I'm in the process of writing a blog entry that's kinda gotten away from me and I've been distracted by a video I saw this morning. If you are a party first Democrat, Moderate, Neoliberal, or anyone else who still blames third party and non-voters for HRC's loss, even if it's just to yourself, please watch this video and think about why someone who's ambivalent about the party or to the left of the party might find it difficult to support the party's candidate.
The attitude expressed by the woman in the video and the purge of progressives from the DNC suggests to me that mainstream Dems have once again learned the wrong lesson from a loss (actually, many over the last decade). It seems that they've concluded that those free pony ideas Bernie offered suckered us into wanting things the party doesn't want to offer rather than understanding he suggested things that many need and that are utterly mundane in other countries. Instead of recognizing the pull of a true modern New Deal the DNC has basically decided we need to diversify our corporate superdelegates.
Rather than focusing on a solid agenda for opposing the Republicans, a battle plan for protecting the votes of its base, or for chasing the votes of the huge swath of non-voters; and rather than making a visible commitment to its most faithful voting bloc the DNC is making a point to limit the scope of ideas, working from the assumption that voters don't really have a choice but to support their candidates.
How'd that work out last time? After the last election leftist are angry. They largely voted for HRC, thus the popular vote, but that's now being used as justification for hostage taking. On Twitter at least they're daring them to shoot the baby. I predicted that HRC would lose unless certain things were addressed. I covered these in my groundbreaking blogpost "Sometimes a Loss is Just a Time to Move On" (I'm experimenting with self-promoting adjectives). This is the way of more future losses or the narrowest of wins resulting in little progress before Republicans regain control again just to break things. What do you think?
#DNC Unity still supporting Super-Delegates everybody should listen very carefully. #SaturdayMorninghttps://t.co/3A6vygguhR 👈🏽👈🏽👆🏽👆🏽 pic.twitter.com/qb8iUXI6qs— StarLord35 🌹 (@StarLord35) October 21, 2017
The attitude expressed by the woman in the video and the purge of progressives from the DNC suggests to me that mainstream Dems have once again learned the wrong lesson from a loss (actually, many over the last decade). It seems that they've concluded that those free pony ideas Bernie offered suckered us into wanting things the party doesn't want to offer rather than understanding he suggested things that many need and that are utterly mundane in other countries. Instead of recognizing the pull of a true modern New Deal the DNC has basically decided we need to diversify our corporate superdelegates.
To add insult to injury, Perez also tapped several individuals who have lobbying or corporate-interest backgrounds—a move that has sparked criticism in the past. The pack of new delegates includes Joanne Dowdell, a registered lobbyist for Fox News parent company News Corp; Harold Ickes, a veteran of the Clinton White House; and Manuel Ortiz, a lobbyist for CITGO Petroleum Corp and Puerto Rican interests. At least 10 additional Perez-tapped superdelegates have previously been registered as lobbyists, Bloomberg reports.
Rather than focusing on a solid agenda for opposing the Republicans, a battle plan for protecting the votes of its base, or for chasing the votes of the huge swath of non-voters; and rather than making a visible commitment to its most faithful voting bloc the DNC is making a point to limit the scope of ideas, working from the assumption that voters don't really have a choice but to support their candidates.
this is how a party loses 1k seats— PandaDog (@R6Rider) October 17, 2017
Percentage of Eligible Voters Received
2008, Obama: 30.22%
2012, Obama: 28.02%
2016, Hillary: 26.34%
How'd that work out last time? After the last election leftist are angry. They largely voted for HRC, thus the popular vote, but that's now being used as justification for hostage taking. On Twitter at least they're daring them to shoot the baby. I predicted that HRC would lose unless certain things were addressed. I covered these in my groundbreaking blogpost "Sometimes a Loss is Just a Time to Move On" (I'm experimenting with self-promoting adjectives). This is the way of more future losses or the narrowest of wins resulting in little progress before Republicans regain control again just to break things. What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment