I somehow missed the news that Gertrude Himmelfarb died last year. Setting aside ideological considerations, she was quite an amazing woman.
@blatham,
There's an opinion (by Bret Stephens) in today's NYT:
Of Course Bernie Can Win
Quote:[...]
As with Sanders, Trump was seen as being way outside his party’s mainstream: a protectionist in a party of free traders; an isolationist in a party of interventionists; a libertine in a party of moralists. As with Sanders, Trump barely belonged to the party whose nomination he sought. As with Sanders, Trump’s message was that he was fighting a “rigged system.”
And as with Sanders, the ideological distaste for Trump among conservatives was matched to the conviction that he couldn’t possibly win. “Let’s Elect Hillary Now,” was the title of one conservative lament about the popularity of supposedly unelectable Republicans, written toward the end of 2015. I know the article well because I wrote it.
Trump won because he was willing to say loudly what his supporters believed deeply; because, in his disdain for what politicians are supposed to be and do, he exuded authenticity; because he was hated by the people his base found hateful; because he had an opponent who, in the minds of his supporters, epitomized corruption and self-dealing; and because he offered radical cures for a country he diagnosed as desperately ill. Despite being the oldest man ever elected president, he seemed (to his voters) fresh, true, bold, and sorely needed.
So it is, and would be, with Sanders. Depth of conviction? Check. Contempt for conventional norms? Check. Opposed by all the right people? Check. Running against a “crooked” opponent? Check. Commitment to drastic change? Check. Like Trump, too, he isn’t so much campaigning for office as he is leading a movement. People who join movements aren’t persuaded. They’re converted. Their depth of belief is motivating and infectious.
The strength of Sanders’s movement is reflected in his blowout fund-raising numbers — nearly $100 million for 2019 — which only rose in the wake of his heart attack. If Sanders wins Iowa (where polls have him in a dead heat for first), and New Hampshire (where he has a slight lead), then the argument about his supposed non-electability will begin to crumble — including among older black voters, who have so far been among Joe Biden’s most important pillars of support.
But even if Sanders won the nomination, how would he win the election? Perhaps more easily than people suspect.
Intensity among Democratic-leaning voters will never be greater. There will likely be no third-party challenger like Ralph Nader to shave his margin, or an influential “NeverSanders” wing among liberal pundits. He will find crossover support from former Trump voters in places like Ohio and Michigan, just as Trump found it from former Obama voters. To energize African-American support, he could choose Eric Holder or Stacey Abrams as his running mate.
Nor will scare tactics work any better against Sanders than they did against Trump. Overwrought comparisons with Hugo Chávez will wear thin, just as comparisons between Trump and Benito Mussolini did. The easiest move in American politics is to show yourself to be less scary than your caricature. Ronald Reagan’s devastating “There you go again” line against Jimmy Carter can be a Sanders quip, too.
I write all this as someone who thinks a Sanders presidency would be ruinous on many levels: by turning the Democratic Party into a socialist one; by turning the American economy into a statist one; and by turning America’s position in the world into a feeble one. I’d hate to see him win the nomination, just as I hated seeing Trump win it in 2016. But wishes aren’t facts. To say Sanders is unelectable is indefensible.
@blatham,
And as far as Bloomberg wanting to "stop Sanders" because he's an "existential threat to the status quo in this country", give me a break. I have little use for Bloomberg but his purpose in running is to prevent Trump from being re-elected. Like many Democrats, he doesn't think Sanders can win. (Personally, with the frequency of exploding news-bombs, I think it's too early to tell.) And as far as fearing the loss of his "billionaire status" that's ridiculous. The "status quo" is basically enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and protected by the increasingly conservative judiciary. Barring an
unprecedented landslide and the wholesale retirement of judges, none of Sanders's visionary programs has a chance of becoming the law of the land. President Sanders will need to implement his "revolution" incrementally — which isn't really a bad thing.
@blatham,
You're too low-information and partisan to take seriously about what's actually happening in American politics.
Are all of these people stupid?
