END TO END BERNERS: The Official Bernie Sanders 2020 Crew thread

xpost

Wikipedia:

From 1989 to 1995, O'Donnell was a legislative aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

So, during the end of GHW Bush's administration and the start of the first Clinton administration, an aide to a NY senator thought he could safely ignore "the left" - and he was probably correct about that. I'd say both "the left" and the Democratic Party have undergone a long series of learning experiences and adaptations since then.

Nor is Laurence O'Donnell the final word on political reality in a nation this diverse and sprawling. No one is that big an authority.

and I’m sorry, real quick remind your bonafides?

An argument from authority rests on the authority cited. My argument against his authority was not based upon my own superior authority but was an argument from probability. You may choose to believe Laurence O'Donnell, but I suspect his statement aligns with your prejudice and that is what makes it believable to you, more so than any idolization of Laurence O'Donnell as a fount of infallible wisdom. Or you may choose to think that my lack of bona fides undermines my argument, but I'd say O'Donnell's statement should be read narrowly as the experience of one person, in one place, in a particular time, working for a particular senator who wrote a notorious 'white paper' pleading for "benign neglect" of civil rights issues.

Biden, while still clearly defining yourself as Bernie's bloc, the more power you'll accrue when these promises have to be turned into passed and signed legislation.

sorry, aimless I’m going to need to see some “authorities” cited

The right didn’t grind it out for 40 years. They basically captured the GOP in 10 years and the country in 20.

Blocs don’t matter when they all vote for the same things or same guy. We did this yesterday - Biden is having to bargain for Sanders supporters because the possibility exists for them to withhold their votes in a meaningful number. He isn’t bargaining for Warren supporters because they’re already guaranteed votes for him, despite being a different bloc.

Keeping a seat at the table is a dumb argument anyway, because we know it’s objectively not true. Who did the Obama admin spend more time sucking off to get the ACA passed - Joe Lieberman or Any Progressive Senator?

how long did Obama have a veto-proof majority?

That usual excuse doesn’t work for you here. Lieberman was important because he could leverage withholding his vote to get his way, whereas the ‘left’ of the Senate were irrelevant - they were voting for the ACA regardless.

LBJ was ruthless and gross -- turpitude in human form -- who saw no point in taking moral stands without (a) making sure constituents are behind you; and/or (b) using the power he accumulated when he saw the moment...and was responsible for getting Congress to pass the fairest, most moral legislation since the 1930s.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

LBJ was an extremely interesting case and, from what Caro writes about him.... fairly exceptional?

I am not sure, really, how much we disagree. It's just, you know, there is that rubicon you spoke of. The Religious Right pole-vault over that threshhold for me. To speak of how "successful" they have been in their goals, which include, to be blunt, killing as many people like me as possible, seems pretty monstrous to me. Aimless did not sound terribly far off from a Wehraboo, to my ears.

I recognize the need, to a certain extent, for compromise, sometimes even for capitulation to power. I ask that you please not take my unwillingness to do so in certain cases for naivete.

and I’m sorry, real quick remind your bonafides?

sorry, aimless I’m going to need to see some “authorities” cited

sorry, aimless I’m going to need to see some “authorities” cited

This past week and a half I've been reading Parting the Waters, Taylor Branch, about the civil rights movement between 1954 and 1963. I'm not going to cite the page numbers or paragraphing for you, but the basic history is this:

Kennedy-Nixon election in 1960 was extremely close. When Kennedy's numbers crunchers analyzed the voting breakdown they realized that blacks (whose precincts were very easy to isolate due to de facto and de jure segregation) had broken for Kennedy over Nixon by roughly 20% more than the voting patterns in the previous several presidential elections, where Republicans had done very well with blacks as "the Party of Lincoln", while Democrats were the party of segregation in the South. This big swing was the margin of victory in some states and the most identifiable single reason Kennedy won.

This was such a surprise to Kennedy that he felt compelled to identify what caused this sudden shift. It turned out to be a last minute massive leaflet campaign among black churches, praising Kennedy for placing a sympathetic phone call to Correta King when MLK was in jail (this happened so often I forget just which instance this was). The leaflet became known as the "blue bomb". This put a different complexion on the importance of the black vote and the issues that were important to black voters.

Thereafter, the Kennedy administration was caught in a constant agony of knowing they just plain couldn't afford to alienate black voters, while still trying not to alienate southern segregationists. In the end, this knowledge forced them to make many concessions they would not have made without their feeling like the political vise they were in was very strong on the side of the black voters, not just the Solid South.

The key piece being this: Kennedy knew who he had to thank for those key votes from blacks and knew the issues had brought him those key votes, consequently he felt pressed to give something in return for them and the civil rights leaders kept the pressure on him to deliver. By forming a suddenly very important bloc, coalesced around very clear issues, black voters gained a much greater leverage when the time came to call out the army to get James Meredith into Ole Miss.

This is not some weird anomaly, either. This is a large part of the mechanics of US national politics.

