Home | About | Donate

To Democratic Voters – Up Your Demands; To Trump Voters – See How He Didn’t Deliver for You

No, they should become one.

The most important change that Bernie introduced was the small donor phenomena.
He didn’t have the mojo to bring it across the finish line, but he proved it could work.

I’ll pretty much never support a corporate-financed candidate going forward.

1 Like

Thank You for pointing out that the national min wage is $7.25 hr.----some Russian bots here think it is $15???

You have the proud boys ----Trump supporters who are in Portland to put those protesters in their place-----you have extra-judicial killings by Barr and his Gestopo------and now you have a person they want on the court to take away hard earned rights fought for so many years.

People should be supporting the progrssive movement in WV and the Senate candidate Swearengin----also in Maine rank voting-----vote for Lisa Savage then the Dem.

Why don’t we hear about these very plain spoken progressives who speak so much common sense.

I tried to get a movement going with some progressives who were willing to vote for Biden in some circumstance to coalesce around M4A as our single demand. I doubt it could have worked, but I was disappointed no one more well known than me didn’t succeed in getting more attention for this idea.

At this point here is my deal to Democrats - I’m done voting for you after your abhorrent anti-democratic action banning the Green Party in several states for the presidential race this year. If you want my vote, there is now only one way to get it. Play nice with third parties and give us RCV in as many states as possible as soon as possible. Then I’ll vote blue number two (or three but before the Republican in any case). Otherwise go to hell.

3 Likes

The Democrats would never agree to such a compact.
The DNC successfully argued in court that they are under no obligation to follow their own rules.
Party platforms are window dressing, the Republicans didn’t bother to issue one this year.
And campaign promises were made to be compromised away into meaninglessness (i.e., broken).

1 Like

It’s a bummer that candidates have to be financed at all. There’s something pretty undemocratic and immoral about having to pay to get your ideas disseminated. The U.S. dollar should not be the currency of “The marketplace of ideas”.

2 Likes

“I’m done voting for you after your abhorrent anti-democratic action banning the Green Party in several states for the presidential race this year.”

Secretary of State under Nixon, Henry Kissinger regarding the 1973 US-backed coup overthrowing the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
h ttps://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/henry_kissinger_143264

(Democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende, in his last, televised speech at 9:10a.m. September 11, 1973, before, before his murder - as the disloyal military air bombed radio towers to prevent his addressing the republic: Allende thanked the Chilean people who had given him their loyalty, and stated, “I will [repay that] loyalty…with my life.”
h ttps://www.marxists.org/archive/allende/1973/september/11.htm )

4 Likes

It was telling that Richard Neal openly declared in a debate with Alex Morse that his prodigious fundraising and record of spreading that money around to other Democrats was a point in his favor. Refreshingly honest, yet exceedingly corrupt in terms of just proudly touting skill at legal bribery as a plus. Neal vacuums up huge corporate money.

And Nancy Pelosi rose to power precisely because of fundraising prowess. It’s insidious:

~https://theintercept.com/2019/09/03/dccc-house-committees-dues/

3 Likes

And one of the key reasons why Clinton said Sanders didn’t truly support her candidacy even though he worked like crazy for her, was that he refused to give her campaign his mailing list and small donor fundraising list (thankfully, I believe he has stuck to that policy with Biden)

3 Likes

Three thoughts on that:

Bernie out-raised his opponents in the primaries this year, Biden’s fundraising was middling at best.
But it was just plain child’s play for the Dem establishment to engineer The Super Tuesday Massacre.

Hillary out-raised and outspent Trump in 2016.
But Trump ran the much more effective campaign from a strategic standpoint.

Biden is out-raising and outspending Trump currently.
But he literally has no ground game, a feeble social media presence, and is stalled in swing states.

I think the campaign finance game is a con developed by the consultant class – a gravy train that pays ever larger amounts, whether your client wins or loses.

Yep - basically Trump gets media coverage 24/7 for free - always testing P.T. Barnum’s maxim " “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right .” He is a President who thinks everything is about him and he has been successful in making the election all about him in the eyes of the public. In comparison, Biden gets little coverage. Here in central Pennsylvania the vast majority of his coverage is paid for ads.