Why Democrats Are Afraid of Bernie Sanders
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/cenk-uygur-on-why-democrats-are-afraid-of-bernie-sanders.html
Fears of Sanders win growing among Democratic establishment
https://apnews.com/7b5a54663fef97c7be2b6cfdc814158b
Democratic Insiders Are Right to Be Afraid of Bernie Sanders
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-insiders-campaign
‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
I could go on for days about the DNC and their disgusting minions attacking Bernie, blackballing him from coverage, lying about him, cheating him.
Bernie is an existential threat to every corrupt politician - and I'd bet my left arm that is 96% of everybody in Congress.
The Republicans say what they are; they spell out their policies and those policies hurt regular people, minorities, women, etc. I think what they are is pretty horrible.
The DNC LIES about what they are. They support many Republican policies, welcome Republicans into the party to have scapegoats when they back up Republican policies with votes, and they fight life-saving and world-saving progressive policies by fighting progressive candidates and lawmakers.
It is waaay past time for thinking people to disentangle themselves from hero worship and sophomoric allegiance to a team, see reality, admit it, and do something about it.
@Walter Hinteler,
I'm not a Stephens fan. I'll just take that last graph:
Quote:I write all this as someone who thinks a Sanders presidency would be ruinous on many levels: by turning the Democratic Party into a socialist one; by turning the American economy into a statist one; and by turning America’s position in the world into a feeble one.
I don't think any of those claims is true or accurate.
But he's right, I think, in arguing that Sanders certainly can win.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party'
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/6/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-in-any-other-country-joe-/
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t thrilled to be sharing a political party with Democratic 2020 front-runner Joseph R. Biden, the congresswoman revealed in a new interview.
When asked by New York magazine what her role in Congress would be under a possible Biden administration, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez groaned.
“Oh God,” she said. “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are.”
____________________________________________
The influx of Republicans into the Dem party have made it Republican Lite.
@hightor,
Quote:Barring an unprecedented landslide and the wholesale retirement of judges, none of Sanders's visionary programs has a chance of becoming the law of the land.
Yes. The hope that a Sanders movement will arise and swamp all or most opposition thus permitting him to suddenly remake American politics is a dangerous delusion.
Pelosi attacks progressives
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS
(Looks like the Dems don't like that democratic part so much...)
Excerpt:
THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL Campaign Committee warned political strategists and vendors Thursday night that if they support candidates mounting primary challenges against incumbent House Democrats, the party will cut them off from business.
The news was officially announced Friday morning, paired with a statement on the committee’s commitment to diversity in consulting — “which, obviously, is just to give themselves cover,” a Democratic political consultant who learned of it Thursday told The Intercept. The consultant asked for anonymity given their relationship with the DCCC, and the party organization’s professed strategy of blacklisting firms that don’t fall in line.
To apply to become a preferred vendor in the 2020 cycle, firms must agree to a set of standards that includes agreeing not to work with anyone challenging an incumbent.
“I understand the above statement that the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus,” the form reads.
It’s no secret that the DCCC and national party leaders often interfere on behalf of preferred candidates. Or that they otherwise jump into the game too late, if they don’t completely write off newcomers who don’t meet their standards. The DCCC is known for prioritizing candidates and direct them to its own consultants, most of whom are alumni of the DCCC, which is known in Washington as a “consultant factory.” The latest move only reaffirms that reputation and sends a warning shot to grassroots and progressive consultants.
Groups working to diversify Congress say the committee has been slow to adequately address lack of representation — i.e., recruiting more women and people of color. Collective PAC, which works to elect black Democrats, sent a letter to the DCCC last year asking why the group didn’t include any black candidates in its “Red to Blue” program, which targets seats that have a promising chance to flip. They added several candidates after that, including current Reps. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Colin Allred of Texas.
D-trip claims its top priority is protecting the majority, and that in order to do so, they must keep internal discord at a minimum. But as progressive candidates, organizers, and members build grassroots campaigns and prove they can hold their own, the D-trip’s old playbook is having the opposite effect.
