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

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...

I think clearly the SC voters, based at least on the polling in the couple of weeks leading up to the election which showed a tight race between biden and sanders, showed that they were open to being convinced (as any voter is), but were probably mostly "lean biden" voters given the unmistakable pattern of earlier polls. whether the rapid reversal and then righting of the polling trends, which just happened to coincide with the mobilization of senior party figures on biden's behalf and his two closest ideological rivals suddenly dropping out and endorsing him, was due to these well-documented events, polling error, random temporal variation, or a combination of the three is fundamentally unknowable. intelligent people are free to draw their own conclusions

"why" this happened could be useful to us on the left if we want to avoid something similar happening again, but as far as feeling bitter about it it's water under the bridge, lefties are used to getting kicked in the nuts. I respect the votes of the geezers who made this happen because I believe in one person one vote and voting one's conscience. it sucks that there are more of them than us of course, but I obviously am not going to have the opinions of a bunch of old people in a state like south carolina affect the way I feel about the two candidates. given bernie won the ILX poll 6 to 1 (after SC) I assume most everyone else feels the same way

luv you k3vin

k3vin otm

yeah lock thread tbh

"why" this happened could be useful to us on the left if we want to avoid something similar happening again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlA9hmrC8DU

My one quibble with kevin's excellent post is that my impression was that the coincide-ence (yeah yeah I know) happened after South Carolina.

In other news, Super Tuesday feels like half a year ago, not last month.

Petey Butts and Klob dropped out between South Carolina and Super Tuesday, yes. The party apparatus was already leaning heavily on the electability narrative against Bernie at that point, though.

Voters can be wrong, voters can be mislead - saying that doesn't diminish that what they cast were their votes. The media and politicians have enormous sway in how voters who aren't psychos who think about this shit all the time vote. James Clyburn telling people who look to him as a locus of useful power to vote for Biden can (and did) swing a big percentage of votes.

To suggest - despite his place at the head of a machine dependent on the status quo of the party and his donors from pharmaceuticals/insurance/hospitals - that Clyburn's endorsement was in any way motivated by anything but the best interests of his constituents gets you deluged by the cynical deployment of woke cliches in service of a healthcare system actively harmful to persons of color.

The solution to that... is to diminish Clyburn's power, but if you start talking about that then you get to endure the cynical deployment of woke cliches in service of a healthcare system that's actively harmful to persons of color.

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.

― Andrew Farrell

yeah, you are absolutely reading me wrong. my politics are not, fundamentally, the politics of conspiracy. i don't think the dnc are actively malevolent, any more than i think kerensky was actively malevolent. all of this talk about "dual power" wouldn't have been necessary or, honestly, possible in the first place if the power institutions in place had adequately addressed the desires of the people who put them there.

because the institutional failure is not just some presumed shadowy cabal that wines and dines rich and powerful abusers, rapists, and pederasts, which is only a very small part of what the dnc does. it's all sorts of institutions. it's a primary system that enforces uninformed herd voting, it's a liberal media infrastructure that bangs the drum on the message that _all_ internal dissent is dangerous. it is, most of all, the incessant drumbeat of fear and shame as not just _a_ motivator, but the _only_ motivator.

anyway, that's kind of a detour from addressing your racial argument, but it's just as well because my point is not to blame you or me specifically, but to say that _neither_ of us are qualified to discuss racial politics with each other. if i were to try to reply to or address your points in any way i would be just as guilty of tokenizing as i feel you are. i am certainly not denying your suggestion that there is an issue here. i'm very, very painfully aware of the issue, i'm very aware of the legacy of systemic racism, aware of my privilege, aware of the ways in which i have, and frankly continue to, perpetuate the problem. i'm also beyond thinking that two white people talking to each other are capable of meaningfully addressing the issue.

According to this the coalition aimless is describing is too distant and not quite applicable.

It’s time for someone much smarter than me to do a deep dive into Southern politics to explain why the Black establishment is so successful at marshaling its voters in primaries but is unable to build interracial coalitions to conquer state elections. Abrams got close, but...

— Brad Jones 🌹 (@joneswb66) April 10, 2020

explain why the Black establishment is so successful at marshaling its voters in primaries but is unable to build interracial coalitions to conquer state elections

Is this a mystery? It seems really simple to me.

Georgia racial composition:
1990: White 71%, Black 27%
2000: White 65%, Black 29%.
2010: White 59%, Black 30%.

In Democratic primaries Black voters are not outnumbered, so they are a decisive bloc.

In statewide elections, Black voters are outnumbered, with white voters who are heavily Republican.

People of color plus white liberals does not currently make a majority in Georgia.

People of color plus white liberals DOES make a majority in Virginia. And if you look at the trend of the numbers above, demographics suggest that one may see a winning Democratic coalition as some states get purpler. North Carolina is next; Georgia isn't there yet but is on its way.

That doesn't require a "deep dive" imo.

between what happened in ‘08 and this latest go round there’s been a tacit acknowledgment that money just isn’t real.
and after all that’s happened and will happen the big policy reveal is that the Democratic nominee is open to lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to... 60??? hell,even Hillary (ostensibly) wanted better than that back in 2016.

the contingent of politicians and talking heads peddling bUt HoW dO wE pAy fOr iT literally do not care if you live or die. a heath insurance CEO’s 3rd yacht is more important to them than your children. there’s simply no other way to parse it. have some self-respect.

My one quibble with kevin's excellent post is that my impression was that the coincide-ence (yeah yeah I know) happened after South Carolina.

In other news, Super Tuesday feels like half a year ago, not last month.

― Andrew Farrell, Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:19 AM (eight hours ago

ha otm, SC and supertuesday were an entire pandemic ago. got the timeline mixed up but I think the gist stands

simplify, reduce, oversimplify, boil it down to numbers and ignore the distinct possibility that georgia's elections do not necessarily meet a standard under which they could be called free or fair

voting a Dem for prez instead of DJT will improve odds of having free and fair elections in Georgia in the future

yeah i think i should probably take a break from here, i feel like everything i say gets treated like i'm asking for help with a particularly difficult math problem

i'm just saying

That's also not necessarily true. Voting for a bad Democrat for President - one who doesn't take necessary steps to secure elections in meaningful ways (ie not giving a shit about RUSSIA) could make free and fair elections in Georgia less likely.

Even in the short term, establishment Democrats, as evidenced by voting issues in California and New York over the last four years, are no guarantors of free elections.

I’ve never heard a Democrat defend the actions of Gov. Kemp

One possible good side effect of Biden having almost no agenda (aside from magnanimously offering to be Trump's slayer and coincidentally becoming POTUS) is that he would perforce adopt his domestic agenda from Congressional Democrats, most of whom are bursting with impatience to accomplish their own legislative goals. I think he'd sign whatever Congressional Democrats could pass. Where he'd assert himself is in foreign policy, not domestic policy. I think that's where progressives would be least happy with a Biden presidency.

i'll readily admit that if i lived in a blue state where Democrats have entrenched power i'd most likely be a lot more frustrated with Dems, but my state is under the boot of the GOP so they are the target of my ire

Still utterly bizarre that "Biden has no agenda/ideology/principles" has taken such strong root, like even Democrats have internalized every flip-flopper argument the GOP made from 1995-2008 and reforged it into a defense.

Joe Biden has an agenda and an ideology, one he actively pursued for almost four decades in the Senate.

(and, of course, there's no evidence that Pelosi or Schumer have any interest in passing anything good)

How would you describe the items on Joe Biden's agenda?

The same way Joe has described himself - a 'third way' Democrat, a neoliberal.

That's an ideology. I know he has an ideology. What about the items on his agenda?

Foreign policy hawkishness, financial deregulation, drug warrior, crime bill, welfare reform - the agenda he's had for fifty years in politics - the expression of that ideology you agree he has.

Even if we accept the fiction that Biden is a political tabula rasa, the defense that he can be a Presidential non-entity just signing whatever is politically ridiculous on its face. The President is required to set and promote an agenda.

i'll readily admit that if i lived in a blue state where Democrats have entrenched power i'd most likely be a lot more frustrated with Dems, but my state is under the boot of the GOP so they are the target of my ire

― crüt, Saturday, April 11, 2020

Florida here, blowing kisses at you.

Thanks for clarifying, milo. It's easier now for me to more fully interpret the thinking behind what you were saying.