kristopher
kristopher's JournalThe 4 Things You Need to Know About Bernie Sanders’ Historic Comeback
The author presents an outstanding support for the significance of these points.
03/29/2016 09:38 am ET | Updated 21 hours ago
Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing
<snip>
...everything that’s happening now in the Clinton-Sanders race was predicted, long ago, by either Sanders himself or the hard data of this election season. Moreover, none of what’s happening is a surprise to the politicos on the Clinton side, either; that’s one reason they’re working overtime to control and then shift the narrative from the inevitability of a major Sanders comeback. While it’s still up in the air whether that comeback will be total or near-total, only by manipulating the narrative can the Clinton campaign keep Sanders at bay.
And that’s why understanding that what’s happening now is no more or less than what was readily predictable a year ago is crucial to understanding the current state of the Democratic primary race. This means unpacking not just the Clinton camp’s transparent attempts to skew the media narrative, but also, and more importantly, the hard data behind a comeback that could end up being every bit as historic as Sanders supporters are now suggesting it will be.
So here are the four items every voter needs to have a handle on as we enter the vortex of nonsense the Clinton campaign sent spinning into the election season as soon as Sanders eliminated 22.5% of her delegate lead in just twelve hours of voting in three states.
1. Hillary Clinton’s reversal of her position on super-delegates.
<snip>
2. The certainty that Sanders would fall way behind in the first half of the nominating season, only to come roaring back in its latter half.
<snip>
3. The Clinton camp’s use of the media to spin its chances of clinching the nomination via pledged delegates.
<snip>
4. Sanders’ growing ability to meet or exceed his delegate targets almost everywhere.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-4-things-you-need-to-know-about-bernie-sanders-historic-comeback_b_9557952.html
Cue Camp Hillary's Immediate Dismissive Execution of the Messenger
5
4
3
2
...
That has nothing to do with values or principles.
It may describe one possible configuration of a future economy, but it tells us nothing about what happens to the fruits of production or the relationship of the individual citizen of the state to the economy. That's where you have to absolutely must start or else you are only placing band-aids. The principles we espouse serve the same purpose of guidance whether they are applied to manufacturing or to service jobs because they are an over-arching idea that sketches out what the human condition "should be".
That's ok. I understand that you seek to preserve the status quo with a little tweaking around the edges.
Sorry to tell you this, that means you aren't even close to embracing or even understanding what democratic socialism is all about. I see nothing to tell me elsewise when you balk at FDR and deride what was happening in the 60s.
"Ignoring (it seems to me) that there were a lot of changes between the party that started the 1960s and the party that ended the 1970s, also ignoring that FDR was elected three decades before and dead two decades before the 1960s."
Let me ask you this - what was the right wing doing during that period of 60s/70s change which you find so compelling? You say the problems are different, and I tell you they are the same and are centered on a single issue: a fair division of resources.
Do you note the word "fair"?
That's why the values and principles discussion has to come first. If we can't agree on what's fair and that we should use the democratic process to place that distribution into effect, we effectively let the 1% decide and enter a state of indentured servitude. Any limits they establish will not restrain their own accumulation of power, and that, my friend, makes "democracy" nothing but a sham.
So you are not willing to articulate the principles that you live by?
This isn't complicated and you are a clever, articulate person. So when you try to drag a red herring towards me to deflect yet again from the question, you must know how strongly it seems you are trying to avoid clearly defining the values and principles you are following in your evaluation.
When you say that I "see one and only one way to be a social Democrat" it tells me nothing and we've already established that in the first post I made
I'd like to know what "way" do you see to be a social democrat that is different?
Values, principles, policies.
People.
You seem to have drifted from the original question.
Sorry to push this, but we started here; I've added bold to key points.
It's clear the reference we are pointing to in this thread are collectively, the principles of social democracy that FRD spelled out and that Bernie is campaigning for.
As I read it, you think that the embodiment of the left, the principles of the left that we are talking about is a "frozen-in-amber model of what the Olds remember from their halcyon day" and that we should "adapt to the times".
Is that accurate?
When I framed my question on policy specifics, it was a follow to what I viewed as a non-answer to the question on principles. I expected your answer to have more of a principle -> policy link.
Without a guiding set of principles about who the economy is working for your policy specific aren't particularly informative since they don't allow a broad-based understanding of what the policies are supposed to actually accomplish when crafted. There are a lot of ways to solve problems, and the devil is in the details dictated by people's principles.