The strategy isn’t new. Though it did bring a few more hiccups in 2018 than expected, which makes the rollout all the more puzzling. “There was never an enforcement that I’ve ever seen,” the strategist told The Intercept. “This is the first time that they are ever making it open policy.”
After their coordinated attack on Laura Moser in Texas’s 7th District, she raised $86,000, got an endorsement from Our Revolution, and made it to a runoff. She eventually lost to current Rep. Lizzie Fletcher. But the episode gave fodder to progressive groups like the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, and Collective PAC, which had formed for precisely that occasion — the party’s increasing inability to make space for new voices, many of them progressive. D-trip proved their point, and Our Revolution and WFP stepped in instead.
And in Nebraska’s 2nd District, the DCCC backed former Rep. Brad Ashford over Kara Eastman, who ended up winning the primary and losing the general election. Ashford was a former Republican who flip-flopped on access to abortion throughout his time in the state legislature and later as a Democrat in the U.S. House, and opposed single-payer health care. Eastman was a staunchly pro-choice progressive who supported Medicare for All. She was one of only two insurgents to beat DCCC-backed candidates last cycle. In the Democratic primary for Kentucky’s 6th District, Amy McGrath beat Jim Gray and later lost to Republican Rep. Andy Barr. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is now recruiting her to run against Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2020.
Strategists and congressional staffers with knowledge of the change say it will disproportionately impact vendors and candidates who are women and people of color, as the consultants who work with incumbents are the ones who’ve come up through the party at a time when its commitment to diversity was even dimmer than it is today.
The committee is telling firms they can’t oppose sitting members, the strategist said. “I’d rather keep the majority too, which is why to me this is kind of stupid to have a blanket rule. Because, if it’s a safe incumbent seat, why does it matter?”
Margaret Sullivan is one of the smartest political-media analysts/critics in the country. Here's a single graph from her column today on
Stephanie Grisham
Quote:She aggressively tweets, of course — often disparaging journalists — and frequently makes appearances on the Trump propaganda network, Fox News, or the even more right wing and equally friendly OANN. (She’s made only a few more mainstream appearances.)
I wanted to point to this graph simply for Sullivan's quite proper use of "
propaganda network" to describe FOX. The mainstream media have been far too accommodating of Murdoch's operation and what it is up to. The growing acceptance that FOX does propaganda as it's main function is welcome.
@Lash,
Your source is not credited, there are no links. Why is that?
You have huge problems with credibility, not least because you've posted unsourced nonsense with links to subscriptions to Encyclopaedia Britannica.
If you want people to read your excerpts you really need to source them properly.
It's not like I haven't given you links to legitimate left wing news groups.
You need to be transparent, like everyone else. When you post something source it. You won't stop people thinking you're sneaky and underhand by using sneaky and underhand tactics.
@Lash,
Then pretty clearly, Sanders ought now to totally disconnect from all cooperative activities with the DNC and the DCCC and any other such establishment body. And, obviously, he should boldly stand and say that Pelosi is an enemy of the people.
Yes or no?
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Your source is not credited, there are no links. Why is that?
A good question that deserves a good answer.
@blatham,
I could still do with a link and something about the Intercept.
I've never heard of it, for all I know it could be some crusading journal, the mouthpiece of the far right or anything in between.
I'm left wing. I almost always post from centre sources like the BBC or left wing ones. I try really hard not to use right wing sources ever. I'm not claiming to never have done it, but you can count the instances on one hand.
@izzythepush,
Link here
You can check wikipedia for info on the site, personnel, etc. It is something of a crusading journal with a strong bias against existing power structures. Much of what it does is actually valuable. The site would almost certainly not exist at all if not for Assange's project even though Glenn Greenwald has long been an extreme voice in political analysis.
@izzythepush,
I’d just brought four previous links in quick succession and forgot.
It’s from The Intercept—from brilliant, brave, Nobel Prize winner Glenn Greenwald, a progressive attorney. Rare, I know.
