Over the last two days of the Democratic convention the primaries began to slide into largely forgettable history and glimpses of the near-future began to snap into place. What had been largely a conversation about the personalities and characters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders became much more about the coalition that will seek to perpetuate and perfect what President Obama has created.
Eight years ago, Jeremiah Wright was so toxic that Obama had to shush him and make a speech on race at the Philadelphia Constitution Center. This time, Rev. William Barber II was invited to speak in primetime as a warm-up act for Hillary Clinton. The Democrats didn’t shy away from their African-American and Latino supporters. There was no Jesse Jackson figure to bash, no Sister Souljah to scold. Black and Latino organizers weren’t humored and hidden but invited onto the stage, one after another after another. Muslims weren’t a scary constituency to be scapegoated, but the scapegoating of Muslims was morally shamed in the most visible and compelling way possible. The LGBT community was celebrated over and over again. The disabled have never enjoyed so much focus and respect.
The DNC is co-opting Republican tropes while maintaining Democratic ones because there is now only one political party for grown-ups.
— Josh Barro (@jbarro) July 29, 2016
It’s also the progressives moving from countercultural to mainstream, with confidence + w/o apology. Coalition built https://t.co/MRTE6R31dt
— Martin Longman (@BooMan23) July 29, 2016
The Democrats did not shy away from celebrating police officers and they went back to the well, over and over again, to emphasize their respect for the military and their concern for veterans. When some in the audience grew uncomfortable and chanted “No More Wars,” the new coalition drowned them out with “U-S-A” chants.
This was a Democratic Party that was fiercely positive about America and completely non-defensive and unapologetic about how their racial diversity, religious pluralism and cultural liberalism might alienate historically critical voting blocs.
American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, etc–they're trying to take all our stuff
— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) July 28, 2016
Not trying, Starbursts. Your safe is empty. https://t.co/8PbFcpIwer
— Martin Longman (@BooMan23) July 28, 2016
Tim Kaine spoke a foreign language repeatedly during his speech, clearly demonstrating that the party does not give a shit about alienating the crowd that seethes when told to push ‘2’ for Spanish. Clinton adopted a more progressive set of policy prescriptions than any modern Democrat, in defiance of people’s expectations and the Clintons’ historical positioning as New Democrats. She was carving so much meat off the moderate Republican bone with her proudly American thematics that she was utterly unconcerned about pushing economic moderates into Trump’s arms.
This was basically the triumph of the counterculture–a kind of bat mitzvah for a decades-long movement–today, you are a woman.
Today, you are the mainstream.
No more apologizing for what you believe. No more bashing your own voters to win the support of bigots.
And because this new progressive movement knows that it is winning and that it owns the future, it’s positive about America. America is a good place that is headed in an even better direction, and they are not fearing any man.
These are all disorientating developments because they defy what people think they know about the Democratic Party and the Clintons and politics in general.
And it’s somewhat of a gamble because it’s still possible that the majority of people in this country do not want to be part of a pluralistic, multiethnic, socially liberal and tolerant society led by a party of people who want to enact a broad liberal agenda.
What’s clear after this convention, though, is that Hillary Clinton is going to lead this coalition on its terms, not some terms she’s imposing on them from some DLC board meeting in 1989.
It’s also not the end of the story since the president still makes decisions on matters of war and peace, and there is no consensus in Clinton’s coalition for the kind of foreign policies she’s known to prefer.
What’s clear to me, at least, is that the #BernieorBust people who are walking off the field of battle at just this moment are getting off the train several stops too early. That Sanders would think his credibility and influence are better preserved from outside this ascendant coalition is either a bet that it will lose or evidence that he’s actually not aware of how much he has accomplished. It seems almost insane to pull out now when he could be part of a joyous and soon-to-be victorious team and get a ton of credit for it.
It shouldn’t be so hard to notice that the marginalized aren’t on the margins anymore. When the party is going out of its way to put transgendered and disabled people in primetime, when it wants fiery black preachers demanding social justice on the undercard, when it responds to Latino and Muslim bashing by highlighting Latinos and Muslims and shaming those who use fear and hatred against them, and when women and women’s issues are at parity with men, then you realize that what was countercultural has become mainstream.
Hell, the Democrats weren’t even afraid of the NRA.
Eight years ago, Michelle Obama got in hot water for saying “For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country.” Maybe she misspoke. Maybe she unintentionally said something that was true. What’s clear is that eight years later a lot of people who were second class citizens are now feeling included and empowered, and they’re also in a patriotic mood.
This is why the Democratic convention was feel-good and positive and happy and uplifting. This is not a party or a coalition that is concerned about losing anything anytime soon.
So, the coalition is built, but it’s still not big enough or broad enough to win back the House of Representatives or many governor’s mansions and state legislatures. To do that, it needs to win over the Republican moderates without losing much in the bargain.
And, again, the convention showed that Clinton thinks she can pull off that trick by taking all Rich Lowry’s stuff without trimming on the actual policy at all.
This is what a realigning landslide looks like.
It’s all in place, and better than I anticipated.
So, what’s Trump gonna do about it?
I was thrilled with the convention. I’ll be thrilled with the campaign if the term 2018 is included many times in every speech and ad.
>So, what’s Trump gonna do about it?
He needs to start working hard on a plan for monetizing his notoriety before the Loser tag guts it of its value and causes him to have a narcissistic breakdown. He needs to pivot to an approach that adds Trump losing in a landslide and being branded a Joe McCarthyesque national pariah to his supporters’ lists of grievances.
Hillary gave a great speech.
You’ve advanced this argument about Sanders for the third time. I disagree and feel compelled to respond. Here’s why.
Sanders quite openly and clearly ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination as the independent Senator (who caucuses with Democrats) from Vermont. Some people made the political argument that the Democratic Party should nominate another candidate who was elected to and served in the Senate as a member of the Democratic Party. That argument (and several others) prevailed. That debate was open, transparent, argued, and settled. Senator Sanders told Democratic primary voters exactly what he was doing, and why. More of them voted for Hillary Clinton.
