) of that 12% were not Democrats & never would vote for a standard Dem candidate. Claiming that Dems who supported Sanders were traitors & voted for Trump is unsubstantiated & pure sour grapes on the Dem machine supporters.
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  4. #424
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    20,117

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    I fail to see how disaffected progressives would have considered a vote for Trump over HRC, as a 'better option'. That's more of a poison pill, a slap back because they didn't get their preferred candidate. As long as we have a faction that feels that's a viable way to pursue an agenda, we are screwed.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  5. #425
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, Michigan
    Posts
    1,806

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    George, this is the result of allowing the party machine to 'coronate' a candidate.

    Bernie was drawing the new voters, huge crowds and enthusiasm while HRC had to put dividers in hotel conference rooms to mask the tiny number of people.

    As others have pointed out, we will never know, but Bernie would probably have won and Joe Biden would have walked into the presidency in a landslide!

  6. #426
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    25,512

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    I fail to see how disaffected progressives would have considered a vote for Trump over HRC, as a 'better option'. That's more of a poison pill, a slap back because they didn't get their preferred candidate. As long as we have a faction that feels that's a viable way to pursue an agenda, we are screwed.
    That's because Bernie brought in voters who aren't progressives at all. They were people who wanted an outsider who'd shake things up. Bernie & Trump had that in common. Here in VT, Bernie gets votes from all over the spectrum: progressives, veterans who are normally Reps, and many other conservative voters because they like his work on gov't transparency.

    Bernie is an odd phenomenon & trying to label him as only appealing to progressives is wrong.
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  7. #427
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, Michigan
    Posts
    1,806

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    That's because Bernie brought in voters who aren't progressives at all. They were people who wanted an outsider who'd shake things up. Bernie & Trump had that in common. Here in VT, Bernie gets votes from all over the spectrum: progressives, veterans who are normally Reps, and many other conservative voters because they like his work on gov't transparency.

    Bernie is an odd phenomenon & trying to label him as only appealing to progressives is wrong.
    Well said.....

  8. #428
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,283

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Nonsense. I am very grateful that he was able to pull the party toward a more progressive stance, despite his insurgent status and loss in the primary.



    You pretend to paraphrase what I said, but really all you do is put a negative spin on it that wasn't in the original. I have reason to doubt that Clinton's embrace of parts of the Sanders platform were pragmatic political moves rather than sincere ones. That matters to me. I suspect she would quickly have abandoned those aspects of the platform once she got the votes she needed.

    I still voted for Clinton, by the way. Which makes your "no one can really join you" claim below demonstrably false.



    John,

    your claim that I "keep refusing to answer" your question about where I disagreed with Clinton is completely, flat-out, false. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion if you are going to ignore facts and say whatever you want. From post #380:





    Complete and utter BS. You don't get to say what matters to me. If you believe that the platform didn't matter to me, you don't have a clue. And your assumption that it didn't matter is condescending and arrogant in the extreme.



    How's this for not allowing for any sort of nuance: You assume I misread the graphic and the article. That's because you didn't bother to realize that "US military intervention" isn't on my list of where I disagree with Clinton.

    The article ALSO points out that Clinton supported the Iraq resolution, does not support Glass-Steagall (yes, I realize Politifact says her claim that Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the 2008 recession is "mostly true"; I still am in favor of Glass-Steagall, and am suspicious of her lack of support), voted twice to approve the Patriot Act, etc. etc. etc. All of which back up my summary of her positions.

    But I guess you didn't allow for that level of nuance.

    You're not arguing fairly or accurately. To put it mildly, that's frustrating.

    Tom
    And I don't think you're arguing fairly or accurately.

    Yes, you told me a number of areas where you disagree with Clinton. You still haven't addressed her platform. I'm sure you understand the differences between your answer and my question. And before you get worked up about that response, let me add that I no longer expect you to go through her platform point by point and tell me what's wrong with it.

    You claim there was no negative spin in the part I paraphrased, then you say this:

    I have reason to doubt that Clinton's embrace of parts of the Sanders platform were pragmatic political moves rather than sincere ones. That matters to me. I suspect she would quickly have abandoned those aspects of the platform once she got the votes she needed.
    And that's not negative? As Oz pointed out, you influence politicians by getting them on board with your ideas, then holding their feet to the fire. But instead, when Clinton 'embraces part of the Sanders platform,' you won't take yes for an answer. You won't let Clinton join your side, and if she and her supporters can't join your side, you're going to end up with a smaller tent.

