HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » That Guy 888 » Journal
Page: 1

That Guy 888

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: San Antonio, Texas
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2007, 03:40 PM
Number of posts: 1,214

Journal Archives

This is a very important and historical Democratic primary.

While they have all been historic in their own way, this one is unique. Not because a woman may become President. Not because we may have our first Jewish President, nor because we may have someone nominated who wasn’t a party member. This primary is historic because there are two very different paths taken to get the nomination. On the surface Secretary Clinton’s campaign looks very traditional, and Senator Sanders’ looks radically new. To me, it’s actually the opposite.

Secretary Clinton is succeeding where Jeb? failed. She amassed an incredible monetary war chest before anyone else even announced they were going to run. She has successfully sought out support among key leaders among labor unions, current and former elected officials in the party and other social organizations. All of this support should have intimidated anyone from having any support for their own run at the nomination. John-Ellis-Bush-Bush tried to do this, IMO Secretary Clinton has largely accomplished this.

Senator Sanders on the other hand has a lifetime record of strong liberal principles which used to attract the most voters to the Democratic Party. He has attacked republicans for their version of “family values” and “strong foreign policy” with positions that “New Democrats” were taught to fear. Senator Sanders campaign has been focused on small donations, rather than bundling parties and <wink> unaffiliated super PACs.

So what IMO makes Secretary Clinton's campaign radically new? The elimination of voter input into the nomination process. If Secretary Clinton succeeds, why will any future Democratic nominee attempt to get to know the average voter? Why listen to ordinary Democrats (or Americans for that matter) when you only have to amass money (enough to outspend your opponents) use the momentum of monetary success to get support of leaders before the primary even starts, and reduce the average voter to easily stereotyped blocks (Women, Blacks, LGBT, Latinos, blue collar, “hard working rural Whites”, etc.) with leaders that can be impressed by your cash raising acumen.

What makes Senator Sanders campaign traditional? Rather than running away from traditional liberal values, he embraces them, and has all his life. Senator Sanders listens to average voters, even when the cameras are off, and even when he’s not running for office (Brunch with Bernie is a call-in segment on the Thom Hartmann radio show and has been for years). Because of his real commitment to his values, Senator Sanders doesn’t have to worry about contradicting himself in videos. In short, working to earn your votes matters more than cash.

I see it this way: if Senator Sanders wins the nomination, we can see a return to what used to be core Democratic Party principles. Helping the people in our country who need it most yet receive the least. A realization that our justice system is biased and dangerous unless you’re economically insulated. The acceptance that our wars damage average Americans who see no benefit from that “racket”(hats off to General Butler).

If Secretary Clinton wins, then we ordinary voters are further marginalized. In future primaries we can cast our vote for the sole remaining candidate who has successfully out-raised their competition. After all, you wouldn’t want to throw your vote away, right?

If you’ve read through this, thanks.

TLDR? The short version: Senator Sanders is trying to earn our votes, Secretary Clinton is trying to win the primary regardless of how we individual voters may feel about her candidacy.
Go to Page: 1