Now, Bernie Sanders returns to the Senate (and never left it). The people of Vermont elected him as an independent democratic socialist. He has no political mandate from the people of Vermont to move away from that status quo, and it is the status quo. There is a very reasonable argument that voters ought to decide their elected representatives in part based on party (or non-party) membership, with full information BEFORE the election. Sanders is up for reelection in 2018 (if he chooses to run). Sanders can decide whether to change the status quo then, before the election, and give the people of Vermont a fair chance to decide subsequently whether their senator should be a member of a particular party (or not) and serve for six more years. If Sanders chooses not to run for reelection as a Democrat, or if a challenger wants to run, the Democratic Party can decide its nominee for that seat — or choose not to contest the seat. In the meantime, Sanders is not violating any voter trust by changing party affiliations mid-term. He’s simply maintaining the status quo that the people of Vermont decided when they reelected him in 2012.
I too wish Sanders would officially join the Democratic Party mid-term in addition to caucusing with Democrats. However, I understand and respect the argument here. Running for a party’s presidential nomination (and putting a new question to voters) is one thing, but changing party (or non-party) affiliations mid-term is another. It’s reasonable to leave that second decision to the people of Vermont, to not double cross them (in at least some sense). That’s a reasonable point of view, even a deeply ethical one.
I do not see the connection between that technical (and only slightly political in the circumstances) decision and how much influence Senator Sanders has and will have — and how much credit he got and will get for shifting Democratic Party priorities. Sanders will campaign for and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and he will continue caucusing with Democrats in the Senate. He’s a potential pick in a Clinton Administration, and President Clinton would be wise to choose him for a suitable post in the cabinet or in the foreign service. That would be analogous to President Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton for his cabinet.
I simply don’t agree with your criticism here. Yes, I wish Senator Sanders would start wearing a “D” on his lapel. But he’s maintaining the status quo that the people of Vermont voted for, and I can understand that.
I agree. In fact, I made a similar argument on an earlier thread.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/7/28/162041/824#77
I agree with this. Sanders may not technically be on the team, but he’s still a close ally, and that’s good enough.
Now the Busters don’t look so good. We all have our bright lines, so I didn’t mind mild protests of people opposing Bernie policies. “No More War” during Panetta was fine. But TPP during Elijah Cummings? Why? And hecking Hillary was definitely bad form.
There is a primal need for hippie punching and its derivations. Not sure why, but it’s related to bullying. Must do more research on it.
posting a comment along these lines. You saved me the effort.
As astute and insightful as I think booman usually is, I think he missed the boat on this one, giving way too much weight to Sanders continuing to cooperate with Dems in the same manner as he had before, characterizing this as abandoning the “coalition” just as he was gaining maximum influence inside it.
booman treats this as a change in mode, i.e., leaving the “coalition”.
I don’t see it that way.
Drumpf is going to pout and call foul – and get nastier & nastier until the raw hatred that is the republican party is undeniably displayed for all to see.
When you talk about the “Bernie or Bust” people, that is not necessarily a permanent state, but people need time to recalibrate … just remember that the election is not until November. The Sanders people are contributing mightily to the effort you’re talking about, but they need time to heal, some more than others, and they need to be respected and reached out to.
http://www.journal-news.com/videos/news/gen-politics/nina-turner-susan-sarandon-speak-out-dnc/vDq2jX
/
It’s been clear since flipping forever that Hillary is a consensus leader and not an autocratic one. How does she start her big projects? With a listening campaign, all the way back to Arkansas education reform over 30 years ago.
That said, I really get the impression that she’s been more liberal than she’s been letting on all these years, as the rumors have long held. This is a pretty liberal platform, and she seemed all in on it. Usually she feels more held back – like she’s still weighing alternatives. But now on a platform more liberal then she’s ever been for, even a few weeks ago, she seems more enthusiastic than ever.
I’m feeling pretty optimistic right now too. The only fly in my ointment is Trump’s campaign bounce. I’m not feeling too concerned about losing the election but the thought that that hateful, schismatic, and vapid convention could get a bounce from my fellow Americans is depressing.
The first question to ask when you’re thinking about a sentence like this is, “How did the Democratic Party turn into ‘what people think they know about the Democatic Party’?” Because that’s a history, it’s real. There’s a record out there that can be compared to current appearances.
Second question to ask would be, “Who’s paying for all of this?”
Who am I gonna believe on this, BooMan? You, or my own lying eyes?
Glad you caught that, it’s a big flashing red light.
Yes, she had to update the terms to reflect the reality that she got blindsided by an attack from the left that the DLC never saw coming. So she made some concessions — and if you think that’s too negative a take, consider my point above about the historical record.
I’ll agree that those concessions matter, but it’s much too soon to say how much. And that’s the point of Sanders’ refusal to join the Party.
Whether you agree with this more cynical view or not, we now have 102 days to the election and we’ve got to hope that this coalition can hold together, and grow, over that time. Because the alternative is too sobering to contemplate.
But after the campaigning is over, the governing begins. Say the bottom falls out of the economy again — hardly an unlikely occurrence. Who benefits, and who pays then? For the moment, we have to paper over the contradiction between the 1% and the 99% because there are other things that are more important, but that contradiction isn’t going away and if you believe that Hillary Clinton is on our side of it, well, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Who’s paying for this?
http://newrepublic.com/article/135564/dnc-one-big-corporate-bribe
“These are all disorientating developments because they defy what people think they know about the Democratic Party and the Clintons and politics in general”
This is HILLARY Clinton. Not Mrs. Hillary Clinton, not HilBill, not “the better half”, not the 3rd Way Clintonista.
This is the Hillary that went undercover in Dothan, AL for child advocacy, this is the Hillary that continued child advocacy with scholarship. This is the Hillary that has tried to accomplish things rather than avoid the mud, blood and beer. This is the Hillary of the FIRST speech.
This is Hillary without Bill fucking up the works. This is Hillary without the Blue Dogs hangers on. This is what she is NOW. It has been a long, strange trip. This is the Hillary I’ve been following since 1970.
Has she done some things that make me cringe? Yes. As have ALL powerful politicians. Has she made mistakes? Yes. She is now in a position to rectify some of those mistakes. And the single most betrayed group is behind her by about 99.99%. When you FIGHT pigs, you get dirty. And sometimes you lose your way. But sometimes when you’re lost, you find a landmark and make it back.
I cannot recall when I first realized Hillary’s Weltanschauung was to the left of Bill’s, but it has been decades. Thank you for stating as much, and in terms that have moved me to choke up. Michelle Obama and so many others at the convention moved me, including Hillary herself.
I believe HRC has been slowly moving to the left since her college days. Not steadily, and with her ever-present over-complex, hedged, eternally nuanced, multifaceted and maddening insistence on weighing every detail of every issue.
When Jorge Ramos had to ask her four times if she would stop the deportation of children, I was ready to throw my shoe at the TV, screaming out loud “Just say yes, damn it!” but I could see all her lawyer’s gears whirring away in her head as she tried to imagine every possible circumstance that might force her to deport a child, however much she would not wish to. It is frustrating, but THAT level of complexity in viewing an issue is what I want in my president.
My political ideals are in most ways to the left of Bernie’s; but I believe strongly that Hillary will be better at moving us toward them. And besides: We get to have Bernie in the Senate, still, with a voice that will ring louder and be able to help more. Certainly, that is my hope.
————————-
Compare their political environments.
Chuck Percy and Everett Dirksen for Hillary. The Goldwater campaign experience likely was not as formative as the political culture of her dad’s Republican friends.
William Fulbright for Bill, and Bill interned in Fulbright’s office.
IMO, Fulbright was ideologically between Percy and Dirksen, and Percy was not that far from Hillary’s current ideological position.
The kind that has progressives pleading for “no more war”, to be drowned out by jingoistic chants of “U-S-A”?
Those kinds of foreign policies?
Oh, was Hillary chanting USA during her speech?
Wasn’t that during Leon Panetta’s speech?
I find the USA chant rather trite. I’ve heard it a lot during MMA events when a US fighter is matched against a foreign fighter.
In this poltical context, however, its not inappropriate. The party convention is for Americans and its aimed at Americans. It’s not intended to be jingoistic but rather an expression of patriotism that a few find excessive. Still.. great tv optics.
Some are offended by USA chants. Others are offended by those heckling a Medal of Honor recipient. Oh well..
The USA and and Hillary chants originated from the California delegation. They were a tactic designed to drown out Sanders protests on the last night of the convention. If you go back and listen you will find the chants are not at obvious applause lines.
Professionally produced symbolism in a huge extravaganza marketing production is easy even if it avoids false notes and hits all the right notes. There are real structural and personal conflicts that that symbolism papers over, which is what makes it a coalition.
In the Congress, the operative coalitions are in the Democratic and Republican caucuses that supply the House and Senate leadership. Those outside the parties generally caucus with the majority or the opposition caucuses, which are for a session and not ad hoc. As candidates have gotten independently funded and depended less on the party coordinating committees and the national committees for funding, the formal party structure exerts less power of control than it once did. And the within-chambers politics of the caucuses gained in power. It is not possible to be outside one or the other caucus and function effectively in Congress.
Transformation of the Democratic Party toward more openness leftward is not sufficient to bring a lot of progressives within the party where debate can occur within the party. That transformation, IMO, is now more possible with the ability to finally say boldly as Clinton did in talking about Trump that modern conservatism as a movement has failed as a philosophy but has engendered the fraud of a Trump candidacy.
That transformation is creeping into domestic policy, bring some of the New Deal roots back to prominence, but it has not extended to foreign policy or criminal justice where the tropes of hating the troops and hating the police must be actively and loudly countered and the criticism of actual national security policies and actual failure of oversight and accountability of law enforcement can only be whispered at best.
We will see in how the Clinton campaign is run from here on out whether they intend a solution to a democracy that is broken. The issue is the actual powerlessness of the grassroots with respect to politicians and the continued top-down, focus-group-driven marketing process that politics has become. Political initiatives remain products pushed on voters as consumers and candidates remain brands tied to a collection of pre-set political initiatives. But major donors get input into the details and feedback during the process; ordinary voters are instructed to take it or leave it. Is there a plan in the Clinton camp to break this process of manufacturing cynicism? Is there a process for sorting out the details of actually being stronger together so that voters experience a real and not a putative stake in the political process.
There has been too much time wasted on fretting about Bernie “dead-enders”, not the majority of Bernie supporters and delegates at all and too little taking the GOP threat seriously (organizationally and not just rhetorically). Not launching the campaign against Trump today and deploying organizers to gather up volunteers and plan in every precinct to get out the vote will communicate that Trump’s threat is not taking Trump seriously. Not having election protection operations already in operation is not taking Trump seriously. Thinking of August as a vacation is not taking Trump seriously nor is it setting up to take back the Congress. Not having a communications operation that is rapid response to the August nonsense the GOP side and including Trump puts out is a tell that the Clinton campaign rhetorically uses Trump as only a scare tactic and not really considered a threat to the nation.
Time for the Clinton campaign to start moving boldly to win a wave election and stop trying to punish Sanders and his supporters for conducting a tough primary. The anxiety that Sanders supporters would “spoil” Hillary’s perfectly produced and executed Superbowl political show by showing that the Democratic party delegates brought a diversity of opinions and still had concerns about the candidate were a peculiar angst about the possible failure of one of the best-run, slick media conventions since Richard Nixon invented the form in 1968. The line between “no fuck-ups” and being overmanaged is very fine. But that event is now in the media can and the sunk costs of putting it on will shortly be booked. (Why large amounts of campaign cash are needed.) And shortly we will have the audience numbers and opinion poll bounces and analysis of those bounces and whatever August surprise the GOP has in store. (The misogyny that this speech generated has already hit YouTube. The “little men” that Kennedy was concerned about were not amused.
Bernie’s “revolution” will play out according to a post-convention strategy that will strive to avoid the label of “selling out” or being co-opted to deliver votes to Democrats without getting anything in return. The Clinton campaign played the “we got everything; he got nothing” card so well before the convention that Sanders now having endorsed Clinton as a firewall against Trump must support the battle against Trump from outside the Democratic Party. But this might reflect his local necessity of remaining an “independent” candidate as well.
Is that Democratic confidence clear-eyed about the fight ahead or still under the illusion that Trump can’t possibly win. Is that Democratic confidence willing to go to the mat to prevent Republican victories anywhere. Will it mobilize to take down Paul Ryan in Wisconsin? Steve King in Iowa? Make inroads in Texas? Will it start making the case for the failure of conservatism and the common-sense argument for progressive solutions, having claimed a progressive mantle rhetorically at the convention?
If they can, one of the signals that it is working is the retirement of Rush Limbaugh, the death knell of right-wing shock jocks, and the financial collapse of Fox News. Can this confident Democratic Party bring about that sort of disenthrallment of Dittoheads and Fox-brains? These are in fact good people who have narrowed their information content to single sources.