    In the paragraph quoted above, you explained why you don't care about Clinton's platform, which is certainly a legitimate thing to do and something I wish you'd done sooner, but then you go on to say it's "complete and utter BS" that you don't care about her platform, and claim I'm being condescending.

    Look, if you don't care about Clinton's platform because you don't think she would have lived up to it, that's a legitimate argument to make. But claiming I've mischaracterized what you said isn't arguing accurately. The argument you've finally made is that her platform doesn't matter because, then you explain why.

    So why is it condescending to say you don't care about her platform? Am I misunderstanding you? Do you think her platform was really important and the changes she made because of Sanders were vital? Or are you just throwing out random insults because you don't like the attitude of anyone who disagrees with you?

    Yes, I'm aware that you voted for Clinton. And Oz voted for Bernie. This is what makes it so bizarre that you are so passionately at odds with people who voted just as you did. You keep saying you want more people in the tent, then beating up on your bunkmates. You don't get more people to accept your invitation to a party by beating up the people who are already there.

    Which is kind of where we started with the OP.

  9. #429
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,283

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    That's because Bernie brought in voters who aren't progressives at all. They were people who wanted an outsider who'd shake things up. Bernie & Trump had that in common. Here in VT, Bernie gets votes from all over the spectrum: progressives, veterans who are normally Reps, and many other conservative voters because they like his work on gov't transparency.

    Bernie is an odd phenomenon & trying to label him as only appealing to progressives is wrong.
    Well, if the voter he brought to the party aren't really progressives, I guess moving the party left won't attract them.

    The fact that Bernie is unique makes it hard to copy his success. What you say might help explain why so many of the candidates he endorsed this year didn't win.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ections-767403

  10. #430
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    20,117

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Good points. I might add - if you see any sort of 'endorsement' from rick-mi or sb, recognize it through their agenda - divide and conquer, sow division.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  11. #431
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,288

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    A new study looks at the real reasons Obama voters switched to Trump

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...P4qwwLl0Vt4254


    One of the most puzzling elements of the 2016 election, at least for a lot of Americans, was the millions of voters who switched from voting for Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016. Somewhere between 6.7 million and 9.2 million Americans switched this way; given that the 2016 election was decided by 40,000 votes, it’s fair to say that Obama-Trump switchers were one of the key reasons that Hillary Clinton lost.

    The existence of those voters has served as evidence that the most plausible explanation for what happened in 2016 — that Trump’s campaign tapped into the racism of white Americans to win pivotal states — is wrong. “How could white Americans who voted for a black president in the past be racist,” or so the thinking goes.

    “Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story,” the New York Times’s Nate Cohn wrote on the night of the election. This typically segues into an argument that Trump won by tapping into economic, rather than racial, anxiety — anger about trade and the decline of manufacturing, or the fallout from the 2008 Great Recession.

    A new study shows that this response isn’t as powerful as it may seem. The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically...
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  12. #432
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,283

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    A new study looks at the real reasons Obama voters switched to Trump

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...P4qwwLl0Vt4254


    One of the most puzzling elements of the 2016 election, at least for a lot of Americans, was the millions of voters who switched from voting for Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016. Somewhere between 6.7 million and 9.2 million Americans switched this way; given that the 2016 election was decided by 40,000 votes, it’s fair to say that Obama-Trump switchers were one of the key reasons that Hillary Clinton lost.

    The existence of those voters has served as evidence that the most plausible explanation for what happened in 2016 — that Trump’s campaign tapped into the racism of white Americans to win pivotal states — is wrong. “How could white Americans who voted for a black president in the past be racist,” or so the thinking goes.

    “Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story,” the New York Times’s Nate Cohn wrote on the night of the election. This typically segues into an argument that Trump won by tapping into economic, rather than racial, anxiety — anger about trade and the decline of manufacturing, or the fallout from the 2008 Great Recession.

