A Bernie win in California will still be historic

[Cheese Sandwich]

It would be a major show of strength for the progressive left.

Huge state. It would signal a shift in the US political landscape.

Bernie is different than any other major party candidate in memory. It would signal that our ideas are now mainstream. Guaranteed health care and education. The ideas he talked about from FDR's Economic Bill of Rights. Like the right to a job at a livable wage. And we want to expand Social Security benefits, not shrink them. And dialing back the imperialist attitude in US foreign policy, which would be a huge shift. We're putting these ideas back on the map. Bernie is a historic candidate and a win in California would still be HUGE.

Future politicians will think twice before they vote for a trade deal or give speeches for money, because they will know there is a powerful force out there that will push back.

That's one reason why it's still important for Bernie supporters in all the upcoming states to vote, to send him to the convention with as many delegates as possible. It's a major show of political strength for what we believe in and we're making it clear that we won't be ignored.

[k8conant]

1. Yes!!

[Rebkeh]

2. I agree!

I haven't been there in years (I grew up there) but everyone I knew would be squarely behind Bernie. They probably are.

Let's go, Cali!!

[Hortensis]

20. I dont. The progressive left is split between two

candidates with strongly overlapping goals, but very different plans and timetables for achievement.

Fact is, with two viable progressive choices, a majority have now chosen Hillary. If she lost every state from here on, including California, she would still win.

Ultimately, real progressives will of course fight for our common cause. Yes, 7% of current Bernie supporters say they will vote for The Donald and others are angrily declaring they will put negative feelings above progressivsim. Most won't mean it in the end, but I think we can agree that those who do are not exactly committed progressives.

[Rebkeh]

23. You misunderstand the nature of the split

The plans and timetables are not the dividing factor. It's about whom the party works for, the people or the system? It is supposed to work for the people, but doesn't.

This has been established as fact for quite a long time now.

[Hortensis]

24. No. Your greatest weakness as a wannabe political force

Is your sad inability, or refusal -- makes no difference in the end -- to respect and acknowledge that others share your beliefs and goals. And there are far more "others."

Even most conservatives are very concerned about who their party works for. Yes, they are far more comfortable with what we feel is a totally unacceptable class-stratified society, and authoritarian government to various degrees, but that doesn't mean they want to be turned into peasants.

That liberals care above all about who our nation belongs to and whether our government is truly a government of, by, and for the people has been explained on this forum many times in many ways. Liberalism created that form of government.

Unfortunately, the extreme righteousness that is a prime characteristic of radical thinking does not allow those under its influence to accept that what makes them special is not unique insights and principles but rather their energy, impatience, and demand for relatively "extreme" solutions -- and of course the extreme intolerance and rejection of all who don't bear their label and agree completely with them.



And here we are.

[Fresh_Start]

28. +1000

For whatever reason, the wings don't seem to believe that the majority of the people should choose the direction of the country.
They think only their opinion matters...either we are low-information or we are bribed or we are just too stupid to be allowed to choose for ourselves.

[anigbrowl]

31. + another 1000

This post should be read over and over and over because there is considerable wisdom here. Radicalism in ideas is a great thing, without it we'd never make any progress. But most radicals are not as smart as they think they are, stubborn to the point of being impossible to work with, and take it personally whenever anyone points out a flaw in their arguments. My experience is that when radicals get upset with someone and make the disagreement personal, they tend to engage in exactly the same sort of authoritarian pressure tactics they make a show of being against. I have in-laws who were confined in re-education camps in communist countries because the local political officers just couldn't deal with the possibility that someone might disagree with them.

I've grown to dislike radicals for the same reason that I dislike every other kind of coercive authoritarian. Most radicals I meet just want to keep the same sort of power structure but put themselves at the apex of it.

[Hortensis]

33. Oh, you nailed it Anigbrowl. I'm glad that you

also pointed out the value of radicalism in ideas, which I stopped before getting to (I rattle on way too long).

But also their ruthlessness and lack of empathy in the face of opposition and their frequent authoritarian streak. I believe I see nascent auhoritarianism in Bernie, which would help explain his appeal.

[leftynyc]

36. Allow me to add my +1000

Extremely well said.

[Stuckinthebush]

37. Dayum

Spot and and so beautifully stated!

[Maedhros]

34. Your analysis is fatally flawed.

The "progressive left" is not split - it's unified behind Bernie Sanders' message.

The "faux left" is not the "progressive left", and Hillary's goals do not overlap with Bernie's.

Alas, propaganda is effective...

[anigbrowl]

35. Note the rhetorical fallacies on display here

Poster claims (without any evidence) to represent a particular bloc and be able to speak for it, while denouncing competing blocks as fakers and then invoking 'propaganda' as the explanation for a lack of political success (the implicit argument being that the masses are burdened with a false consciousness - anything is preferable to admitting hat people might have seriously entertained the radical agenda but then chosen to reject it).

[ViseGrip]

3. Californians voting in a primary is historic in itself!

[Kalidurga]

4. California or Bust

That has been something I said at the very beginning. I did think Bernie was going to win more states. But, that was before I got a peak inside how dirty TPTB can play.

[TMontoya]

5. And irrelevant. nt

[GReedDiamond]

8. Good to know that my vote...

...in the June 7 California Primary is "irrelevant."

Thank you for your "support" of democratic ideals.

On edit: I take it that you likewise feel that my vote, as well as all other Californians, will be "irrelevant" in the GE?