Last night, Paul Manafort apparently disciplined the realDonaldTrump Twitter stream. Does the Clinton camp know how to undo him and Trump’s phoney baloney?
The convention showed the collective attitude of the delegates. That’s all. Even George McGovern’s convention should Democratic confidence–the confidence that crooks could not win a second term. How did that go?
Short answer: almost certainly not. The Wisconsin partisan primary is Aug. 9; the more amusing, and realistic, possibility is that Ryan will lose the primary to a Tea-Party maniac who’s running against him (a la Eric Cantor).
Unfortunately the problem with formulations like “will it mobilize…” is that they conflate the national Democratic Party with the various state Democratic Parties, and the Wisconsin Democratic Party couldn’t mobilize a sleepover for half a dozen fourth-graders. In this, it’s not that unlike a lot of other DP’s in the rust belt. To fix that would require a complete rebuild/reconstruction and that’s not in the cards. So Ryan has little to fear from the DP.
A bigger concern goes to your point about complacency. By this time in the cycle in 2012, OFA was completely up and running here. This year I see no sign at all of a functioning Clinton campaign apparatus.
It might be OK to have Ryan win. At least he’s not a nut, and he seems to believe in governance. If you believe in the 2 party system, he might be someone to work with on the other side.
Like Walker he’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries. So you have to consider your comment about the 2-party system in that context.
I’ve been getting visits and at least one call from Nehlen supporters. I’m not sure how I ended up on their lists but I’m considering voting against Ryan in the primary.
Where are you getting this “realistic possibility” that Ryan can lose?
I’m curious Tarheel, is there a point you’re trying to make about the views and votes of Democrats?
I do sometimes get the impression that people sometimes confuse opionions with ideology and ideology with efficacy.
There is a gap a mile wide in the party.
The lines that drew applause in the convention were about diversity and or/criminal or civil justice. In general lines about gay rights drew the loudest applause – and no wonder 15% of the delegates were gay.
To those inside the hall it is social issues that are important. Largely a function of the better educated urban and suburban professionals, they are in some ways tribal issues. Guns. Marriage Equality.
The author of this blog reflects that. He has almost an obsession with chasing moderate republicans – and since economic issues are not at the top of his agenda this makes sense.
But to a Sanders person this is utter horseshit. A sign of economic privileged, and a sign of his generation. To those under 40 the victories he celebrates are largely taken for granted. A 27 year old has no idea what the fuss is about gay rights.
To them the defining issues are war and peace and the exploding inequality in income.
So it is economic justice that drives the agenda for the Sanders people. Importantly this is reflection of the economic reality they face.
Few if any speakers were really able to go beyond that and talk to an agenda based on economic justice. (William Barber a notable exception – google it and remember economic populists were often religious ) The lines in Clinton’s and Obama’s speech about those areas being left behind were themselves a reflection of a failure to confront reality. Almost condescending.
Things are not better than they seem.
And that is the blind spot that scares the hell out of me. I went to a realclearpolitics function and talked to a Clinton pollster. Trump can absolutely win – because in general the public is closer to his dark image than the one offered in Philadelphia. We are lucky Trump is the nominee. But Trump can win.
And he can win because the people who run the party really don’t get what Bernie was saying, and don’t understand that Bernie’s message is the one that connects with those under 40.
A
Yes fladem!!!
Precisely.
AG
Yeah. I don’t think so.
In my humble view, there never was much daylight between Clinton and Sanders. The differences seemed to be about process, not ultimate goals; about ideals vs. pragmatism; and about the ranking of priorities. All that reflects your particular perception of the world at any point in time. Sanders pushed the economic justice issue to the forefront. Hillary might have preferred the national security issues as priority #1. Depends on what has shaped your world view. This is where Clinton excelled (and Trump fails). She has an expansive world-view, informed by years of experience in individual and domestic policy (education, health care) and years of experience in national security (as Sect of State). No one else had that. The Bernie or Bust folks, as Martin suggests, are missing the train. They have been heard. Not always about policy (Clinton didn’t mention $15/hr, a position she has never held as a practical, universal position) but instead she talked about a living wage. But about priorities, certainly. They should be proud, those Sanders folks, and now is the time to get on board.
Well, if many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters have missed the Acela Express from Philadelphia to Washington, they will just take the local—no big deal. They’ll arrive a bit later and maybe with a lot more energy and passengers than when they left Philly.
I hope so. I’ve discussed this with some Bernie or Bust people. I can’t say this is universal, but there is still some sense of being aggrieved at the process. They was robbed! They fear the DNC or State Parties will shut them down if the stay within the party with their views. (Of course I think their views align almost perfectly with the party views, but that the means differ.)
The point I made to one young many was this: There are many avenues to express your values and have an impact. Perhaps the local party isn’t the best way. Maybe joining an environmental group to enact a plastic bag ordinance. Or join other groups with whom you align. But if you want to make state-wide legislative change, then working within the party gives greater access. And, I couldn’t stress enough, what a long haul legislative change is. Hillary made that point last night. So stay within the party, I recommended. Build connections. Run for office. Gain influence. Craft good legislation. Fight for it. Be willing to see the other sides of an issue. Mobilize others. Patience and hard work and clarity of vision.
Fear they’ll be silenced, eh?
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-delegate-blackout-dnc-tactics/
I can say almost to a delegate the Sanders do not believe we have been heard.
I did not leave Philadelphia thinking we had either.
Clinton paid lip service, but I don’t think she believes in the ideas she agreed to in the platform. She just mentions them in one line. Makes no attempt to describe why they matter.
Sorry – very few I talked to believed any of it.
You do understand my friend, Democrats did not vote for Mrs. Clinton because they agree with you.
They voted for Mrs. Clinton because they agree with her.
If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand them.
That was my point.
The party is badly split.
The party isn’t split. There’s just a lot of unacquainted strangers who need a minute to acquaint themselves.
All-You-Can-Eat Buffet Puts the Democratic Party at Risk
“could” “suggests” “might” — sure. And might not. This is bedwetting.
Is the Democratic Party trying to win over disaffected Republicans? Or are disaffected Republicans deciding that for this one election they will vote for Hillary Clinton to keep a sociopath out of the White House?
I’d prefer disaffected Republicans just not vote. Don’t see them voting for Hillary at long last. Republicans 45 years and older have hated her pretty much non-stop since the 1990s. Don’t see them changing their minds about her now. So, hopefully, a lot of them just stay home and don’t vote at all in November. Keeping them comfortable at home away from the ballot should be a top priority of the Democratic campaign.
Not voting is probably preferable as odd are Hillary won’t need them but if they come in they’ll probably vote Republican downticket. However, making them comfortable with Hillary could encourage them to stay home as well.
Lesser-evilism is the Democratic Party’s bedrock principle at this point. It’s not going anywhere.
Do you suppose the hectoring about Supreme Court justices would be any less apocalyptic in tone if the dreams of the Never Trumpers had come true and Clinton was running against Mitt Romney?
Mitt Rmoney would surely appoint libruul justices and stuff.
Also: Vincent Foster.
One argument for why the argument that modern conservatism in the 52 years since the Goldwater election has failed to deliver the freedom it promised (Look at the conservative-expanded surveillance state) nor has it increased peace and prosperity or balanced the budget. Instead it has used military Keynesianism for goosing domestic employment, even as the 1%’s sequestering of cash deflates the labor market more and more. And like good business CEO’s there is an insistence that we spend down the weapons and ammunition that we have paid so much for. Why build it if you can’t use it is a frequent argument, which is why smaller more usable nuclear weapons is so frightening.
Modern conservatism has failed. If the Republican immigrants to the Democratic Party cannot see that fact in the Trump ascendancy, attracting them is only expediency that can indeed sabotage a change of direction.
You just nailed our economic rope walk.
An unnaturally large majority loses coherence and will shrink.
I’m not suggesting that the November vote for Clinton will be back in two or four years to ask for more.
But that’s not how you get progressive change unless you’re FDR and you’re facing down a Great Depression and a fascist menace. And even FDR saw his majorities fluctuate and shrink.
A strong argument for radical change when the opportunity arises with stretches of incremental retrenchment in between.
Just needing to put it out there. Anyway, I saw your Twitter back and forth with Atkins. At some point, there’s going to be a fracture.
And Kaine is already flip-flopping:
http://twitter.com/gzornick/status/759007214254161920
If/when he becomes Vice President, Kaine won’t have a say on the Hyde Amendment, and I am extremely confident on Hillary’s position on this issue.
For It After He Was Against It After He Was For It
Yes. Male Catholic Democrats cannot be trusted on this issue. They are squishes around the edges…parental notification, Hyde and late term medical abortions. He checks them all.
And right on cue, first Zika case in Florida.
Too broad a brush used on this one. There are male Catholics that respect separation of church and state and don’t need to run around declaring their own personal beliefs to the general public. That should be irrelevant to their public duties. And the absence of a uterus means that THEY will never have their personal beliefs put to the test.
Hyde Amendment 1976–40 yrs of acceptance. No effort to repeal.
Yes, I know. And it’s not only forty years old but per the ACLU reenacted every year. Such is the power of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Kaine is totally out of line on this at this point because repealing the Hyde Amendment has for the first time been put in the party platform. heh — four years from now will be told to set aside our fury over a new war and continuation of the increased income/wealth inequality because the Hyde Amendment is finally no more?
probably. sigh
Not in disagreement with this. I want a ticket which communicates a cohesive message. Kaine must get better at swallowing his tongue when appropriate.
It’s just not a very important policy area to spend our worry. This is an animating issue for Hillary, she is not soft on this issue at all, and she’ll be the Executive. Kaine won’t be talking her into moderating her position.
this may well be “an animating issue for Hillary” as noted below, but it’ll get marked as yet another unforced error.
it’s way to early for this kind of mistake from what’s supposed to be a first team strategy group.
Looking on the bright side, if the Dems actually have a chance to repeal the Hyde Amendment, Kaine’s vote will have been removed from the Senate.
I’m concerned with more than 2016. I can take both a short and long-term view of things. Provided HRC serves two terms, Kaine is the 2024 front-runner. And if he’s waffling now on something that a Democrat shouldn’t be waffling on, I don’t trust him and won’t. Besides, god forbid he became president for any reason any time before 2024.
Vice-Presidents aren’t always their Party’s nominee after the President they ran with leaves office.
It’s extraordinarily safe to say that if Kaine chose to maintain his view on choice here for eight more years, it would make it difficult for him to win a future Party POTUS primary were he to choose to run.
Vice-Presidents aren’t always their Party’s nominee after the President they ran with leaves office.
You don’t think Kaine is going to run in ’24, provided Clinton serves 2 terms? Of course he is. In that case, Clinton will support him. It’s the one reason, when I heard the supposed finalists, I was hoping she’d chose Vilsack. Because he’d be too damn old to run in ’24.
He may run. And if he has a bad position on women’s choice, he’ll probably be defeated. It’s an important issue in the Party.
The big question is, from which side will it shrink?
But we are facing down a Great Depression and have been for eight years.
And internal fascism is still fascism.
And the global situation reminds too many analysts of the pre-World War I condition in which too tight and too hardball a set of alliances spun out of control because events moved faster than decision-making. Der Spiegel’s report today on Philip Breedlove’s emails, his sources of information, and his contempt and insubordination for Obama’s restraint is the sort of foreign crisis that requires de-escalation more than chest-beating. The notion of Presidential “strength” boils down to one thing–making the decision to send people to their deaths in defense of the “national interest”, whatever that is. Breedlove and even Wesley Clark had gotten blase in their considerations relative to Europe; the generals’ agenda was making sure there were no troop drawdowns from Europe. That is a failure itself of national security–manufacturing threats to justify jobs. More escalation, more troops.
I don’t know how you get progressive change these days. Except through judicial maneuvers, which have their own risks and don’t cover some of the crisis areas in which you are not trying to stop something, like discrimination or a pipeline, but are trying to get something done, like better paying jobs, more equitable tax codes, winding down of wars. Signaling a move toward diplomacy and mutual reductions in arms; backing off of arms races.
Big tent parties by your observation are unstable and should fragment. They don’t. Active caucuses or multiple parties never arise for long; sulking and going home is the bane of the two-party system.
In fact if there were accurate information delivered to the grassroots and a careful appreciation of the challenges facing the US domestically and internationally, there would be more coherence and the divisions would be over actual interests.
Before we can fix the political process of democracy (unless that is unserious political rhetoric) we must have once again a common source of the information that informs the public of issues with checks and balances to screen out the disinformation.