    A new study shows that this response isn’t as powerful as it may seem. The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically...
    Yeah, I saw that. Different group than the Bernie voters, but some of it applies. One reason Bernie didn't win more primaries is that he didn't appeal to people of color as well as Clinton did, and the way she appealed to them is one reason she lost some Obama voters. The thing seems kind of counter-intuitive, but it looks like they've done their research.

  13. #433
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Northern California Mountains
    Posts
    12,295

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Ah, finally. Old white men pointing fingers at other white guys and claiming racism. A happy prospect. Something the bunch here can finally all agree on.

    So, how does it go now?

    Some Obama voters voted for Trump. Because, racism.

    Even though they voted for Obama. Like, twice.

  14. #434
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,708

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    John,

    I just deleted a couple of posts because I want to start over, or re-frame, our discussion. I've been getting way too hostile and frustrated, and have been overlooking how much in agreement we are on many things. For example:

    1. We both want to see a Democrat elected President in 2020.
    2. We both favor the same candidate at the moment, Elizabeth Warren.
    3. We both voted for Clinton in 2016. We both would have happily voted for Sanders.
    4. We are both arguing in favor of a "big tent" (i.e. getting more people to vote for the party's candidate).

    I'm going to start over for myself by starting from the position that your position and your argument is thoughtful and principled, as is mine, and that any misunderstandings between us are the result of honest failure to understand, and not from an intention to spin or recast an opponent's argument to score points. I apologize for letting my frustrations get in the way of that mindset up until now.

    So, in that frame of mind, here's what I've been saying on this thread:

    1. We know, fairly reliably, from NPR's polling data of 50,000 voters in 2016, that 12% of all Sanders supporters who identify themselves as Democrats or say they "lean" Democratic voted for Trump in the general election.

    2. The inference I have drawn from that fact is that those potential political allies have already rejected the notion that they must vote for whatever Democrat is the candidate, because they care more about moving the party left (or away from the establishment) than they do about any single election. They feel the Democratic party did not represent their views and values.

    3. Given #2, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's unrealistic to expect them to suddenly decide to vote for any Democrat offered in 2020, unless the party's chosen candidate reflects more of their views and values. It seems conceivable (though I'd say unlikely) that some of those 12% might be frustrated enough by another establishment/non-progressive candidate that they start a third party, or transfer their allegiance to the Green Party. Not with any expectation of winning, but because they might perceive it as their best way of influencing the Democratic party on issues. It seems even more likely that some will simply not vote at all.

    4. It is also unrealistic to expect the Democratic party or the DNC to willingly share power with outsider candidates like Sanders on their own initiative.

    5. Ergo, since the DNC won't do it, it would be a smart strategic move for primary voters to set aside their understandable resentment over the 2016 loss (easy to say, difficult to do!), and choose a progressive (or non-establishment) candidate for 2020. That way they would win back the 12% of Sanders supporters they lost in 2016, and would also have the best chance of inspiring and appealing to young voters.

    If I've understood you correctly, you think this is a bad strategy because it is tantamount to a rejection of Clinton supporters. The inference I draw from that, though I don't think you've directly stated it, is that by trying to appeal to the 12% of Sanders supporters the party lost in 2016, the party might lose Clinton supporters in 2020. If that's your position, I'd like to hear more about why you think that's a likely outcome. I don't agree that it is.

    My argument is that it is far more likely to lose the 12% again if we don't reach out to them with a candidate they'll accept, than it is that we'll lose Clinton supporters if we run a progressive. Why? Again and again, on this forum and elsewhere, Clinton supporters consistently argue that it's crucial to vote for whatever candidate the party runs. But the 12% of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump have already demonstrated their willingness to abandon the party.

    My second question for you:

    You say you want a big tent. From that, I infer that you would welcome the 12% of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. And that you think it's important to get them.

    What I haven't seen from you is any suggestion of how you think the party can win them back. You seem to be rejecting my argument that the way to do it is by offering a progressive or non-establishment candidate.

    What do you propose, then? The alternatives I can think of are:

    1. You think we don't need those voters to win in 2020, so the party doesn't need to reach out to them.

    2. You think they are so horrified by the result of their abandonment of the Democratic party in 2016 that they will change their minds and vote for whatever candidate the Democrats run, so that there's no need to reach out to them.

    3. You think they will suddenly start to believe that establishment candidates favored by the DNC really are progressive, so they will vote for them.

