General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Keith Ellison: [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've block-walked and canvassed. I've put mass mailings together. I've phone-banked. I've participated in caucuses where the state I lived in had ALWAYS had caucuses(I personally prefer primaries), and in primaries where there were primaries.
You have never had any call to accuse me of not living in the real world. You have no call to personally disparage me at all.
If platforms didn't matter:
The South wouldn't have walked out of the 1948 convention just because a MILD civil rights plank was added.
LBJ wouldn't have MADE the Dems lose in 1968 just to keep the party's platform on record in supporting continued involvement in Vietnam.
In 1972, there would not have been bitter fights over whether abortion or gay rights were mentioned in the platform(contrary to popular belief, neither were).
In 1980, there would not have been wrangling between the Carter and Kennedy campaigns over economic justice language.
In 1984, Gerry Ferraro, as platform committed chair, would not have tried to take official endorsement of the ERA OUT of the platform(even though she knew that wouldn't have gained us any votes anywhere) and the Mondale campaign wouldn't have resisted most of the anti-nuclear platform language that was proposed.
In 1988, the Dukakis campaign wouldn't have blocked most of the language Jesse Jackson wanted in the platform.
In 1992, Bill Clinton wouldn't have pushed the platform massively to the right.
In 2004, John Kerry wouldn't have refused to allow anti-Iraq War language in the platform
If platforms didn't matter, the nominee would let the party put whatever language in that it wanted.
Nothing matters MORE than the platform.
If the platform doesn't matter, what the hell does?
Voters elect candidates to do things.