Holding fractious coalitions together is what politics is all about. But that requires a good amount of followership to accomplish, which requires personal investment in the broad direction that the coalition is going. If that direction, given the diagnosis of the state of the nation presented in the convention isn’t peace, prosperity, and freedom, we betray the principles we claim. Making excuses before the fact is a clever way to dodge accountability.
Too many people already have been hurt by loose pragmatism, half-measures, and laziness within the professional political classes.
No more business as usual.
What does the Party Stand for?
Also from the New Republic.
Does this mean it is time to starting reading it again?
Michael Moore, 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win
Moore declares that he will vote for Hillary in spite of his previous pledge not to vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq AUMF.
But this is a key point that Democrats must grasp quickly and deal with, and it goes to the arguments I previously made about beginning to fix democratic processes so that people actually are empowered.
The media will keep paying attention because the make bucks out of people who want to see how it turns out.
The choice is this false sense of power over a screwed-up political system or the real establishment of grassroots power over politics.
Will be very interesting to see what the % of indies rises to after the nominations are set.
Myself, I expect an explosion.
Talk will not fool anyone this time. We are watching to see if words mean anything. If Obama passes TTP in lame duck…Hillary will not escape with innocent hands.
Now that the primary is over there will be lots of shifting to “no party affiliation” which tells you nothing about where they will be attracted.
Moore’s point is that even party members can get so turned off they will do something impulsively in the voting booth.
This will be interesting. I used to wonder if passing ACA was worth it since it played a huge role in losing the House. I’m ok with that now. It was worth it plus everything else that passed.
TPP is not worth losing any elections over.
He was an idiot.
He is an idiot
And I believe past behavior will predict future results.
The conversation on economics would be totally different without Sanders and Trump.
Well I’m not satisfied. The role of some of us is to keep tugging. Feels nice to have a little momentum.
The convention was great. Parties have them, and they can be fun, boring, even exhilarating. The Boobirds got annoying–they were heard, by everyone, a bit too much–but they gave the convention some colorful moments.
It was always going to be tough for Hillary to follow Obama, Biden, Michelle, Bill, Bernie, etc. She’s not an awesome speaker. However, she gave a solid speech and seemed really enjoy throwing some heat Trump’s way. There’s no doubt in my mind she’ll be happy to craft a progressive budget with Bernie, who is in line to chair the budget committee. Only catch is she has to win and the Dems need the Senate. The House would be the real difference.
To that last point, the truth is this: even with a Bernie win, many on our side of the aisle would find a way to bitch and moan about how he sold us out. It’s what we do on the left, and always have.
July 28, 2016, 10:07 pm
Trump: Republicans ‘have no choice’ but to vote for me
By Jesse Byrnes
Donald Trump said Thursday that Republicans wary of his campaign have little choice but to vote for him anyway.
“If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges,” Trump said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
The Democrats did not shy away from celebrating police officers and they went back to the well, over and over again, to emphasize their respect for the military and their concern for veterans. When some in the audience grew uncomfortable and chanted “No More Wars,” the new coalition drowned them out with “U-S-A” chants.
This was a Democratic Party that was fiercely positive about America and completely non-defensive and unapologetic about how their racial diversity, religious pluralism and cultural liberalism might alienate historically critical voting blocs.
Jingoistic nationalism? Hmmmmm!!!!!
At a convention, terrible right? I mean everyone loves the left when it is at its best: turning small disagreements into big ones; tarnishing the reputations of people who might disagree on a single issue but otherwise be solidly on the liberal spectrum; holding itself up as the paragon of what is right when the solutions promulgated may actually be debatable or even flawed; burning flags, protesting loudly, screaming “to be heard, when all the while it’s clear this is the maximum of their contribution to society while the aweful sellouts they abhor, like Tim Kaine, have actually done the hard work to improve people’s lives on the ground. Thank god we have them to get the truth out there, over and over and over and over again.
Kaine’s record is mixed at best.
You are being very kind, imo. No love lost on my part for Tim Kaine, but I’ve been told many times that I should grow up, or get drug tested, or stop being so f*cking ret*rded.
Eh? Whatever. No one’s allowed to protest anymore. We’re all supposed to get in line and smile smile smile.
pfffffft.
No kidding. I had to tune out of Gen Allen’s speech. All that USA chanting turned my stomach. Not my cup of tea, and when I heard it was choreographed ahead of time to drown out the “No More War” chants?? Eh? Well, let’s just say this Peace advocate and long time war protestor was not amused and not impressed.
Sounded a little too, uh, Republican for me. Color me unsurprised, but I guess I’m supposed to be just so overwhelmed with joy at the war hawkishness of it all.
No thanks. I woulda been one of the ones in the back shouting “No More War,” fwiw.
From Paul Krugman:
Or, the Democrats have become the war party.
Obama has been a war President since he took office and Democrats have been the war party since 2008. This is how the game works.
Just musing…
The Democrats have been the war party since FDR. The Republicans were the isolationists. Most of the institutions that drive the MIC were created by Democrats.
There’s a libertarian critique that’s resonated with me for some time. The modern welfare/warfare state has its origins with the FDR-era Democratic party.
Excellent point. The origins were in the run-up to a war that FDR expected was unavoidable. Mobilization always begins before the actual outbreak of hostilities.
When the war was over, it was Harry Truman’s administration that created the military-industrial-intelligence complex. It was JFK who accelerated the ICBM arms race and then reversed course with the Test Ban Treaty. It was the Carter Administration that thought it would be wise to arm the Afghanistan mujahadeen and to built stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.
It was Reagan who defeated the Soviet Union (so they say) with the Star Wars vaporware. Clinton who got sandbagged in Somalia and had his war against Serbia (and Russia) in Bosnia and Kosovo. And convinced Saddam Hussein to stop his WMD programs (although no one in the US knew it).
Truman used the notion of imminent nuclear attack to gain Presidential power to avoid a declaration of war. Obama formalized Bush’s informal use of drones on a similar “imminent attack” argument, giving the President the power of ordering an assassination. (As if the CIA was not regularly assassinating “threats”.
The Republicans ceased being isolationist with Eisenhower.
Trump’s going to need a boatload of campaign donations after the DNC Convention. The big donors can’t be impervious to what he’s done to foul his own campaign nor how the DNC just opened the door for them. How much will it take for the RNC to buy their way out of what Trump has done to their Party?
Besides that, I was thinking that Bill looks pretty good in his pants suit.
Holder: Trump May Lack ‘Intellectual Heft’ Needed To Be President
By CAITLIN MACNEAL
Published JULY 29, 2016, 8:48 AM EDT
Former Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday night suggested that Donald Trump may not be “very smart” because he “sees everything in black and white terms.”
CBS News’ Charlie Rose asked Holder about his Wednesday comment questioning whether Trump has “the gray matter” necessary to be president.
“You mean he’s not smart enough to be president? Rose asked.
“Yeah, I wonder,” Holder responded. “I sometimes think that he hides behind a certain bravado to hide a lack of substance that he has.”
“A person this far along in the process, I think we would know a little more about what his plans are. We’d know more about who his mentors might have been, who his intellectual guides might be. And I don’t have any sense that there is any of that to him,” he continued. “He seems to me to be a very shallow man.”
From TOD:
Well, Rasmussen finally shows Clinton ahead of Trump by a point (43-42), so hopefully that landslide is starting to build. Not much I can do where I live to help, except vote for Russ Feingold. It’ll be nice to have him back in Washington for us.
Go Russ! What an improvement in representation he’ll provide to you. Senator Johnson is horrible.
People shouting down “No More War War” chant with “U-S-A” chant.
I guess that means more war. The Democratic Party is now the war party. Isn’t that just special?
No, people shouting down rude people. Sonetimes people enjoy listening to speakers, not the assholes trying to ruin the speech.
Yes, those protestors should be drug tested and stop acting so f*cking ret*arded.
Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.
Come now– don’t you know that the true freedom of speech is the freedom to shout down anyone you don’t approve of? If you can’t believe the BernieBabies, why, then, ask a Tea Partier.
Yes, we must all be super polite and go along to get along, otherwise we’ll be called names.
I think politeness is a very underrated trait. I always strive to be polite. I’m a proud Canadian. We value politeness. Going along to get along is not a bad thing when mine is clearly the minority view.
I get it that sometimes there is a line that cannot be crossed, when my cause is just and I cannot go along with the majority. In that case, I wish the majority luck and leave the organization.
“When they go low, we go high” – Michelle Obama was channeling my late mother with that phrase. “Winners always travel on the high road. Rudeness never accomplishes anything except rudeness.”
Your mileage obviously differs, but the relative handful of bitterenders came across to me as rude. “My dreams weren’t realized so I’m going to try to spoil the celebration of dreams that were realized.”
That’s a low road. Bad form. Neither my mother or Malia’s mother would have any truck with it.
Some people find war rude.
The warriors, too.
None of those people that they heckled set policy. They serve.
They were deserving of respect in that setting.
I didn’t see anyone heckle the Pres. with chants of “no more wars”.
An example of why the Bernie Delegates who protested were less effective than they could have been was that they were most often shouting “No More War” at Convention speakers who were not advocating for war.
Their chants weren’t performed by enough Delegates to make it clear what they were chanting. At times, they were chanting at times when the person speaking to the Convention was saying things the protesting Delegates agree with, which doesn’t make a lot of sense.
And then they chose to wear brightly colored protest T-shirts last night, which made it easy to see how thoroughly they were outnumbered.
Finally, they might have gotten more traction with the Delegate body if they had conducted themselves more reasonably. It’s safe to say very few Clinton Delegates are animated by support for militarism. But when you’re not talking to Clinton Delegates and choose to toss loud verbal bombs at them and the nominee instead, you get what you got: the Delegates and the DNC took time and effort to out-organized the hell out of the protestors.
Based on multiple stories I’ve read, it appears that approximately 300 of the nearly 2,000 Sanders Delegates chose to flout Bernie’s request to can the chanting and other behaviors during the Convention speaker programs. So the protestors didn’t even do a particularly good job of organizing their own Delegates.
Yeah, yeah. Ye olde: make change from within the system, not from outside it.
How’s that worked out so far?
No matter how people protest, it’s always done incorrectly. IF ONLY people would learn to protest correctly. If only…
Well, if Sanders running as a (temporary) Democrat–within the system–didn’t work, then what’s the alternative you’d endorse?
If the Sanders movement now turns its attention to school boards, city councils and so on, eventually to state legislatures, then systemic change is possible. It was never about Sanders, right?
I hope that they can do that: focus on local and state wide issues and candidacies. Too bad one of the first things Obama did was kick Howard Dean to the curb, along with his 50 State strategy. That set local D politics back hugely. I hope we can move forward with more strength from here.
For me, NO, it was never just about Sanders. Can’t speak for everyone else, but those that I know personnally (small sample), it also wasn’t about Sanders, the man, but his views, ideas, etc.
I want people to organize effectively. Particularly against the MIC, which needs to be reined in.
Why couldn’t the Sanders Delegates have organized themselves effectively first, and then followed that by simply taking the time to speak to Clinton Delegates? They might have been able to win some Delegates who would work with them on joint actions at the Convention and afterwards.
The protestors chose to work within the system by running to become DNC Delegates. Self-critically observing whether their methods are showing themselves to be successful, making wise judgments on what constitutes success, and adjusting their methods as needed, is the right thing to do.
We’re all particularly interested and motivated human beings here. Remembering that will have value moving forward.
Everyone has a different definition of “effectively,” frankly. Yes coulda woulda shoulda. Perhaps the Sanders contingent SHOULD have done a better job at their dissent.
Maybe they’ll pick up the pieces from here, move on, continue evolving, and who knows? Do a better job going forward.
Constructive criticism – like how to do it “better” (even if just a personal opinion) is welcome.
Simply bashing for the sake of bashing (truly not pointing a finger at any one specific person here) is worthless. Help people to find a better way.
Sanders and his supporters have very valid viewpoints. Let’s hope that they are more successful at getting the message across. I think it will benefit ALL of us.
I’m in hearty agreement with you here.
Because the Sanders and Clinton people for the most part hate each other. Delegates are activists, and VERY committed to their own cause.
No one who has been a delegate would ask the question you ask.
Well, if they can’t put aside the personal animus, I don’t believe they’ll change the Party as quickly, or as thoroughly.
I want Sanders Delegates to help change the Party. Continuing the spitting at fellow Democrats doesn’t seem the best way to accomplish that. I want them to stick around for a while and help elect liberal Democrats up and down the ticket.
The primary is over; the Delegates were at the Convention to confirm the Party’s nominee, and consolidate support for the nominee. Time to grow up.
I tire of these exchanges with you, but one more time.