    All of these seem desperately unrealistic to me, but I can't think of any other arguments at the moment.

    So, what is your suggestion? You are rejecting my argument about what we should do. What's your alternative?

    Thanks for the discussion,

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 10-17-2018 at 04:03 AM.
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  15. #435
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,708

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    I fail to see how disaffected progressives would have considered a vote for Trump over HRC, as a 'better option'. That's more of a poison pill, a slap back because they didn't get their preferred candidate. As long as we have a faction that feels that's a viable way to pursue an agenda, we are screwed.
    Unless the other factions decide it's more important to have those votes than it is to refuse to give in to what you call a "slap back."

    Isn't that exactly how the Tea Party took over the Republicans? It worked. Yes, there is a real danger in letting one faction control the process without being willing to compromise. But there are potential gains as well. I would welcome a progressive takeover. It would certainly be better than the current fascist one (in Republican politics, not saying the Democratic party is fascist).

    But I think you're not really understanding the progressives' perception of Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, they seemed to see her as an establishment figure who was not committed in any real way to progressive ideals. Witness her vote for the Iraq resolution and the Patriot Act, her open declaration that she thinks single-payer health care is impossible, her perceived coziness with Wall Street and her rejection of Glass-Steagall, her perceived hawkishness, her reliance on big-money donors, etc. etc. I saw her that way myself, and still do. It doesn't matter how true that perception is. What matters is, some voters will act on it.

    So, if Clinton is perceived as a known quantity who will NOT represent your views and values, and Trump was perceived as a renegade non-politician who would refuse to play by the usual rules and thus potentially change the system, the choice to vote Trump becomes a little more understandable.

    And if rejecting the party in what you call a "slap back" was seen as the only way to influence the party to move left in the long run, it becomes even more understandable. Those voters may well have been playing the long game by voting for Trump, with a goal of forcing the party to change.

    "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?...Or does it explode?"

    I think it was a terrible mistake, one for which we'll be paying the price for a generation or more. But I can understand why the mistake was made. And I think those voters might be expected to take the same stance in 2020 if they feel the party has not heeded their message.
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  16. #436
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    20,117

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    I’ll agree with ‘terrible mistake’, and raise it to ‘you fools- you have killed us all’. I’m not sure the damage done can be reversed in a generation- if at all. And if that 12% is so far off the rails as to sabotage, they’re never going to be reliable partners.unbelievable the damage done.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  17. #437
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Midcoast Maine
    Posts
    275

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Tom,

    Could you say more about what your 12% is 12% of? I'm not clear. Sounds like it's 12% of all Sanders primary supporters, which I believe would be about 5% of all Democratic primary voters, or 2 1/2% of all 2016 primary voters. Does that sound about right?

    Best,
    Chris
    "Where we would wish to reform we must not reproach." -Thomas Paine

  18. #438
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,288

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Another take. Sounds like the route to success runs thru the middle. The increasing #'s of independents - who are largely turned off by the ultra-partisan bickering. Who, unlike the party-identified, don't view Health Care or the Economy as the paramount issues... but are most concerned about the rising Corruption.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/o...g-voters-.html
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  19. #439
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,288

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    And let us hearken back to June of last year --

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/u...p_id=782307638
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  20. #440
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,283

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    John,

    I just deleted a couple of posts because I want to start over, or re-frame, our discussion. I've been getting way too hostile and frustrated, and have been overlooking how much in agreement we are on many things. For example:

    1. We both want to see a Democrat elected President in 2020.
    2. We both favor the same candidate at the moment, Elizabeth Warren.
    3. We both voted for Clinton in 2016. We both would have happily voted for Sanders.
    4. We are both arguing in favor of a "big tent" (i.e. getting more people to vote for the party's candidate).

    I'm going to start over for myself by starting from the position that your position and your argument is thoughtful and principled, as is mine, and that any misunderstandings between us are the result of honest failure to understand, and not from an intention to spin or recast an opponent's argument to score points. I apologize for letting my frustrations get in the way of that mindset up until now.

    So, in that frame of mind, here's what I've been saying on this thread:

    1. We know, fairly reliably, from NPR's polling data of 50,000 voters in 2016, that 12% of all Sanders supporters who identify themselves as Democrats or say they "lean" Democratic voted for Trump in the general election.