So he was repaying voters who had not otherwise for people like him before... so votes that were previously withheld and could be again...

that's how politics works

The importance is more in the size of your bloc/coalition and its ability to deliver votes when asked to deliver them. By placing so much emphasis on withholding votes I think you are picking up the wrong end of the stick, but yes, both ends of a stick are parts of the stick.

a vote cast today is a vote you'll lose next week; that's what pressure's for, and it may not even work.

xxp - yes, Alfred, that’s my point...

And Lawrence O’’Donnell’s point.

btw, when your bloc is not among the biggest ones, it is easy enough to miscalculate the strength of your hand, overplay it, and be stuck with nothing. I think Sanders did an excellent job of gauging the strength of his hand in wringing concessions from Biden. What he can't do is lay all this out in stark terms to his followers, who would not understand these kind of necessary machinations. MLK, Jr. was wholly different in the soaring of his oratory and the sordid, but necessary, details of his strategizing.

It's important to keep reminding ourselves -- I have to every day -- that the Democratic Party these days consists of everyone who's not a Republican, therefore it has lib, conservative, and moderate wings that it would take an LBJ-esque eminence to straddle.

that's how politics works

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

not sure i agree with the implicit assumption in that statement :(

I wasn't swatting aside objections, and I'm sorry for it coming across this way.

milo is otm. if your argument is that the stakes are too high to play chicken, that's one thing, and make that case. but denying that, assuming you are part of a large enough bloc whose votes a politician needs, threatening to withhold votes is not an effective means to push that candidate, is dishonest. how else do you explain these new proposals from biden? coincidence?

It's important to keep reminding ourselves -- I have to every day -- that the Democratic Party these days consists of everyone who's not a Republican, therefore it has lib, conservative, and moderate wings that it would take an LBJ-esque eminence to straddle.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, April 10, 2020 1:48 PM (twenty minutes ago)

sounds like more bad news for the Democratic party

I’m not sure when those two points haven’t been true of both parties outside the last 25 years of the GOP. Nature of a two party system etc.

We just need a Democrat with a giant hog to step up.

Bernie should have Milton Berled one of the fireside chats.

milo is otm.

For certain.

What remains to be seen is whether the Bernie bloc can stay organized as a movement without the focus of Bernie's presidential campaign to coalesce around. iow, it's not him, it's us.

Also, can it continue to grow itself between elections? Judged by the strength of localized left-progressive organizing and midterm results, the movement got stronger after 2016. Judged by raw primary vote totals in 2020, it got stuck in the zone of 25% to maybe 30%, which is damn good considering, but needs to get bigger to match the breadth of its vision.

I do not think the emergent organized left in the USA will concern itself with any presidential elections that may occur again

my most communist friend has been referring to this as "the last election"

progress happens one funeral at a time

the conclusion being drawn is that electoralism doesn't work

I'd say your communist friend should get out more, but that would be wrong at this particular time.

There was a ‘left’ before Bernie 2016, there will be a left after.

I also don’t think it will be as concerned with the Presidential election (but won’t give up on electoralism elsewhere). Nationally there’s no one who can step into his shoes to run against Tom Cotton in 2024.

my most communist friend has been referring to this as "the last election"

― silby

hate to break it to him but he missed it

or her, or them, or whoever

I'd say your communist friend should get out more, but that would be wrong at this particular time.

― A is for (Aimless), Friday, April 10, 2020 2:28 PM (two minutes ago)

would be wrong to say regardless. They spend a lot more time Doing The Work than I do (zero)

(I only post, out of cowardice and indecision)

I mean I think this particular communist friend is wrong about assorted things but I think they're right that socialism won't be won at the polls, certainly not via the presidency

however I still refuse to find out what "dual power" means

socialism will be won when the masses hunger for it and begin to move accordingly

"the last election"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/10/wisconsin-voter-restrictions-democracy-coronavirus-primary

I do not think the emergent organized left in the USA will concern itself with any presidential elections that may occur again

― silby, Friday, April 10, 2020

Sweet! These threads will be shorter!

any hopes that people like me will stop flapping our gums instead of building the XIs some of us keep yammering about are doomed to be disappointed, so if you're actually harboring any such hopes best to let go of them now :)

Awright, ladies and gents, it's 6 p.m. I'm knocking off for the day. Martinis?

My friend the communist
Holds meetings with ILXors
He will withhold his votes
Don't mean that much to Jo-ooe

Iiiiiiiiiiiiii'm
Gonna suck aperol

With respect, Kate, if you're putting forward the view (if you are - I may have read you wrong!) that the reason that Biden beat Sanders is 100% the DNC, then I'm not sure I'm the one denying black voters a voice? There have been a lot of pieces by non-white writers, some of them reposted on this thread (and some posts by non-white posters, some of them on this thread) talking about how Biden can feel a more rational choice for them than Sanders.

To be clear (and at the significant risk of turning into Fred), I wouldn't be taking this position if the party had bumped off Biden in some way and coalesced around Buttigieg or Klobuchar, that (if it worked) would be 100% a screwjob. But when someone beats Sanders by 30% in South Carolina and 45% in Alabama...