One hears quite frequently on cable news shows these days
that there no longer is a Democratic Party Establishment. With Buttigieg, Steyer, and Klobuchar
dropping out of the race within twenty-four hours and Klobuchar and Buttigieg
ready to endorse Biden, it is hardly surprising to see that these obituaries are
premature.
I have a question: when
Trump spends every single day of the
campaign talking about Hunter Biden, the one subject Joe Biden cannot confront,
the one subject mention of which leaves Biden defensive, evasive, belligerent,
and confused, how does the Establishment plan to explain to their loyal
subjects and appanages why Biden is
losing?
I may have to move to Paris, Coronavirus or no Coronavirus.
23 comments:
The debate in our house is between Ireland (west coast near Sligo), or Paris.
Quite frankly, the thought of Lindsey Graham holding hearings on the Bidens, with the assistance of Wm.Barr's weaponized Justice Dep't investigations, is a nightmare incarnate. There is a democratic party establishment on both national and state levels, and the superdelegates. No need to rehash what the super delegates and do in a brokered convention, but it is important to note that state party organizations can choose to hang a nominee out to dry.
Well it isn't like Trump and his family are occupying some moral high ground here either. So I mean just how hypocritical can Trump be? We know he is effective at it though so there is that. Hopefully Bernie wins and we don't have to worry about Biden and his son anymore.
Will the attacks on Hunter Biden be effective? Who knows? Will Bernie’s socialism be an insurmountable obstacle? I do not know.
I’m voting for Bernie because his endurance in polls in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have convinced me that he is the best candidate to beat the current occupant of the White House. I believe people will show up for him. And happily he’s by far the candidate whose politics most align with my own. But at this point much feels like an act of faith.
In the last comment thread Christopher Mulvaney said that the establishment’s imagined coalition no longer exists. But the establishment is banking on huge support from the Black community along with those upscale suburban women who voted blue in ‘18, the latter group, especially, being allegedly disinclined to vote for Bernie. Their focus is as much on the House and Senate as the White House. Are they right? I do not know. The logic doesn’t seem totally crazy to me, though. Part of me remains sympathetic to that argument. Tomorrow we’ll know a whole lot more. We just have to wait and see.
How will the Establishment explain to their loyal subjects and appanages why Biden is losing?
They won't. They will decry GOP tactics in strongly worded tweets.
Ed Barreras,
The old democratic coalition consisted of urban machines, unions and blue collar workers, white southerners, farmers, Jews, Southern and Eastern Europeans, intellectual and the poor. There are few urban machines left (if any) that rival their predecessors. Union membership has been decimated. White Southerners, we all know how that went and it is the basis for Republican electoral dominance since the 1980's. The rural midwest has gone Republican big time, and the small farmers lost out to corporate farming or became big farmers. So substantial portions of the old democratic party are gone.
In 2018 every demographic group had significant gains in turnout. The biggest was among voters age 18-29 and 30-44. Respectively, the increase in turnout was 15.7% and 13.2%. The Black vote was up 10.8%, Asian vote up 13.3% and the Hispanic vote was up 13.4%. The women's vote was up12.0%. In sum, turnout was up 11.5%. Voter turnout was 53.4%. People with lower educational attainment increased but at relatively low numbers (< high school diploma 5% and diploma or equivalent 8.2%. Folks with some college up to advanced degrees showed increases in the 12 - 12.8%.
The new coalition would seem to be younger voters, who are strongly democratic, new minorities - Asians and Hispanics joining Black voters and a shift of better educated independents who, with women leading the way, shifting to the democratic column. The claim that certain groups will never vote for Bernie, like suburban women seems far fetched to me. These suburban women know who Trump is, that's why they shifter allegiance and nothing has changed. Trump remains a pig, and Sanders isn't.
While there are some similarities to the old coalition, i.e., the Back and urban vote, the changes are significant.
The young intellectuals will vote for Bernie, however, if and when Biden gets the nod all bets are off. The blacks won't vote for the likes of racist Buttigieg or Biden, and the young relevant voters want change and Bernie, Biden is seen as more of the same. We are at a crossroads for change and Bernie is the legitimate leader, what's it going to be America, Biden? No, he's just a bad taste in the mouths of the youth. Its Bernie, and an attempt at change, or Trump. A failed American march rebellian. I'm voting for Bernie, or throwing out a spiteful Trump vote.
In the event of Biden becoming the nominee, I would, with disgust, vote for him. Politicians often seem like an alien species to me--cold, smarmy, narcissistic (Sanders is an exception). I remember Emerson singling out Shakespeare as a particularly distinctive writer because, while one could find one's way into Plato or some other great writer's mind, with Shakespeare one always remains outside. This is kind of how I see most politicians. I simply find it difficult to nestle into the mind of somebody who would lie about having been arrested in apartheid South Africa, then lie about what one meant, all the while disingenuously attacking Sanders and lying about Medicare For All. Or, in the case of Klobuchar, the kind of mindset necessary to evade any criticism directed at her handling of the Myon Burrell case, amid calls by the NAACP to suspend her campaign. I'm not trying to credit myself by maligning these people. It just seems, upon reflection, like a totally foreign mindset. Alas, I'm not famous and have not met any politicians.