    2. The inference I have drawn from that fact is that those potential political allies have already rejected the notion that they must vote for whatever Democrat is the candidate, because they care more about moving the party left (or away from the establishment) than they do about any single election. They feel the Democratic party did not represent their views and values.

    3. Given #2, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's unrealistic to expect them to suddenly decide to vote for any Democrat offered in 2020, unless the party's chosen candidate reflects more of their views and values. It seems conceivable (though I'd say unlikely) that some of those 12% might be frustrated enough by another establishment/non-progressive candidate that they start a third party, or transfer their allegiance to the Green Party. Not with any expectation of winning, but because they might perceive it as their best way of influencing the Democratic party on issues. It seems even more likely that some will simply not vote at all.

    4. It is also unrealistic to expect the Democratic party or the DNC to willingly share power with outsider candidates like Sanders on their own initiative.

    5. Ergo, since the DNC won't do it, it would be a smart strategic move for primary voters to set aside their understandable resentment over the 2016 loss (easy to say, difficult to do!), and choose a progressive (or non-establishment) candidate for 2020. That way they would win back the 12% of Sanders supporters they lost in 2016, and would also have the best chance of inspiring and appealing to young voters.

    If I've understood you correctly, you think this is a bad strategy because it is tantamount to a rejection of Clinton supporters. The inference I draw from that, though I don't think you've directly stated it, is that by trying to appeal to the 12% of Sanders supporters the party lost in 2016, the party might lose Clinton supporters in 2020. If that's your position, I'd like to hear more about why you think that's a likely outcome. I don't agree that it is.

    My argument is that it is far more likely to lose the 12% again if we don't reach out to them with a candidate they'll accept, than it is that we'll lose Clinton supporters if we run a progressive. Why? Again and again, on this forum and elsewhere, Clinton supporters consistently argue that it's crucial to vote for whatever candidate the party runs. But the 12% of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump have already demonstrated their willingness to abandon the party.

    My second question for you:

    You say you want a big tent. From that, I infer that you would welcome the 12% of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. And that you think it's important to get them.

    What I haven't seen from you is any suggestion of how you think the party can win them back. You seem to be rejecting my argument that the way to do it is by offering a progressive or non-establishment candidate.

    What do you propose, then? The alternatives I can think of are:

    1. You think we don't need those voters to win in 2020, so the party doesn't need to reach out to them.

    2. You think they are so horrified by the result of their abandonment of the Democratic party in 2016 that they will change their minds and vote for whatever candidate the Democrats run, so that there's no need to reach out to them.

    3. You think they will suddenly start to believe that establishment candidates favored by the DNC really are progressive, so they will vote for them.

    All of these seem desperately unrealistic to me, but I can't think of any other arguments at the moment.

    So, what is your suggestion? You are rejecting my argument about what we should do. What's your alternative?

    Thanks for the discussion,

    Tom
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I regret that I still haven't managed to make my position clear to you, as is obvious from your last three bullet points. Let's try again.

    Political parties exist to form coalitions consisting of people whose views are close enough to each other that each part of the coalition doesn't mind its partners pursuing their agenda, as long as they support that partner's agenda.

    McMike's contention is that the party didn't go through this process, but anointed the candidate favored by the party's leaders. That's historically inaccurate, and hasn't happened since 1956, largely because of reforms that have given more power to the rank and file. The 2016 process could have been better, but claiming that "The simple fact that all you folks can't see is that she was an installation and not a selection" is just not accurate.

    The logic of those reforms was to build the party coalition from the bottom up, not the top down. You and Mike assume it's a top-down party, and demand that the party anoint a different kind of candidate. But that's not how the party works these days. The candidates build their own coalitions, and through the political process of the primaries and caucuses, they demonstrate how large their coalition is.

    Telling the party who their candidate should be in advance is both what you accuse Clinton of doing in 2016 and what you argue should happen, with a different candidate anointed, in 2020. I don't believe that would produce a larger party, just different winners. It's a zero-sum game in which those who disagree with whatever view you hold are the enemy. And in fact, all three of the alternatives you are able to think of focus on these zero-sum calculations.