[ContinentalOp]

17. As a Californian,

I accepted the total irrelevance of my vote a long time ago! Of course the supposed progressive revolutionary candidate has nothing to say about true reforms like giving us truly proportional representation in the house or abolishing the electoral college, because he loves those sweet tiny state votes and caucuses that count more than we do!

[GReedDiamond]

18. Yes, usually CA does not matter, at this point in the process...

...this time, it does.

RE: "...the supposed progressive revolutionary candidate has nothing to say about true reforms like giving us truly proportional representation in the house or abolishing the electoral college"...I'm assuming by "us" you mean CA...if so, what does Hillary have to say about that, and the electoral college?

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen where she's on about these things.

[nolawarlock]

6. Yeah, let's keep wasting taxpayer money.

This was the best argument yet that all these primaries should be paid for entirely by the parties.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I agree with you, no primary should be tax funded

let's get started.

By the way, oh wise one, the June Primary is colloquially known as the JUNE ELECTION in off years. Care to guess why?

But I agree with you, let's make all primaries paid by the parties from now on. I am all for that! On and not doing it on the day of MY JUNE ELECTION ok, and absolutely no state resources. By the way, close it while at it, but don't pretend it is democratic.. mkay.

[nolawarlock]

14. Oddly enough

In the few years I spent studying politics at Brandeis (granted, a million years ago and I never went into politics or law), I never came across that term. So why is it called the June Election in off years?

I don't think the problem is the closed primary. I'm ok with a party wanting to keep it to the party and that is perfectly democratic within the party. I think the problem is that our system has thus far not supported more than two parties so that Libertarians and Greens and others can hold their own primaries. And, frankly, I wish they would do away with parties entirely.

One thing I also potentially support is the elections all on the same day but I do wonder if that's feasible. Could it be that they want to give candidates a chance to campaign in those states? If you had all the primary elections on one day, it seems as though some states would be prioritized far more than others in terms of campaigning, even more so than they are now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Because it happens in well June every two years

We get to decide silly unimportant shit like council seats, citizen initiatives, ballot initiatives. Just that every four years they have the federal presidential election added. Every two years they include house seats and senators, except the latter it is every two years on, like this year to replace boxer and in two Feinstein is on...then in 2020 there will be no senate seat at stake.

That is why they are called June Elections or June Ballot.

But I am all for decoupling the primaries and letting the parties pay for them on their own.

[nolawarlock]

16. Oh ok. Thank you for the explanation.

That makes sense and I agree.

[brooklynite]

25. I actually have no problem at all with the Party funding their nominating contests...

1) That'll be a closed primary, right?

2) Since it won't be tax-funded, and you don't like big dollar contributions, will you support a dues structure for everyone who wants to participate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. How your club does it is your business

I am one of those hated independents. But I am betting in caucuses. They are cheaper to run

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. I think that's exactly the point.

i.e of the flurry of nervous OPs demanding to , in effect, shut down DU as free-speech DEM forum in advance of California. ( Other states too, of course; but esp Cal.)

[dchill]

9. K&R! Hi, Cheese.

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. ..

[LuvLoogie]

11. Hillary won the California Primary in 2008. So yeah. That history bell has been rung.

California is way ahead of Bernie. Jerry Brown has been doing it for decades as a stalwart, life-long Democrat. I know Bernie invented progressive taxation and all, but really...

[jfern]

19. Jerry Brown voted Nader in 2000. Bernie has supported every Democratic nominee for 35 years.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. CA Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom supports marijuana legalization. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

votes to send not only recreational but medical marijuana users to prison.

Funny, I sense a bit of a philosophical conflict, there.

And I think I know which side is going to eventually win.

[BreakfastClub]

12. Hillary won California in 2008. She'll no doubt win it agan too. nt

[Joob]

22. Bernie's got to fight for it.

Honestly, he as to address election fraud at rallies, it's no secret the DNC has been against him. All he's trying to do is save it, and at this point I'm thinking fuck you DNC.

[MineralMan]

26. If he wins California. That's by no means certain.

By that time, there may well be a drop-off of Sanders supporters motivated to go to vote in that primary. I can't be sure, but that often happens when a primary can't affect the nomination. I lived in CA for over 50 years, and saw that happen a number of times. California's primary is a late one, so it can serve as a tie-breaker, due to it's huge delegate count. In many elections, it's primary doesn't matter much for the nomination, and California voters respond with low turnouts.

We'll see what happens this year, but I wouldn't count on a Sanders win there. More likely, it will go 60-40 or so for Hillary, based on the trend that is developing. Once it's clear than Sanders can't get the nomination, CA will swing toward the leader. I've seen it happen personally.

[jwirr]

27. Bernie supporters in any state that has not voted already

should get to the polls and vote for him. If we are ever going to change the direction of this country we need to let the establishment know that we are not playing the game anymore.


PLEASE vote for Bernie.

[ieoeja]

29. And since she already has it won, Californians can vote their conscience

Love Bernie, but don't think he can win? Now you can vote for him since she is going to be the nominee anyway.

That should be the message every Hillary supporter pushes now. It would be a great unifying message.

[MariaThinks]

32. i'm very progressive, very left, and support Hillary but i like Bernie

I believe it's time to focus on keeping republicans our of office and winning back the house and senate. And very importantly, ensuring we get progressives on the Supreme Court.

[leftynyc]

38. +100,000

To me, nothing is more important than the federal bench. Nothing.

[MariaThinks]

41. it affects everything

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. What about a Bernie loss in California?

[ucrdem]

40. Sigh. No harm in wishful thinking but this is as likely as Bernie's historic PA win last night. nt