Sanders people don’t believe in the system as currency constituted. They don’t believe, almost to a person, that you can run a campaign based on big dollar donations and bring about substantial change.
Sanders people tend to believe you need candidates outside of the money system to accomplish anything. They point to the Wall Street Crisis and the failure to hold anyone accountable as exhibit A.
Which is why the nomination of Tim Kaine was like pouring gasoline on a fire – because on the core issue for Sanders people he is on the other side.
Almost all of the Sanders people will vote for Clinton. But they don’t like her, don’t trust, and believe the best way to influence her is to raise hell from the outside.
That is who the Sanders people are. In the Yougov poll less than half of Sanders supporters are voting for Clinton.
They don’t trust the system and the don’t trust her.
To make clear almost all of the DELEGATES will vote for Cilnton. Right now Sanders SUPPORTERS are less than bought in.
An elected DNC Delegate have accepted a role in the Party, an important one. They can choose, for ideological reasons like the ones you state here, to refuse to commit themselves to their role in the Party, but the role they campaigned to accept is a role, by definition, within the Party system.
Sanders delegates have an opportunity to try to change the Party so that it begins moving away from its influence by big money donators and crafts more successful and inspirational grassroots organizing strategies, but they will waste that precious opportunity if they walk away.
By articles I read, it was mainly California. One thing that showed is the optics of mainly white delegates shouting down POC on the first night.
I’m sure after that it was difficult to get reasonable Sanders delegates to join in.
Minuscule, like Trump’s fingers.
.
You write:
Did it never occur to you the they were “badly outnumbered” because the DNC used every dirty trick in the book to make damned sure they didn’t have a chance against the centrist fix queen?
I mean…really, centerfield!!! The evidence was so strong that the Dems had to make the plainly risky move of dumping DNC chaiman Debbie Wasserman Schultz right in the middle of a national convention!!!
Had I been working for Sanders I would have been thoroughly pissed off as well.
C’mon….
AG
You’re not supposed to notice that the D party is the party of War these days. How impolite of you. All those delegates just wanted to “listen” to the War Monger monger war, doncha know? How rude to interrupt him, but it’s OK if you yell out GOP chants like “USA USA USA.”
Irony is long dead, I fear.
USA! USA! USA! is a team chant, based on context and not necessarily a GOP chant although they have appropriated that, the flag, and the Pledge of Allegiance, not to mention the claim that they are “real” Americans.
The 2002 election and the way Bush/Cheney used the Iraq AUMF to lead up to it made both parties war parties, not that it helped Democrats. Max Cleland lost through the lies of Saxby Chambliss (lately considered a “moderate” GOP – ha!).
When there are attacks in US cities, neither major party is going to be the “peace” party. When you bring the outside game inside and think that you can silence and co-opt them, spontaneous or orchestrated protests of disruption are inevitable.
OTOH, career politicians and public servants have expectations of public deference and longing to be celebrities. Generals and Cabinet Secretaries live in a world of enforced deference; they expect that to carry over to all of their life. Interrupting them to protest what they are saying is lese majeste.
And, in a branded well-planned marketing spectacle for a candidate who demands no eff-ups (because any little flaw is subject to endless media nitpicking) the script must be obeyed. The illlusion that it’s a real convention must be maintained in order to have the flawless transfer of legitimacy from the current to future President.
Some Clinton supporters were quite anxious about the protesters all the way through the evening until the balloon drop was successfully concluded. Denied 8 years ago, they did not want to see it happen again.
There is a lot of human emotion in all of those points of view.
I care for this comment quite a bit, but wanted to pull out this piece:
“Interrupting them to protest what they are saying is lese majeste.”
At times, Delegates shouted out protests at speakers not to protest what the speaker was saying, but to protest the speaker.
I’ll be honest, I personally enjoyed hearing Pannetta get an earful. But I’m not the ordinary voter, the voter who might be fooled by Trump’s preposterous claims that he would be more responsible with the military. Trump would be completely genocidal with our military. And he’s running on jacking up Defense spending huuuuugely.
Listen to when the protestors start up their chants. It’s at the exact time Panetta launched into his broadsides on Trump’s irresponsible rhetoric and lack of knowledge:
A lower-information voter at home might think that the protestors were registering a belief that Trump would be the peace candidate. This aspect of the protest was incredibly thickheaded and counterproductive. It wasn’t just a disobeyal of Bernie’s request, it undermined Sanders’ policy views.
Small potatoes in the big picture? I hope so. Time will tell.
Oh, please.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with protesting any or all actions taken by the military. I have opposed most, if not all, American military actions in my lifetime, starting with Vietnam.
That is not the same thing as suggesting that the United States should abdicate its global responsibilities. Whether we like it or not we live in the age of the American Empire. (Personally, I like it. The alternatives are worse. Being part of the British Empire was okay for Canada, too.)
And it is definitely not the same thing as blaming the military – grunt to general – for doing their jobs. General Allen was the warrior, not the war monger. Blame the politician, not the soldier. The world needs the American military.
“No more war!” Really? I wanted to hear what General Allen had to say and it got lost because of a chant I gave up on after high school? How do you have any sort of a nuanced conversation when you begin “There shouldn’t be any war”. Get serious.
If you want to know when I think America should go to war, read the speech Obama gave in Oslo when he accepted his peace prize.
David Dayen, The New Republic, The Democratic Convention was Senior Week
The encouraging part of this article is knowing what the GOP convention was — losers week.
Turnout and down-ticket are immensely important this year and in 2018. Especially at the local government level, that forms the trial of fire of a politician’s career. What is needed is the inside politicians who have done outside strategies and understand what mobilizing the public involves. Folks who can widen the map and also know what the math is to win and how close their organizing is getting to that total.
And also the campaign support staff volunteers who can quickly learn all of the logistics and communications skills required to win.
The establishment will not do the job of creating this bench at the local level for progressives. And without means of financing local races, progressive candidates often get co-opted by local interests, especially real estate and development interests. Learning how to square that circle early will help transform inside politics. But that requires actually winning in a large number of new places with new faces.
Confidence to continue to deny less well heeled women access to legal and inexpensive health care? Because — god, something, something?
To hell with any and all jerks that won’t get their church out our government.
Clintons and Kaines are off on a bus tour of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Will they have the Rust Belt in hand before Trump gets going? Do they have the next 100 days solid with campaign events, allowing Trump no media daylight to go unanswered?
Never happen…
AG