    It seems I have a lot more faith in the democratic process than you do. I want the process to be open to a wider range of views. That's a lot different from saying 'Clinton was horrible, the party should stop nominating people like her.'

    Being white, male, and progressive, I was the natural audience for Bernie's campaign, but my views are not more important in selecting a candidate than those of a more conservative woman of color, who was a lot more likely to vote for Clinton. I don't get to tell the party to ignore her views, I just get to try and convince people of my views. If I can't, I need to decide whether to send a message to the party by refusing to vote for the candidate who won the nomination, or if my views will be better represented by voting for the person who won the nomination. And in fact, 2016 saw a huge spike in third party voting.

    https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

    Some of that was Republicans who wouldn't vote for Trump, some was progressives who wouldn't vote for Clinton. I understand the calculation on the part of the never Trumpers. Clinton would have been a fairly normal president, and because she respected democratic norms, could be unseated in four years. Progressives who made that calculation were aiding McConnell in politicizing the Supreme Court for a couple generations to come. Perhaps that was a cost they were willing to pay. I think it's more likely they weren't thinking through the consequences.

    You don't get a more progressive party by telling the DNC they should anoint a more progressive candidate. You get a more progressive party by building a larger progressive coalition. Bernie never figured out how to get more people of color to vote for him than for Clinton. So, convince more of them. Telling them that the candidate they preferred was a horrible mistake won't convince them that you have a better idea. You have to show them that your idea is better.

  21. #441
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,708

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    John,

    thanks for the detailed reply. It makes sense, but it lacks any specific idea on how to build a larger progressive coalition.

    My idea about how to do that is for primary voters to select a candidate in the primary who will appeal to young voters and the Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. What is your specific idea?

    You're also claiming that I want to "tell the DNC they should anoint a more progressive candidate" (your words), but in fact I have said something quite different. My message is to Democratic primary voters, not the DNC. I am arguing to make it even more bottom-up as a party. Apparently, you think it already is a bottom-up party, so we disagree there.

    You also keep bringing in things that I've never said, and arguing against them. For example:

    That's a lot different from saying 'Clinton was horrible, the party should stop nominating people like her.'
    Never had I said anything remotely like this. Never once have I addressed the nominating process, or who should run. Never once have I said Clinton was horrible.

    As for this:

    The 2016 process could have been better, but claiming that "The simple fact that all you folks can't see is that she was an installation and not a selection" is just not accurate.
    I think your view is more than a little naive. To a great degree, she was an installation. I thought this post by Nicholas Carey (which critiques the lack of nominations) said it best:

    I would argue that HRC was "installed" as the candidate, because until Sanders tossed his decidedly unwelcome hat in the ring, there were no other serious contenders for the Democratic nomination. I (and lot of others) find it ... difficult ... to believe that after Obama, that nobody else in the Democratic Party was interested in his job.) Pressure was applied to ensure that HRC's ascendency wasn't interfered with -- "Nice career ya got goin' here, buddy. Be a shame if somethin' were to ... happen to it."

    It's not that the DNC "stole" the nomination from the people's choice: they just [tried] to preemptively ensure that there was no choice.
    But really, perhaps my biggest disagreement with your reply is that you don't seem to have any strategic vision for how to build a larger coalition and get more voters. You seem to have a "the best candidate will win" attitude. I think 2016 showed quite decisively that such a notion isn't true.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 10-18-2018 at 12:15 AM.
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  22. #442
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,708

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by CPF View Post
    Tom,

    Could you say more about what your 12% is 12% of? I'm not clear. Sounds like it's 12% of all Sanders primary supporters, which I believe would be about 5% of all Democratic primary voters, or 2 1/2% of all 2016 primary voters. Does that sound about right?

    Best,
    Chris
    Chris,

    I mean that of all people who voted for Sanders in the primary, 12% of them voted for Trump in the general election.

    Your numbers match mine pretty closely assuming as many people voted in Republican primaries as in the Democratic primary (roughly 30 million).

    To be fair, though, only about 45% of that 12% identified as Democrats or said they "lean" Democratic. The other 55% may well have supported Sanders not because he was progressive, but because he was an unconventional, non-establishment candidate. So the 45% of the 12% is a much smaller number of voters, though still large enough that Clinton would have been elected President had she received their votes.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •