There’s one thing that has really been sticking in my craw. I keep hearing, with plenty of justification, that Bernie Sanders is not going to be able to implement any of his proposals because he won’t find a Congress in Washington, DC that is willing to vote for them. This is almost definitely true. At best, Sanders might be able to find a sympathetic Congress in a second term if post-2020 census redistricting goes really well for the left. But, given how reluctant the Republicans have been to negotiate with Obama and their antipathy for Hillary Clinton, she won’t be able to get much of what she’s proposing enacted, either.
You can make a halfway decent argument that she stands a better chance than Sanders. For one thing, she’d get less resistance from her own party. For another, her proposals are less ambitious. But this strikes me as arguing over the relative chances of the Philadelphia Phillies and San Diego Padres winning the next World Series. If nothing changes, legislative activity in Congress will stay largely reduced to naming post offices and congratulating sports teams for winning sporting events.
That’s why I am very sympathetic to what Matt Yglesias is saying here:
…mainstream Democrats have no real plan to win Congress or state offices, so in terms of big schemes for change (Clinton vs. Sanders is) a choice between two different flavors of wishful thinking, not between realism and impracticality.
I’m not saying that I’m in any way sold on Sanders’s theory of revolutionary change. But it’s an argument. He’s telling us what needs to happen in order for him not only to be elected but to be able to accomplish anything meaningful when he’s in office.
Clinton is not even acknowledging that gridlock is an unacceptable problem.
Now, if you ask experts or even lowly bloggers like me, we’ll tell you all the reasons why it’s almost impossible for the Democrats to win back control of the House of Representatives. If the Dems can get control of enough governors’ mansions and state legislatures over the next four years, they may be able to redraw the congressional lines in a way that makes it possible to win control, but that’s a long way off. Therefore, it’s just more realistic to assume that the next president will be dealing with a Congress that is controlled at least partially by Republicans. Hillary Clinton seems to be acknowledging this unpleasant reality and there is something admirable about leveling with the American people and not making a bunch of promises that you don’t believe you’ll be able to keep.
But, if the Democrats must accept this is the best they can do, they are actually freed of any need to differentiate between what Clinton and Sanders can accomplish. Neither of them will be able to do almost anything legislatively they say that they want to do, so the decision shouldn’t be made on the basis of who is being more practical. In fact, this situation favors the more ideologically committed candidate because most of their impact will be made at their discretion through executive actions.
Clinton should get credit for realism, but Sanders should get credit for having vision and ambition.
More than anything, though, Clinton’s best argument is that she can get stuff done and that Bernie cannot. But, without a theory for how to win back the House, she’s undermining her best argument.
If the Clintons really do retool their campaign after New Hampshire, they should focus on creating a “real plan to win Congress or state offices” so the central rationale for her candidacy isn’t so easily dismissed as “a different flavor of wishful thinking.”
This plan doesn’t necessarily have to be more plausible than Sanders’s plan. It would be good, though, if it could at least stand the sniff test.
Thank you! I’ve been beating this drum for weeks.
I’m completely not sold on Sanders’s theory of change. It’s bullshit. So we are, in fact, choosing between two different flavors of wishful thinking. Then why not choose one that better represents the aspirations of the left?
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2016/02/the-left_9.html
If the BMW I don’t get for my birthday is the wrong color, I’m going to shoot somebody.
I’m glad you two understand each other, because I sure don’t. Hillary Clinton “better represents the aspirations of the left”? The motivation of Sanders supporters is like threatening to shoot somebody if they get the wrong color BMW for their birthday? Are we living on the same planet?
We are on the same planet! I wasn’t referring to Clinton as the aspiration-representer. (Though that wasn’t very clear, sorry.)
Thanx, I feel better now.
No you won’t! Don’t sell yourself short.
When you don’t get a BMW for your birthday, you’ll claim it’s the best nonexistent-BMW of all possible nonexistent-BMWs, and anyone who wanted a BMW comprised of molecules–forget about a steering wheel–should count the votes. Where were the votes for the fourth wheel? Where were votes, you ridiculous four-wheeled dreamers?
it may be wishful thinking but its backed up with fundraising. you cant win congressional seats without money. a lot of money. and so far clinton is the only one raising it and sending it off to the down ticket races. over $20 mil. from clinton. none from sanders. and i agree we need a 50 state strategy and to work on those congressional seats but we should be bitching to dws about that.