On a separate note: apart from his odious history of serving corporate power, I'm always surprised at how remarkably inarticulate Biden is in discussing politics when this is ostensibly what he's spent his life learning about and doing.
Those who don't know the writing of Caitlin Johnstone, should. She an Australian journalist.
Here is her latest op-ed on the Democratic establishment's (Obama??) co-ordination of the drop-outs prior to Super Tuesday:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/03/03/dems-converge-around-dementia-addled-warmonger-ahead-of-super-tuesday/
Note: Warren's failure to drop out, which would help Bernie and progressives, helps Biden and signals her belief that she will part of the Biden ticket come the 2nd ballot either on the top or the bottom.
I think it's a mistake to see Biden's win in SC as evidence of the power of the "Democratic Establishment." It is evidence of the power of the black vote in Democratic politics. I'm sure few, if any, of those who voted for Biden in SC first asked the Establishment for recommendation.
David P.
60% of African Americans who voted for Biden in SC voted because of Clyburn's endorsement. Clyburn
said that "It's time for Democrats to consolidate behind Biden." SC African Americans deeply trust Clyburn.
Behind the scene, Obama is pulling the strings....calling in endorsements from establishment Dems.
Encouraging analysis from CNN:
"The groups that have most favored the senator from Vermont in the Democratic presidential race are much more widely distributed than the groups that have resisted him across the 14 states that will vote on Super Tuesday, an exclusive congressional district by district analysis has found.
"Latinos and non-college educated whites, who have tilted solidly toward Sanders, constitute a critical mass of the eligible voting age population in a much wider range of districts than college-educated whites and African Americans, who have been more skeptical of him, according to the analysis of census data by the University of Southern California Program for Environmental and Regional Equity provided to CNN."
Interesting, if correct, that non-college educated whites tilt solidly for Sanders. I thought that group was solidly for Trump. It might mean only those who are registered Democrats, if census data can pick that up; another possibility is that non-college educated whites overall tilt toward Sanders, but that males do not and females do.
Jerry,
No doubt Clymer had influence. But the people still are the ones who vote. They don't have to listen to Clymer or anyone else, and some didn't. A politician who has that kind of influence gets it because people respect and trust him for what he has done in the past, which is just another way of saying that his policy preferences are those of his constituents. If they weren't, he wouldn't have that kind of influence.
While the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, Sanders--who isn't even a Democrat--is to the left of the Democrats. What's been happening these last 4 years, I think, is that more and more Democrats are moving toward Sanders' positions, particularly on health care and pocket book issues. He's moving the party to the left, but there's still a long, long way to go.
Maybe this sound strange and I'm just trying it out here.
I'd like Bernie to win, but I support him whether he can win or not. He's a decent human being as far as I can see and I don't see anyone else in the race as a decent human being, not Biden nor Bloomberg and certainly not Trump.
So I'm dividing the world into decent human beings and those who aren't decent.
Sure, within the category of non-decent human beings, Franco was "better" than Hitler, Hubert Humphrey was "better" than Nixon, and Bloomberg is "better" than Trump.
Would I vote for a non-decent human being if he or she were "better" than the alternative
non-decent human being? I've done it at times in the past and at times I haven't. I'm not even sure that it's an entirely rational decision, and as I get older, I feel more and more comfortable with my non-rational decisions.
Be responsible, you say. But why should I be responsible if the Democratic Party establishment is doing its best to destroy the best candidate that they've had in many years, Bernie Sanders. That isn't very responsible on their part and since they are "serious" people and I'm not, why should I have to be so fucking responsible?
David P
The fact is, according to exit polls, 60% of Sc blacks who voted for Biden did so, they said, because of Clyburn's endorsement. Clyburn had held out, but in a few days before the election, he called for Dems to unite behind
Biden. Absent Clyburn's endorsement, Biden would not have had his "blowout" performance. Further, absent Dem establishment types (read phone calls from Obama) Clyburn more than likely would have remained silent.
I wouldn't label Bernie as to the left of the Democrats. That is true only if you eliminate most of the Democrats.
Bernie is to the left of the Dem establishment which fear giving the Dem base a voice.
When Trump spends every single day of the campaign talking about Bernie’s commitment to huge tax increases and decriminalization of illegal border crossing, the two subjects mention of which leaves Bernie defensive and evasive, how does the left plan to explain to their loyal subjects and appanages why Bernie is losing? This is not a rhetorical question- I’m genuinely curious to know how he can deal with this line of attack as opposed to the spurious ones he has had to fend off from his rivals for the nomination.
