Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalIf voter suppression is a concern of yours, you should advocate for doing away with caucuses.
A caucus is not amenable to folks who can't invest hours just to cast a vote. Many working people, parents, persons with disabilities, people who wish to keep their vote private and others are simply not going to participate.
Replace caucuses with primaries, have polls open over the course of a few days (Thursday through Saturday) and have a mail-in option.
Can't something be done about repeat threads?
Day after day in GDP, there are numerous threads about the exact same topic. It's clutter. It pushes other threads to page 2 and beyond.
Perhaps GDP could be broken up into multiple categories, or there could simply be a moderator who merges repeat threads.
Let's review why it was clear by mid-March who was going to end up with more pledged delegates.
It was suggested in another thread that saying Clinton's ultimate pledged delegate majority was evident by mid-March is a form of fantastical thinking. But it really isn't. As we near the end of the primary season, let's review why:
Following Super Tuesday (March 1) and Clinton's 5-state sweep on March 15, it was very apparent that Clinton was stronger in diverse, delegate-rich states. And that Clinton was stronger in primaries, as opposed to vote-suppressing caucuses. You see those patterns, you look at the contests to come, and you see the writing on the wall.
While Sanders hadn't been mathematically eliminated from reaching 2026 (even now he's not mathematically eliminated), there was no reason to believe those patterns would suddenly get flipped upside down (it would have taken something truly monumental). One could see that Clinton's lead would ebb and flow a bit, but it wasn't going away. And that's precisely what has happened. Not because some of us are fortune tellers, but because patterns were quite evident. We weren't reading tea leaves. We were simply observing what was obvious.
Numerous requests were made back in March for someone to demonstrate with delegate math a realistic path to victory for Sanders, and delegate calculators were readily available for use. The *only* attempt I ever saw was one dubbed The Bern Path, but it was utterly unrealistic, as I pointed out at the time (it had Sanders winning by large margins in PA, NY, NJ and CA, while only losing by 10 points in MD and 16 points in DC). And even then The Bern Path had Sanders just barely finishing ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates. Why was this unrealistic example the only one put forth? Because there simply wasn't a realistic path for Sanders, not after those aforementioned patterns became so evident. The denial of mathematical and demographic realities (or simply a failure to recognize them) justifiably earned the term BernieMath.
By the way, Clinton does better (overall) in urban areas. Urban areas are where polling place shortages are most likely to occur, which blows a pretty big hole in the theory that contests are rigged in Clinton's favor.
Technically, of course the primaries weren't "over" in mid-March. And of course nothing is "official" until the convention. Practically speaking, however, the writing was on the wall months ago.
Maybe she does support it, but that's not what the article says.
It simply says "she respects the Justice Department decision." Typically, that's a way of saying, "It's their decision to make and not my place to criticize."
There's no telling how Clinton truly feels about the death penalty. Obama was probably for gay marriage long before he was willing to acknowledge as much. If a mass movement leads to abolishing the death penalty, Clinton won't stand in the way. Let's face it, politicians (particularly those who are or might become POTUS) say and do what is politically expedient. Sanders is and always has been more free to speak his mind, because his campaign is a message campaign.
The bottom line is that systemic changes require mass movements. In a very individualistic culture, we tend to overestimate the power and influence of individual actors. Getting rid of the death penalty requires mass organization.
It's not the individual; it's the system.
The US is so individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality that it's easy to overestimate the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. Obama was against gay marriage (publicly at any rate) until a mass movement allowed him to vocalize a more humane position.
This being a 2-person race and Sanders able to capitalize on anti-establishment sentiment, he's done remarkably well. But he, too, is a cog in a wheel and is far from having a record on foreign policy that supports the notion that he's the candidate of peace. Consider the following:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/04/27/kill-a27.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/
Bringing about broad systemic change requires organization/mass movements, and I think local politics is where it all begins. I can hold my nose and vote for a presidential candidate without it compromising my values and without it meaning I'm investing a great deal of energy in national politics. I'm much more invested in local organizations.
There seem to be 3 realistic outcomes this November. Clinton winning by a wide margin (in both the popular vote and the electoral college vote), Clinton winning by a slim margin and Trump winning. You can contribute to any one of those scenarios simply by voting--it doesn't require an investment of time and energy. Which of those scenarios is most likely to help lay the groundwork for progressive reform? A strong rejection of Trump, a weak rejection of Trump or a Trump victory?