Through 12/31/15 – Spent to date:
Clinton $77.6 million
Sanders $46.7 million
Doesn’t include spending by Clinton PACs – the estimate for one of them was $5 million or what various other independent organizations spent.
So, it’s not just the dollars, which everybody agrees is necessary to run for office, but also how the dollars are deployed.
If our goal is to reclaim the Congress, we need to be putting time and money into getting Democrats elected at state levels. Thing is, one of our candidates has done so consistently and substantially for decades. The other hasn’t. If that is your concern, Clinton should be your choice.
that’s a great counterargument that the Clintons should steal.
Thank you.
Another one is that Hillary Clinton is raising money for the Democratic party and giving some of her campaign money to staff Democratic party offices around the country. Other than raise money for other candidates, the Presidential candidate has no control over any race besides the big one.
The biggest reason Democrats lose is money. The Koch brothers are going to flood local and swing congressional districts with money. If Sanders is the nominee, Democrats down ticket will run away from his agenda and Democrats will have a terrible time raising money. Bernie might be able to do okay at $30 a pop, but most Democrats can’t.
If the unlikely happens and Congress is flipped, parts or all of Hillary’s agenda are possible. Bernie’s agenda won’t get 60 votes in the Senate or likely pass the House even if Democrats sweep.
Plus there is more to the job – a lot more – than watching your agenda mostly fail. There is appointing a cabinet, running the government, responding to crises, and taking a position on everything that happens in the world. I don’t thing any President’s election agenda established his legacy. I can imagine Hillary doing a good job as President. I can’t imagine Bernie doing anything except shout about Wall street and income inequality while waving his arms.
Finally, I think the fact that neither is likely to have a cooperative Congress, makes the agenda mostly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is winning. I am much more comfortable running a moderate against an extreme than I am running extreme versus extreme.
Particularly when the extreme right will have much, much more money than the extreme left.
Well, just ask the Koch’s for money. I’m sure they will be willing to donate. And they aren’t any worse than Goldman-Sachs who will probably appoint the next treasury secretary, again, out of their ranks. Not to mention having a veto over regulatory appointments.
what happened to your Canadian identity?
Basically her argument is the same as the DLC argument: you have to raise money, and that means not alienating groups like Wall Street and Pharma.
But Sanders has an answer for that; in fact the whole narrative of his campaign hinges on successful, broad, public subscription to match corporate money and maximum individual contributions. That he has done so thus far is a significant achievement, a proof-of-concept and a strong, compelling argument for his candidacy; but no more than it absolutely needs to be. The justification for his campaign requires an alternative source of cash but his electibility demands that the methodology scales to hundreds of millions. He seems to be showing that it just might.
So maybe that’s not the argument Hillary wants to make. I think the original suggestion that lending her political clout to down-ticket races has the advantage of avoiding issues inevitably raised when considering establishment political fund-raising; this Goldman Sachs transcript thing is a tricky bit of business for her as she attempts to reshape the perception of her campaign and perhaps the mission of her candidacy. We’ll see after New Hampshire.
Not quite….”And team players who look at the success Sanders has had are going to see that they could have even more success — not just in presidential primaries, but in primary elections for House and Senate seats and state and local offices — if people who don’t have some of Sanders’s flaws took his ideas and ran with them.”
How much of a chance do that sort of candidates of being funded have under DNC neoliberalism?
As far as I know the DNC has supported the campaigns of progressive candidates, including Elizabeth Warren (such as by hosting fundraisers). http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80607_Page2.html
She was not recruited by the DNC. She could not be ignored, either. Recruitment is where they do their “finger on the scale.”
The evisceration is well done here…http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/dnc-report-says-blankety-blank-democrats-need-national-narrat
ive-project-no-dont.html
All that Clintonian money and support for the past 25 years and what have we got to show for it?
Clinton’s are great at losing seats for Democrats and winning them for Republicans over, and over, and over again. Hillary will only further this trend and seal the fate of the Democratic Party as the minority party.
(minor error above in 2012 Dems gained two and held onto narrow majority in Senate)
I guess I’m beating a dead horse, but Hillary can get stuff done because she wants to do stuff that the Republicans want done. More deregulation, more privatization, more weakening of bank legislation, more world wide war.
And being white and southern (well pseudo-southern) she won’t face the blind opposition that Obama got for just being black.
You make some very good points, but I remain to be convinced that, should HRC get the nomination & win the general election, HRC won’t be bashed just as badly by the pseudo “rightwing,” or worse frankly, than BHO has been.
Frankly, HRC should be running as a rightwing (not moderate) Republican, IMO. Bash me if you want, but that’s how I see it. She’s a NeoCon/NeoLiberal’s dream candidate, who represents Wall St and the MIC. What’s not to love from the GOP perspective??
But as we know, triangulation rules the day, and IMO, the whole purpose of the fed govt is to do as little as possible to prove the Koch’s (and their fellow squillionaire travelers) point that the Fed Govt is a terrible, useless quagmire.
So I fully expect HRC to get the same treatment or worse that Obama has bc why not? Someone pointed out recently on some blog (maybe here) that, as much a blatant outright racism has become mainstream and “acceptable” at least in the M$M media, sexism is even MORE acceptable.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Fox, Rush, et al, won’t go after Hillary hammer and tongs? Really?
Sure, they’ll go after Sanders, as well, for being a big old COMMIE!!!11!!! or whatever.
From where I sit in the peanut gallery, I don’t really see either HRC or Sanders being treated “better” or being able to “get more done” than the other. JMHO, of course.
I think we’re stuck with a very broken system, no matter who wins.
“Does anyone seriously believe that the Fox, Rush, et al, won’t go after Hillary hammer and tongs? Really? Sure, they’ll go after Sanders, as well, for being a big old COMMIE!!!11!!! or whatever.”
OK, so here’s the $64,000 question: if you like Sanders, why vote for Hillary because “she’s the one who can get stuff done”? Why not vote for the guy that, at least, is helping people understand things, inspiring the disempowered (the 99%), and changing the tone of the conversation to one that, in the long term, if not immediately, will get this country moving?
She was well liked by most Senators, no? The Republican gentry were able to work with her. Esp the Warhawks. Personally, that is pretty scary to me, but mmv.
I guess it depends on what the Republican party looks like post-election loss, if that occurs. Whether the gentry managed to discipline the Teahadists. What methods Ryan will use to regain some clout.
Just about the perfect comment.
I’m glad this is coming to the forefront. Without a plan to carry candidates on one’s coat tails, then the choice between HRC and Bernie is one of style and “around the edges” politics. Personally, while she may appeal to the hawks in foreign policy and likely get us into conflicts, I think the temptation for profits by the GOP in opposing “The Clintons” is too great. It will be the 90’s on steroids.
Some may think Bernie is dreaming, but it takes dreams to inspire a “movement” or a wave election. If no inspiration, its all water projects, defense contracts and naming post offices. Pretty thin stuff to power coat tails.
Of the two, Bernie has the potential of bringing enough voters to the polls to justify the hope of flipping The Senate and really make inroads into the House.
So, by that standard, unless HRC really shakes up her campaign staff and HER OWN campaign efforts, I just don’t see her working any magic on Congress; either during the election or after.
Ridge
“Hillary Clinton seems to be acknowledging this unpleasant reality and there is something admirable about leveling with the American people and not making a bunch of promises that you don’t believe you’ll be able to keep.”
Why do you suppose Hillary is “leveling with the American people” on this, when so many of the American people agree that she’s not somebody that is usually “on the level”. (i.e. not trustworthy). Because she truly does not want to make those kinds of promises (and she doesn’t want her big donors to get the wrong idea).
And why is Sanders “lying” about what he wants to do (as he has often been accused of) when most Americans feel he is somebody that tells the truth? Because he’s not lying about what the problems are and he wants to do about them.
“Clinton is not even acknowledging that gridlock is an unacceptable problem.”
Maybe because for her it isn’t. Kind of takes the pressure off, eh ? “Well, there were a lot of things I wanted to do, but … “
Sure, Sanders could wind up having to say the same — but in his case it would be a lot more convincing.
I think the main point being made here is very important: Given two candidates who might not be able to get much of their platform passed, which would you rather have — somebody who understands your problems and cares about them, or somebody that pretends to?
Especially since, as we’ve seen with Obama, there are many things a president can do besides get legislation passed (technically it’s congress that does, but you know what I mean).
And while we’re on the subject, Bernie ought to have a plan for winning back congress as well.
Politics ≠ therapy.
Politics, but to what end?
And, guess what, this country badly NEEDS therapy. Political therapy reconnecting politics to reality and inspiring hope. That this would transfer into better candidates and bigger turnout is not magical thinking.Thirty-five years of no fairness doctrine, Fox news and RW nut-job radio has taken a toll on the American mind.
I don’t entirely disagree with your point here, priscanus. People are more motivated to vote and volunteer to get involved in selections and campaigns for candidates when they understand how the election outcomes will affect their lives, and when the cynicism our culture uses to smother hope is overcome.
Even so, in the broad scopes, politics ≠ therapy. That is a hard reality, one that goes back to the beginnings of our country, one which long predates the end of the Fairness Doctrine. Trying to turn it into therapy can result in long and futile discussions with voters. Those moments are unproductive expressions of politics which actually increase the chances of liberal/progressive ideals losing at the ballot box.
Appointments would be a HUGE difference, I would think. And regulatory restructuring. All within the purview of the executive.
THIS
In that vein, Bernie claims that the President has the power under existing law to breakup the TBTF banks into many smaller banks. IMHO, that’s what should have been done instead of TARP.
Bernie has promised to do this in his first six months. Will Hillary promise to do the same? Or does she love her Wall Street donors more than her voters?
I’d love to hear more about post office banks. And his ideas for state infrastructure banks…
I have read of various ways to make the mega-banks themselves divest in an orderly manner.
I haven’t seen that before! If you happen to have a link at hand, I’d love to read more.
Not sure the woman being ground to a pulp by pundit-reviled Sanders is going to be of much use to other candidates. Not only that, the fact that so many of these candidates are diehard Clinton supporters themselves could be a problem for them going forward. Clinton won’t be around to save them, likely, and even if she does survive the primaries, she’s going to be an anvil around their necks come November.
Neal, that’s the argument being made as to why we have to coronate her.
I know. I think we (and at least a few million others) agree that this election it’s going to be all or nothing at all.
You write:
There it is. Precisely.
But then you follow it up with:
Voice illuminates that statement very clearly in the fine, bright light of truth.
RUkidding illuminates it from another angle:
Clinton is not “acknowledging that gridlock is an unacceptable problem” because except for a few pro forma tits and tats, she is basically in agreement with most of her colleagues across the
nonexistentPermaGov aisle.You are not “…in any way sold on Sanders’s theory of revolutionary change?” There are only two other positions out there now. The Clinton/Bush/Rubio/whatever-other-centrists-survive-into-the-later-primaries PermaGov position or the Trump/Cruz “Kill ’em all and let God sort it out” thing. The only way that Trump and Cruz really diverge is stylistic. Tactics.
There’s a fourth way, of course…turn the whole silly thing off and go take care of your own business as well as you can. But since this business is your business, I guess you can’t do that.
Your conscience appears to be pulling for Sanders.
Go do that.
Please.
AG
“[Clinton] is basically in agreement with her permagov colleagues across the aisle”
I don’t see this except on a few issues, such as aspects of foreign and antiterrorism policy. On domestic policy, she:
is for Obamacare
wants to overturn Citizen’s United
addresses global warming by increasing support for alternative energy
wants to invest in early childhood education programs like early headstart
enact comprehensive immigration reform
enact gun control legislation
I could go on. None of these proposals are supported by the right wing/permagov types. Her policy prescriptions on many issues are similar to those of Sanders (Sanders positions are often to the left of Clinton’s, but both Clinton and Sanders positions are quite progressive). Of course, as Boo and others have pointed out, without congressional support none of them have a chance of being implemented.
Here is where you don’t understand what is happebing:
There is no “rightwing” Permanent Government, clearskies. Nor is there a left wing PG. Not really. There’s just the corporate-owned, revolving door Permanent Government. Dassit. That and a few dreamer outliers who hope to really change things.
HRC supports the foreign policies put in place by Clinton I, made more draconian by Bush II and covered up and well as he could by Obama. (Not nearly well enough.) She is totally owned by Big Corp. and will continue the same economic policies no matter what the laws are called. Do you not wonder why Elizabeth Warren refuses to come to her aid as she gets her ass kicked by Bernie Sanders? C’mon!!! She is in favor of centralized educational so-called “reform,” another code word for Big Corp ownership. “Immigration reform???” Sure. All the cheap labor she can make available. “Gun control?” A pipe dream. An election year talking point. Nothing more. The only way to eliminate the millions and millions of guns already out there would be to do a house-to-house search of every dwelling in the U.S., and that would take martial law.