ETA: What I'm asking is a standard of how policy is made - first we clarify the normative economics we are applying, then we move on to the positive picture.
No, I would like you to be specific about the policies you want to drop.
Stop insinuating that change must occur without spelling it out.
What specific policy changes do we engage?
What values dictate our top 5 priorities?
What goes?
What stays?
We all KNOW what the Democratic party is; in both fact and ideal. And we both perceive a disconnect between the facts as they are and the professed ideal.
You are suggesting we need to update the system to repair this disconnect and you are trying to sway us to your view; so be specific. What is your way to deal with corporatism controlling policymaking?
So you think everything is fine. That the principles you endorse dropping mean...?
It's clear the reference we are pointing to in this thread are collectively, the principles of social democracy that FRD spelled out and that Bernie is campaigning for.
As I read it, you think that the embodiment of the left, the principles of the left that we are talking about is a "frozen-in-amber model of what the Olds remember from their halcyon day" and that we should "adapt to the times".
Is that accurate?
A Dozen Reasons Sanders Voters Are Justifiably Angry at the Media Right Now
This is an outstanding breakdown of events going against the Clinton Machine narrative:
By Seth Abramson
there's an incredible amount of anger being directed toward the media by the roughly half of the Democratic Party that supports Bernie Sanders.
Clinton supporters and many self-professed "neutral" journalists sagely inform the rest of us that this anger is little more than sour grapes or denial-stage grief; it's the numbers that matter -- they say -- and if only Sanders supporters cared about hard data in the same way that Clinton supporters and (say) "neutral" bloggers for The Washington Post do, or even the editors at The New York Times, everyone would just calm down and accept the incipient inevitability of the ugliest and least substantive general-election campaign in the history of the United States: Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.
The thing is, I'm a hard-data guy myself. Always have been. And so are many of the Sanders supporters I know and interact with daily. What's actually making them angry right now is not that Hillary Clinton yesterday termed Bernie Sanders "the latest flavor of the month" on union issues -- when Sanders had already been a pro-union progressive for a decade by the time Hillary eased herself out of being a proud Goldwater Republican in the late 1960s -- nor is it that the candidate they support faces a truly monumental task in trying to become the Democratic candidate for President.
What Sanders supporters are angry about is hard data.
And not just any hard data, but hard data supplied by irrefutably objective sources and challenged as to its validity by absolutely no one.
Hard data so objective and undeniably accurate that its absence in public discussion of the presidential election is not just puzzling or downright bizarre but absolutely infuriating.
Here are a dozen pieces of hard data that Sanders supporters are particularly exercised about right now, primarily because most Sanders supporters believe Donald Trump to be a clear and present danger to the nation, and therefore can't imagine why Democrats remain unable to have an honest conversation about who could -- or will -- be in a position to stop him....
Curious about the way MSNBC just started covering Sanders?
After months of total blackout, suddenly they are making him the center of their coverage.
Odd.
But actually he isn't "the center of their coverage" now that I think about it; the thing that is occupying most of the airtime is the terror attack in Belgium.
Terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, terror, be afraid, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, aaaaaannnnnd, we'll be back in just a moment for more coverage of today's elections in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington. Stay tuned.
Still too early to call in Washington. Turnout looks good.
Terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, terror, be afraid, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, terror, terror, be afraid, terror, terrorist, aaaaaannnnnd, we'll be back in just a moment for more coverage of today's elections in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington. Stay tuned.
And so on and so on.
Given MSNBC's track record during this election, I'm jaded enough to guess the background burble is intended to make us think Hillary is going to keep is safe (can't count the number of times I've heard that expression there today), but the fact is the only thing related to Hillary I'm getting out of the coverage is how much worse the terrorism problem will become if her neocon Middle East agenda is allowed to become official policy of the Democratic party and the Presidency.
What's My Mutt?
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) – Apps have become a part of everyday life for most people and also their four-legged friends.
There are apps for just about everything, including those that track your dog’s health and wellness, monitor their training and even provide games.
Before the dawn of smartphones, apps and other websites, the only way to get the most accurate answer to what breeds make up a mutt was through expensive DNA testing.
Now, Little Rock veterinarian and mother of two, Dr. Lauren Schluterman has created an app called "What's My Mutt?" to determine what breeds could make up your adult mixed breed dog. ...
http://www.12news.com/news/local/ark-veterinarian-creates-app-to-identify-mutts/100751242
I'm looking forward to trying this with our 2current fur babies and a photos of a late great little friend.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