In response to Anonymous at 4:03 PM:
1. Talk about gargantuan increases in wealth and inequality under present and previous regimes.
2. Talk about shifting to a much more progressive tax regime including a wealth tax.
3. Talk about how much a great many people will save through not having to pay medical insurance premiums and deductibles.
4. Talk about how free education will enormously benefit most families/students and how it will open up access to certain kinds of jobs and--to my mind no small point--simultaneously help a great many more people develop a critical understanding of the factors which rule their lives.
Isn't he already talking about these things?
R McD
As a matter of political tactics, I think you’re right. Something that worries me, though, is how Bernie will react to the fact that all that he promises requires legislation, and his chances of getting M4A, free college at public institutions etc. through Congress are virtually nil. Bernie has not been known as a deal maker, a believer that half a loaf is better than none. He could hold out for everything and spend four years denouncing Congress; or he could make deals for half a loaf. Either way there’s a problem. He accomplishes nothing or he gets less than he said he would get, either one of which I believe will turn off a lot of his present supporters. He’s definitely my choice (though I was flirting with Warren for a while), but the biggest benefit I see in his election is that Trump would be out. Bernie won’t make crazy decisions. He’ll appoint good people. He won’t insult our allies and cozy up to autocratic thugs. He will fully staff the bureaucracy and listen to the experts before making his decisions. He’ll respect the rule of law and not expect the Attorney General to be his lawyer. The list goes on.
Thank you. I agree that. 1. and 4. are great things for Bernie to be talking about! But are they enough to assuage people’s worries about 2. and 3. together with their concern about illegal immigration? I’m talking about people who are doing very nicely under Trump, are fairly happy with their health plans and might reasonably perceive 2. and 3. as a threat to their livelihood. Is it worth the risk of losing such people in suburban PA, Jersey, MI etc. in order to bring in new voters who are more open to social democracy? Suppose we break down the new voters into young people, Latinx, African American, and third party supporters. Does bringing in these people result in accumulating votes in a concentrated fashion in cities and college towns? I’m just trying to figure out how risky this strategy is.
This captures my worries precisely:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/03/sanders-is-terribly-risky-nominee-so-is-biden/
DP: Your link is behind a paywall; couldn't read it.
I suppose Bernie is risky, especially given that the media would be incredibly hostile. Yet he does better
than the others in polls against Trump. Further, much of the hostility and ganging up on Bernie plays into his brand. Because the establishment is openly out to get him is proof that he is a real threat to them, ie, sincere and authentic.
Biden has more baggage than HRC. Luckily for him Bernie does not go in for negative ads. He's a groper who lies about his positions on Iraq. He treated Anita Hill disrespectfully, to say the least. Lied about getting arrested in an attempt to "see" Nelson Mandela. He tried to cut SS three times. He's a friend of finance capital. And Trump will hammer him endlessly about the corruption surrounding his son. If that were not enough, the guy can't complete a sentence and he's often rude and angry with questioners. The effort by Obama and other establishment types is pathetic and boneheaded not to mention slimy.
Jerry,
Here are some excerpts that should give you the gist:
Biden:
His victory in South Carolina does not change the fundamental fact that he is simply terrible at running for president — even worse than in his disastrous runs in 1988 and 2008. Those who are on the campaign trail will tell you that he is showing his age — he starts sentences then can’t find his way out of them, he’s surly when challenged, and he says cringeworthy things on a daily basis. His debate performances have ranged from barely acceptable to abysmal.
So how much confidence do you have that Biden wouldn’t find a way to screw this up?
Sanders:
He could be just as problematic a nominee. The first reason is the obvious one: He’s farther to the left than any nominee we’ve had in pretty much forever. There’s a good potential that his views on policy — especially when run through the ringer of an unsympathetic media and a highly motivated opposition — will come to seem dangerous, even frightening.
While Sanders might not depress Democratic turnout in the way some other candidate might, his ability to bring significant numbers of new voters in — without simultaneously motivating higher turnout among Republicans that would cancel it out — is for the moment a proposition without evidence to back it up.
The writer concludes:
You might find one of these two stories more persuasive than the other; chances are it’s the one that matches up with the preference you already have for one or the other candidate. But the fact is that neither of the two men with the best chance of being the Democratic nominee looks like a strong general election candidate.
Sorry if that fills you with dread; that’s certainly how I feel. But it’s the truth.
If you're trying to burn fat then you certainly need to start using this brand new custom keto meal plan diet.
To design this service, certified nutritionists, fitness couches, and top chefs united to develop keto meal plans that are productive, suitable, economically-efficient, and fun.
Since their first launch in early 2019, 1000's of individuals have already completely transformed their figure and health with the benefits a smart keto meal plan diet can offer.
Speaking of benefits; in this link, you'll discover 8 scientifically-proven ones given by the keto meal plan diet.
Best Merchant Cash Advance Leads are exclusive Leads addressed to you Merchant Cash Advance Leads is the Qualified MCA Leads provider as a firm in the entire globe.
Post a Comment