You for that?
WTFU.
She’s just like Obama. She believes that the most successful people should be the ones that rule.
You for that, too?
WTFU.
AG
Sorry if I don’t understand your terms AG. I guess I need to take a Permagov 101 class ( can I get credit by watching x files?)You said “permagov colleagues Across the aisle from Hilary”, so I thought you meant republicans.
As for Clinton being just like Obama, I could easily live with that if it were true. To each his own.
It’s common sense, clearskies. Plus a little clear reading.
I wrote:
What?
You missed the “
nonexistent” part?Duh!!!
Remedial reading classes aren’t that tough. Get with the program.
Meanwhile…if you can handle it…
Look at her voting record.
She voted for the truly execrable Bush II Iraq War. Isn’t that enough right there?
Sh econsistently acted as Sec. State to extend that mistake into the whole ISIS era.
This is not “X Files” fiction; it’s hugely bloody, hugely murderous fucking fact!!!
Wake the fuck up.
AG
That’s half a loaf I suppose ( but don’t tell me Obmacare is ” Affordable” and a wonderful program). You see her as a progressive who gets things done. Let’s put what she got done to the side and ask if she has a snowballs chance in hell of doing anything more with no congress and if she even cares, least of all about a congress. Then there is that old man with a horn and vision about helping the American people and overcoming inequality. He is calling for a political revolution in an appeal to take the congress. Who knows how many will sign on to a real chance. Hillary is at best weak tea. I would prefer to go for the whole loaf. Her policies you think are similar to Sanders. But he wants a livable minimum wage and he wants to address Wall Street, among many other programs. Meanwhile Hillary likes her speaking fees to banks and tells us not to worry about it. Nothing happening there. Besides Sanders is in a hermetically sealed bubble who can’t see Wall Street are just good ole boys. I get it YMMV.
Does anybody else in the leasership positions or elected positions have such a plan? Are they reduced to hoping for demography as states are lost one by one?
in two sentences.
Hillary Clinton is more likely to win, but there is no sign she can create the enthusiasm necessary to win the House and the Senate.
Bernie Sanders is less likely to win, but has a chance at creating the enthusiasm necessary to win the House and the Senate.
Sooo, I’m starting to think about Bloomberg’s entrance. And looking at him I’m thinking he might have a better chance of getting more Dems elected to Congress as well as driving the remaining R’s to do something than any other candidate.
Read this morning that he’s more encouraged and will make a decision by early March. Feels like a Pandora’s box is about to be opened.
Whether or not you’re right about electing more Democrats to Congress, Bloomberg would likely throw the election to the GOP candidate. I realize, of course, that some readers here think there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties.
Bloomberg functioning as an effective Democratic spoiler would effectively reveal the centrist wing to be dyed-in-the-wool hypocrites about the whole ‘suck it up if you want to win elections’ post-Nader nagging. So it’s not all bad.
Bloomberg functioning as an effective Democratic spoiler would effectively reveal the centrist wing to be dyed-in-the-wool hypocrites about the whole ‘suck it up if you want to win elections’ post-Nader nagging. So it’s not all bad.
I thought in the last fundraising disclosure that Clinton raised $5 million for other Democrats and Sanders raised $0.
That seems like to me she focused on Congress too and Sanders really isn’t.
Filthy lucre.
cute
but I work for candidates to win and to govern
Well, you get what they pay for.
Other Democrats that have endorsed her? More pay to play.
Where’s Sanders commitment to winning the House? Talk is cheap
Instead of doing it the failed and (they insist it’s a coincidence, of course) establishment-empowering way of raising money and using the money to GOTV in vague and unfalsifiable ways, Sanders is doing it the proven way: juicing turnout.
Why are you criticizing Sanders for not going with a plan that has repeatedly led to failure and instead going with a plan that, as seen in 2008, led to success the two times it was used post-LBJ?
Too bad Howard Dean quit pushing for his 50 state strategy … even if the Clinton machine didn’t want him running the DLC post 2008.
Did all those DEMs that Bill Clinton stumped for in ’14 lose because they didn’t have enough money? Or did they lose because they were ConservaDems fully on board with the DEM “third way (previously known as the DLC)?
If money is the primary difference, why is Jeb? losing? Why couldn’t Clinton with every institutional advantage including more money do better than a tie in Iowa against an older, democratic-socialist with virtually zero name ID less than a year ago?
it takes money to win, that’s how it works right now
I’m sure each race was different so I won’t try to generalize the entire group but I’m sure some of it was running away from the President and some was they didn’t fit the electorate they were running in
You might want to go hang out at the pro-Clinton NH live elections party. Their ecstatic that the voter turnout among the >64 set us yuuge and <30 similar to ’08. (Not including those in the long lines as the polls close.) Good news for Clinton!
Interesting. I saw some exit pols that suggested that. Where is his majority coming from then?
That was a snarky comment on my part. Do get weary of the status quo cheerleaders and DFHs bashers.
Sanders appears to have won all demographics except for the $200,000+ income earners and possibly the >65 set.
B-b-b-u-u-u-t Bernie is winning;
EVEN AMONG WOMEN ….
Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright can deal with it.
BTW I wonder if miss madeline is calling ole’ Henry about the needed expansion in hell?
This is way too much of an oversimplification.
How much money? What’s the marginal utility of having more money? What’s the effect of not having enough money — linear, exponential, or logarithmic?
As pointed upthread, the Democrats raising all that money hasn’t exactly led to gains. And the years in which the party did well under its own power (1992, 2008) were, in my opinion, not uncoincidentally years of high turnout, especially youth turnout.
You need to do leg exercises to stay healthy. However, if your exercises leave you so exhausted and sore that you can’t run afterwards, you need to cut back on the squats even if it reduces your leg fitness.
I bet Jeb? would disagree about this point.
we’re talking about House races so probably a few hundred thousand to a couple million depending on media market and if there is significant challenger
Senate is definitely a few million to tens of millions
President is going to take 500-600 million plus SuperPAC money
state races will vary widely but they could cost nearly as much as House races in the big cities
ot:uh huh
uh huh
When Addiction Has a White Face
By EKOW N. YANKAH
FEB. 9, 2016
WHEN crack hit America in the mid-1980s, for African-Americans, to borrow from Ta-Nehisi Coates, civilization fell. Crack embodied instant and fatal addiction; we saw endless images of thin, ravaged bodies, always black, as though from a famined land. And always those desperate, cracked lips. Our hearts broke learning the words “crack baby.”
……………………………………….
Even for those of us African-Americans living at a relatively safe distance, there were soul-deadening costs. City centers, and by extension black neighborhoods, were seen in the national imagination as lawless landscapes. We were warned of a new wave of “super predators,” young, faceless black men wearing bandannas and sagging jeans. The addicted, those who preyed on them and those caught by class, geography and especially race were swept together. At the edges of my 12-year-old mind was the ominous sense that no matter how far crack was from my actual life, I was somehow associated with the scourge.
…………………………………….
Thirty years later, America is again seeing an epidemic of drug addiction, particularly heroin. The surge is so great that for the first time in generations, mortality among young white adults has risen. But the national attitude toward drug addiction is utterly different. Even Republican presidential candidates are eschewing the perennial tough-on-drugs speeches and opening up about struggles within their own families.
More important, police chiefs in the cities most affected by heroin are responding not by invoking military metaphors, weapons and tactics but by ensuring that police officers save lives and get people into rehab. As one former narcotics officer described his change of heart on addiction, “These are people and they have a purpose in life and we can’t as law enforcement look at them any other way.” In his inability to name the change that allowed this epiphany, his words also capture our cringe-worthy self-denial. Suddenly, police officers understand crime as a sign of underlying addiction requiring coordinated assistance, rather than a scourge to be eradicated.
It is hard to describe the bittersweet sting that many African-Americans feel witnessing this national embrace of addicts. It is heartening to see the eclipse of the generations-long failed war on drugs. But black Americans are also knowingly weary and embittered by the absence of such enlightened thinking when those in our own families were similarly wounded. When the face of addiction had dark skin, this nation’s police did not see sons and daughters, sister and brothers. They saw “brothas,” young thugs to be locked up, rather than “people with a purpose in life.”
Curious, too, that black citizens are so terrifying to police, when the overwhelming preponderance of weapons-carrying public is WASP men.
Curious, but not surprising, eh?
For whatever this may be worth, I recount my experience as foreman of a grand jury in Multnomah County, Oregon, several years ago. We heard almost entirely drug-related cases. (Another grand jury got the other cases.) On Day 1, the assistant DA who was the primary liaison with the DA’s office talked to us at length about how he spent most of his days trying to get people into treatment, but that roughly half opted instead to take their chances with the criminal justice system. Now, I have no way to know which of the accused wound up in treatment. And we never saw photos of any accused, so I can’t make judgments about race too easily. But I can tell you that we weren’t presented with a string of cases involving people with what one might call stereotypically African American names.
Take from that what you want.
How can she TRIANGULATE if there’s a Democratic Congress?
Come on, now.
Come on.
She doesn’t want a Democratic Congress.
Silliest thing I’ve read here in weeks, and the competition was fierce…
Keep trying. I know you can win the contest.
I’m supposed to believe that a former Democratic senator, and arguendo, a Democratic president, would prefer a Republican legislature?
If enthusiasm about her vision means anything, then,no, she is not interested in a democratic congress, just maybe half a loaf like everything else she oozes.
There really are a lot of people that wonder, not unreasonably considering the Clinton strategy, tactics, and record all these years, whether it matters to them that Democrats win majorities in Congress. I do.
Why fund-raise for down-ticket Democrats if you don’t want them to win?
It makes no sense…
Why doesn’t she push her representative running the DNC to re-instate Howard Dean’s winning strategy for congress instead of rehashing the DLC inspired losing strategy?
Of course Clinton and the rest of the Democratic establishment wants to win. But they want to win in the same way a couch potato wants to get in shape without dieting or a slacker wants to get an ‘A’ without weekend studying or a Japanese language students to to become fluent without learning 2000+ Joyo kanji.
The Democratic Party elite wants to win, but they also want to have favorable corporate MSM access, they also want to juice their post-political private careers, they want to hobknob with the wealthy and powerful and so on. Winning in a sustainable way would require most of them to give up a lot of these things. But like our couch potato and lazy students, they still hold onto the hope that they can reach their goal without having to sacrifice for it.
So after awhile, repeatedly doubling down on the same failed, but immensely comfortable strategy while claiming to really want the goal you’re not making much progress towards makes people suspicious. They think you really don’t care about getting in shape or getting good grades.
Me? I blame Democratic Party leadership being intellectually lazy and cowardly more than some elaborate ‘they’re losing on purpose’ theory. But I can see why people gravitate towards the conspiracy theory; it’s less depressing.
Who are these down ticket Democrats? People like Emanuel and McAuliffe, aren’t they? The donations are not to build the party but to build her personal power base.
Andrew Cuomo certainly does.
If fact he will create a Republican lege if he doesn’t have one.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. If Davis going over to Lawyers Guns and Money and talking about how crazy we are about this, let’s just stop that right now: I do not believe Clinton wants a Republican Congress. She will not have the legacy she wants to leave if she’s stuck with idiots flinging poo at the walls, and that obviously means she requires a Democratic Majority in some capacity (particularly the Senate). However, there is plenty of evidence of Democrats in the embodiment of Andrew Cuomo that they’d rather cut deals with Republicans than triangulate against their own party.
Cuomo isn’t running, as far as I know, making the point somewhat moot…
It’s not moot, because I see Cuomo Dems and Clinton Dems as one in the same. Her first instincts align with Cuomo’s.
Davis, I was busy working long hours this week doing political organizing. Given the heavy and extreme wanking you tried to reason with in this section of the thread, it doesn’t appear that many of these commenters have done much political organizing. I wonder, for example, why I don’t hear any of these commenters talk about their work with their County Democratic Party Central Committees. That’s the sort of place that their desire to convert the Party into their vessel could actually gain traction. Making up horseshit about Hillary when she, like Bernie, is very popular with members of the Democratic Party, will remain ineffective as a way to change the Party.
Just wanted to let you know that I’m supportive of your attempts to splash the cold water of reality into the debate here. The presumptions that some commenters bring into the discussions here are comically framed, with Hillary portrayed as a mustache-twirling Simon LeGree. All factual evidence to the contrary, otherwise known as the majority of the factual evidence, is disappeared by these commenters. I’m particularly fond of the comment upthread which holds the Clintons responsible for every election since 1994 and, incredibly, deletes the elections the Democrats won.