I'll close by linking to 2 writings by Julio Huato that were kind of game-changing for me:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2011/2011-June/007032.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/jhuato01.html
I get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party (and its various representatives). I get that there's a valid critique of the US political system as a whole. What I have a problem with (pertaining to Democratic Underground, particularly GDP) is the denial of reality/fantastical thinking, promotion of grand conspiracies (the denial, if you will, of Occam's Razor) and all of the straw man arguments put forth day after day. Since GDP is dominated by Sanders supporters, the vast majority of that stuff comes from Sanders supporters. All of which hurts the cause, so to speak.
Just some food for thought (from someone who isn't a big fan of either Clinton or Sanders, a reader of Howard Zinn and Robert Jensen, etc.).
Which of the following scenarios would best help lay the groundwork for progressive reform?
A) Trump beating Clinton
B) Clinton beating Trump by a slim margin
C) Clinton beating Trump by a wide margin
Let's review what took place regarding the DMX-Sanders Rally story.
It's quite instructive really. Sanders supporters have been claiming that the story was being peddled all over DU by Clinton supporters, but is that actually true? Let's review:
2 threads were started at more or less the same time (4 minutes apart) peddling the story. Here's one of them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512074682. What do you see? You see posters (most of whom are Sanders supporters) talking about how it was a mistake to play that song. The OP was hidden and there were, what, 10-12 Clinton supporters posting in that thread?
Here's the other thread that was started 4 minutes earlier but didn't get as much play initially: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2074645. That thread had only 19 posts (again, mostly from Sanders supporters) and fell off of page 1 (partly due to all of the threads disputing the story). It got resurrected (with a title change) after it broke that it was a Sanders supporter who was behind the prank.
Every other thread (6 by my count) on the subject was about how the story was bogus. Those threads were filled with baseless accusations that David Brock or some mysterious "they" (presumably Clinton surrogates) was behind the prank. In fact, there were more baseless accusations like that than there were Clinton supporters peddling the story.
That's the reality of what took place here at DU yesterday. I know it doesn't match the narrative and I'm sure some won't accept that reality, but there you have it.
A question for those who think Trump will defy the consensus and win in November.
Outside of the DU bubble, there's a pretty broad consensus that Clinton is a heavy favorite come November. But many DU posts suggest that Trump will not only win but that he'll win with ease.
So, I'm curious, which traditionally blue states and which swing states do those folks foresee Trump winning?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
I just have to put this out there after seeing multiple people suggest it is up to others ("do your own homework"
to prove or disprove a claim they've made. That's not how things work in grown-up world.
What's more, some of those same people have been known to demand that others back up claims they've made. You can't have it both ways.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Simple as that.
The DU Bubble and the Legitimate Leftist Critique of Today's Democratic Party
Is it any wonder why people laugh off the suggestion that Clinton will have to step down or that Trump (in spite of the general consensus outside of the DU bubble) will kick her ass in November? For the folks who believe either of those things, if you end up being wrong, will you acknowledge as much? Consider the list below:
Back on Super Tuesday, posters (and Cenk from TYT) actually said Sanders had won the day and it marked the beginning of the end of Clinton's campaign. Nearly 3 months later and she's well on her way to winning a clear majority of pledged delegates, as many of us predicted she would be.
On the night of the Indiana primary, DU posters claimed there was no media coverage of Bernie's win, even though there were headlines everywhere.
Thread after thread suggests many are claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, even though nobody can point to a single post in which that claim is made.
And then there's the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Remember how Carter beat Reagan? Remember how George HW Bush beat Clinton? Remember how McCain beat Obama? Me neither.).
And then there's this refusal to accept what numerous surveys reveal about who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152
And then there's the false claims about which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US.
And then there's the conspiracies surrounding exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).
And then there are all of the posts suggesting low primary turnout translates to low general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).
And then there are the suggestions that losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general, which is so obviously untrue (Are there not states Obama lost in the 2008 primary that he won in the general election?).
And then there are the posts implying Clinton can't win open primaries, even though she's won more open primaries than Sanders has.
And then there are claims that many Clinton supporters are saying it's "her turn," in which case it should be easy to point to numerous posts as evidence, but nobody seems able to do that (gee, I wonder why).
The DU bubble is a fantasy land where preconceived notions and desires trump reality. This hinders the cause, it doesn't help. Yes, there's a valid leftist critique of today's Democratic Party. There's a valid critique of the US political system in general, particularly the influence of Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Oil, etc. But subscribing to and promoting nonsense - denying reality and pushing fantasy - does a disservice to the effort to bring about systemic change, which is not something that will come about as a result of an election (people have to get organized and take action *between* election cycles).
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
