March 7, 2016

Why Bernie can't win. Probably. Maybe.

Right up front, I am a Sanders supporter, and I want him to be our nominee, no matter what the consequences. If he does gain the nomination, there is the possibility of a very bad outcome in the general election.

It's nothing the Republicans could do to him. The clown car is in the ditch very deep, and there's no sign of a tow truck on the horizon. The death blow would come from inside our party. Remember, this is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Sanders calls it a revolution, and the DNC doesn't know what to call it, but they realize allowing Sanders to win the presidency would end the nice deal they have going for themselves, derail their gravy train, push many of them into obscurity, make the whole third way strategy look bogus, and generally turn the established party structure inside out. This is exactly what many of us would like to see, and exactly what the third way wing of the party, meaning many Democrats, cannot allow.

Am I suggesting a significant number of Democrats would work to make sure Sanders loses the general election? Damn right I am. When push comes to shove, their personal well being is more important than the presidency, federal judges, foreign policy, immigration reform, police and justice reform, or anything else. Who are they, and how many of them are there? I don't know, but I remember Eugene McCarthy campaigning for Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and I don't even know what Carter did to anger McCarthy. Whatever it was, it was small potatoes compared to the anger and frustration many Democrats would feel if they lost control of the party to an "avowed socialist." There would be enough of them to pose a serious threat of defeating Sanders in the general election, in order to discredit the Sanders revolution and regain control of the party.

What might save Sanders in the face of such an insiders' coup? Independents and disenchanted Republicans. Many people are angry at the system that keeps giving them what they consider as a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. They would vote for Sanders simply because he is neither of those. It would be scary, but it would be interesting. And it might be exactly what we need to put an end to these political dynasties we get so often.

March 5, 2016

As long as we're on the topic, let's stay on topic.

There was a post here that was locked for being off topic, but it did make a couple good points about the primaries and some of the fallout from the primaries. I thought it would be useful to paraphrase and discuss the points as they relate to the Democratic primary election.

First, many of us have not yet voted, and we would like to think our opinions and our votes mean something. In any primary election, there is always a push by the front runner to declare the contest over, to get the landslide moving faster. In our party, there is some urgency about this because we are afraid of spending all our money and energy before we face the Republicans. That's understandable, but we need to respect the voters and their opportunity to make their voices heard.

Second, and related to the first point, is the tendency of the party to choose a favorite and throw the weight of the party organization behind the favorite. It happens all the time, so I guess it's not unreasonable, but it contributes to casting aspersions on individual Democrats and their loyalty to the party. "If you were a real Democrat, you would be more positive about supporting our nominee, whoever that is." OK, but that makes it more difficult to oppose the party favorite. If you advocate voting for the insurgent, you're saying, in effect, "Don't vote for the party favorite." This creates all sorts of suspicion and bad feelings, with the party demanding that supporters of the insurgent declare themselves yellow dog Democrats, and said supporters resisting and getting rebellious.

The implication of course, is that we should all just chill out and let the process run its course. Easier said than done. Hang in there, everybody, and try to keep a lid on the suspicion and aggression directed at the other camp.

March 2, 2016

Making lemonade from lemons

The posts from Clinton supporters are different than the posts I saw yesterday. Going into Super Tuesday, it was all over for Bernie Sanders. Nothing left to do but not get hurt by the flying champagne corks at Clinton victory parties. There are still some proclamations of a huge victory, of course, and Sanders obituaries, but the tone is a little more muted around here. There is some reaching, the best of which I thought was a demand that Elizabeth Warren endorse Clinton because her state was a Clinton win. Is that a new rule? If your state votes for a candidate in the primary, do you have to endorse that candidate? It's nice that Clinton supporters are realizing Sanders is a credible opponent. It will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign responds to not getting the Final Blow they expected.

February 29, 2016

Canada TV on Trump right now, lead story

Trump is trying to claim he doesn't know who David Duke is, or what he represents but Canadian news makes it very clear he is lying, although they are not coming right out and saying that. The angle is that Trump and Clinton are locking up their respective nominations, and this is disturbing the Republicans enormously because Trump is a loose cannon. Canadian TV emphasizes the circus atmosphere among the GOP candidates. Sometimes the TV news anchors laugh out loud when covering Trump. I'm happy we can provide our neighbors with a few laughs.

edit: They just ran another feature, all about Trump and how he is heavily favored, his Christie endorsement, some of his more outrageous statements, etc.

February 23, 2016

Please don't repeat the Nader blaming if Clinton loses a close one.

(I was told this would be more appropriate to post here, rather than in GD.)


We're all familiar with the notion that Nader cost Gore the presidency because Nader pulled enough Democratic votes to cover the margin of victory in Florida. That's true, but about ten times as many registered Democrats voted for George Dubya as voted for Nader. There is a possibility this situation could come up again in 2016, so let's resolve right now to not blame Bernie Sanders if Clinton loses, and the margin is covered by the write-in votes for Bernie. This is ours to lose, no matter which candidate we choose. If we can't beat Trump or any of the rest of them, we all share the responsibility. I don't want to see a bunch of finger pointing, stomping sour grapes, or whatever cliche' seems to describe a bunch of angry Democrats trying to blame others for their loss. OK, yeah, I know some will do it anyway. Anything to avoid facing up to the truth. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

February 23, 2016

Please don't repeat the Nader blaming if Clinton loses a close one.

We're all familiar with the notion that Nader cost Gore the presidency because Nader pulled enough Democratic votes to cover the margin of victory in Florida. That's true, but about ten times as many registered Democrats voted for George Dubya as voted for Nader. There is a possibility this situation could come up again in 2016, so let's resolve right now to not blame Bernie Sanders if Clinton loses, and the margin is covered by the write-in votes for Bernie. This is ours to lose, no matter which candidate we choose. If we can't beat Trump or any of the rest of them, we all share the responsibility. I don't want to see a bunch of finger pointing, stomping sour grapes, or whatever cliche' seems to describe a bunch of angry Democrats trying to blame others for their loss. OK, yeah, I know some will do it anyway. Anything to avoid facing up to the truth. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

February 21, 2016

Let's start the revolution here in the primaries.

No more politics as usual. Let's stop calling candidates, supporters, allies and contributors names. Evil, dishonest, scheming, corrupt, unethical, lying, etc. are seen quite frequently here. Let's criticize the action, not the person. It's perfectly fine to say, "Senator Smith lied," assuming there is some evidence for such a statement. It's quite something else to say, "Senator Smith is a liar." Not to mention throwing in all the adjectives to name Senator Smith as a notorious liar, outrageous liar, contemptible liar, and so on.

February 19, 2016

Bernie's fatal sin

He sponsored legislation that would have allowed radioactive waste to be deposited in a facility near a small town in Texas. As is the case with most towns, the residents didn't want radioactive waste sent to their area. I saw a documentary on the subject a couple years ago. As I recall, the 500 or so people there are entirely Latino, and they're all poor, and most speak only Spanish. The political powers in Texas made sure the facility was approved over local objections.

I don't remember how the federal government was involved, but a nuclear waste repository would require federal approval, if only at the administrative level. I don't know why Congress had to get involved, since the agreement was between the states of Texas, Maine and Vermont. The deal fell through because it was a typical case of environmental racism, the practice of placing unpleasant or unsafe facilities in places where the residents are poor and largely minorities without much political power.

Anyway, this evidently proves Sanders is a hypocrite, unfit to be president. It is inconsistent with his stated positions on the environment and economic justice. It's also about the only example of such hypocrisy his opponents have been able to find. And you can bet they're looking. Well, good luck. If this is all you have, it's pretty feeble. Even with the assistance of the Clinton-friendly Politifact, it's not going far.

February 18, 2016

Avacado's Number and the Primaries

There was this Italian guy named Armada Avacado, who lived on the Isle of Sardines, and he invented this tree that bore really delicious guacamole. He also invented this huge number for counting large groups of things.

I am told it is 6.02 times ten to the 23rd power. I don't know what that means, but it has the word "power," so it must be pretty big. Scientists use it to count the number of molecules in a mole. I'm not sure why anyone would want to know how many molecules a mole has. I just hope the mole doesn't die when they do this.

Anyway, I thought Avacado's Number would be useful during the primaries to help us count our chickens before they're hatched. From what I read here on DU, it seems we need a really, really big number to do that, and Avacado might offer some relief. My candidate won this poll. My candidate won on the interwebs. My candidate is heavily favored among this group or that group. And all that means my candidate will win Avacado's Number of votes.

February 14, 2016

In defense of Henry Kissinger

He was an import... His influence in... He played a significant role in the relea... Sorry, I got nothin'.