Good times…
The reason the Democrats lost the House and Senate and so much more started when Al From handpicking Bill Clinton to run for President backed by his new DLC. The records of the DLC were purchased by the Clinton Foundation with the DLC morphing into the Clinton Machine. This monster gave us Bill Clinton triangulation, Hillary as Secretary of State, the Blue Dogs, Obama’s first administration and our current DNC. More than just a home for displaced moderate Republicans, they became moderate Republicans. Their blocking of any true progressives running for office is legendary and still going on, in case you’re wondering why the progressive back bench looks so thin.
I disagree when you say “… At best, Sanders might be able to find a sympathetic Congress in a second term if post-2020 census redistricting goes really well for the left.” I think it’s more possible that the shock waves generated by a Sanders nomination will generate a lot of instant reformulation on the part of Democrats to rediscover just what it means to be a party of the people Democrat, especially if they see the possibility of a wave election(s).
With access to the Bully Pulpit along with a forced change of attitude in Democratic Party organizations by dismantling the Clinton Machine, Bernie has a good chance to defeat the Republican choke hold and primary remaining corporatist Democrats. This happens in 2018 setting the stage for the 2020 census.
So what happens in our immediate difficult situation with congress? I will argue that Bernie has more experience and is more pragmatic than Hillary going on the previous legislative health care record of both candidates.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/sanders-v-clinton-democratic-debate-corruption-health-care-an
d-theories-of-change.html
Having taken a closer look at the Iowa DEM caucus, I’m going to throw a few things out here.
If Clinton held onto her ’08 Iowa voter base (reduced for natural attrition), the IA and national DEM institutional power (that we know is strong) didn’t hold onto the ’08 “new” (first time caucus) voters that participated for the other candidates that year. IOW the “power brokers” that split in ’08 for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton weren’t a strong force in rallying status quo voters when their efforts were combined in ’16. Of the ’08 Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson voters that showed up in ’16, Clinton received a larger proportion of their votes than Sanders did, but the inclinations of these voters are similar to that of the ’00 and ’04 caucus voters. Voters skewed older and very roughly split at least 65/35% for the status quo. But worse is that their numbers are dwindling and the Obama “coalition” disappeared.
If the “new” (first time) and old ’16 voter split was 40/60 (best estimate to date), Sanders predominately rallied a previously unseen caucus base. Not unlike what Obama did in ’08, but it wasn’t Obama’s new coalition that showed up for him or Clinton for that matter. Just as the Obama coalition didn’t show up in ’10 and ’14. These aren’t people that Bill Clinton can close the deal with. And without them, even if Hillary can squeak out a general election win, not realistic to envision that she’ll have coattails.
More likely that Independents would vote for Hillary against some GOP maniac, then vote (R) for Congress “so they can keep an eye on Hillary”.
So you argue that Hillary Clinton will have no coattails. And other commenters express the opinion that local candidates will refuse any coattails that Bernie Sanders might have to offer. If both of those arguments are correct, then this will be an election with no Democratic coattails at all, under any circumstances. That would seem to be something to factor into one’s thinking about which presidential candidate to support.
Local DEM candidates that refuse to align themselves with Sanders in ’16 would be on their own. And could expect outcomes similar to that of ’14. Some inclined to continue to hug the “third way” will get a primary challenge and not make it to the general election. However, it’s too late in this election cycle for many non-third way DEMs to enter the race; so, any Sanders’ coattails will be limited.
What you miss that Sanders supporters are quite clear about is that the effort is a minimum two election cycle project. Same as ’06 and ’08 was. And not the “third way” focus on one election cycle and then drop the effort. That’s what led to the ’94, ’10, and ’14 losses with no ability to recapture congressional seats until the damn GOP, with assistance from DINOS, blew up part of the world and the federal budget.
This is true, and it’s why avoiding the castastrophe of a GOP president is the main reason to get excited about either democratic candidate. It’s also why I hate the DNC and democrats in general with an all-consuming passion. There’s only one issue: TURNOUT. And they refuse to acknowledge it. The only “real plan to win Congress” involves stirring up such a hellacious shitstorm that people who don’t vote (but would vote dem) finally get to the polls. How can the democratic establishment be so complacent and stupid as to not be pouring all resources into figuring out how to double their turnout? Where’s the creativity?
In my experience, non-creative people in charge of an organization tend to have a special aversion to creative people who want to do things otherwise.