Skip to main content

If You Don't Care About Winning This is Probably the Way to Go.

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.

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.






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

Popular posts from this blog

Why Are We Expending So Much Energy on Something Barely Half of Black People Want?

Presidential contenders are being asked about their support for reparations. One could be forgiven for assuming that reparations has broad support within the Black community, it seems like an easy bet. But only slightly more than half of Black people support the idea. So why has the idea suddenly gained so much traction? Neither Yvette Carnell nor Antonio Moore, originators of #ADOS (American descendants of slaves) have the following to drive a topic supported by less than a quarter of Americans into the national conversation. I suspect that it has everything to do with Bernie Sanders, the obvious frontrunner since announcing, and the ongoing attempt to portray him as racially blind and unaware. When asked directly about his support of reparations in 2016, Sanders answered, "Its likelihood of getting through congress is nil. Second of all I think it would be very divisive." He then went on to explain how his policies would have a disproportionate positive effect on the Blac…

The Intersectional Swiftboat Waltz

This past week the Working Families Parties endorsed Elizabeth Warren in the democratic primary. It's a somewhat obscure thing, in terms of national politics. WFP is a nominally left party started in New York state. In New York rather than run their own candidates they endorse Democrats. The choice of the centrist Warren over Sanders isn't without precedent. They endorsed Joe Crowley over Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Andrew Cuomo over Zephyr Teachout. The entire affair is only relevant for what it suggests that we can expect from the rest of the primary.

When the endorsement was announced, members asked leadership to release the breakdown of votes, as they did in 2015 when the party endorsed Sanders. Leadership refused, saying something about preserving the integrity of the vote. What was obvious, where the 56 person leadership/advisory board had a vote equal to that of the 10,000+ membership, is that the leaders had heavily favored Warren while the members went to Sanders. I…

If You Love Your People, Set It Free (or How an Identitarian Came To Prefer Universal Policy Over Identity Politics)

This post is late because I was in LA last week, where I made a point of walking as much as possible to enjoy my audiobook. Although I still have 20/20 vision I have been slow to accept that aging has made it more difficult to read, making it feel increasingly like a chore. In fully embracing this I've finally started looking for audiobooks I might find engaging enough to not be constantly distracted. For my trip I chose Mehrsa Baradaran's The Color of Money, which looks at the persistence of the racial wealth gap in the US.  It was incredibly striking and depressing listening to The Color of Money while accidentally walking through encampments of the unhoused, watching new encampments sprout up in the short time that I was there. This is who we've always been. If you have any doubt, the history recounted in The Color of Money makes it clear that capitalism has always been about extracting wealth from Black people and keeping poor people poor. On checking into Twitter I wa…