Regarding how that will play out in the election - I think you are making a mistake in thinking that this will automatically be a repeat of Trump’s 2016 victory where enthusiasm by his base overwhelmed a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton. This time Biden’s supporter’s are just as enthusiastic about voting as Trump’s supporters. (and it is enthusiasm about voting that matters - not enthusiasm about their candidate).

Personally, I think Trump’s biggest advantage is not enthusiasm (he already has that revved to the max amongst his base and can’t surpass that ceiling) - it is his ability as President to control events more than a challenger who sits in his basement without influence over anything.

1 Like

I just cannot pretend how worst off we would be with trump. I do respect your point of view and believe the same things but it is what we got. We have to work harder if Joe gets elected.

Agree with all you dumb Biden people, but living with el trump as leader of the free world and us will be so devaluing and scary. Nothing we can do. With Joe we could continue to march and protest, not with trump

Yes. This was an issue in my previous deal (support M4A to get my vote) and I offered a few ideas for a deeper commitment but ultimately I agree everything was just a verbal promise.

This time my deal is different. Until I get my RCV ballot in CA, I’m done voting for them in the general. Just verbally promising will do nothing for me. Democrats have the power in CA obviously and an expression of a desire here is getting results - otherwise it is just talk.

I literally will not vote Democrat number 1 anymore. So now my saying is “hey Democrats come get my number 2 vote.”

I will change my party affiliation from Democratic to independent as well. I’ll decide if I want to vote in the Democratic primary or not in 2022 and 2024 later as I’m still fuming (independents in CA can vote in D but not R primaries).

1 Like

That seems counter productive. In California you can register with the Green Party or with the Peace and Freedom Party - why not go with one of those worthwhile affiliations. Registering without a party affiliation helps nothing. For myself - I register Green and then become a Democrat when there is someone to vote for in the primaries.

4 Likes

If Joe somehow makes it past the Fascist election fraud gauntlet - Nothing will fundamentally change.
I’ll be voting for Hawkins this time but this is Illinois and Biden will win regardless. And Hawkins wont. Hell, the DNC won’t have Bernie to blame this time so I’m here to help.

1 Like

Might be better. I’m notorious at missing deadlines and if there is a Democrat in a primary that I really like (e.g. Ro Khanna) I might want to vote in that primary. As you say I can switch back (from G to I) in those cases so if our deadline for this is late, that should work for me.

Hi, baska
I think that the limitations are built into humans generally, on average. We are prone to zero-sum thinking, to a narrow conception of self-interest on average, to approaching situations on a basis of fear (of losing status, protection, membership in our group), to absolutist thinking (intellectual security). Progressives – if they are openminded, agnostic, not defensive – are something of a human anomaly.

One of the things I am most curious about is how Scandinavia, on balance, became such a decent and relaxed place. (Although now, that is under threat from the reaction to mass immigration from Syria and other places. So we can see how fragile decency and openness is.) It probably had a lot to do with ethnic homogeneity, a common religion, a weak or absent tradition of feudalism, and small size. It was sustained by postwar prosperity, but is now under threat by the race to the bottom plus immigration.

I’m not saying that progressive change is impossible here, but it will be a steep uphill struggle. Generally speaking, Walter Benjamin’s left-wing melancholia, although he deplored it as leading to resignation, is not an unreasonable stance, given the low odds for change.

“I tried to get a movement going with some progressives who were willing to vote for Biden in some circumstance to coalesce around M4A as our single demand. I doubt it could have worked, but I was disappointed no one more well known than me didn’t succeed in getting more attention for this idea.”

On the one hand:

The virtual absence of the ‘negotiate binding policies with adjacent blocs or lose’ idea is not simply disappointing, but itself requires analysis.

In terms of any normative ‘democratic theory,’ the idea of a near-half of a party’s electorate (43% in 2016) voting for a candidate far to their right and getting no political compromise in return is not simply undemocratic - looked at from the outside, it is politically deformed, and, actually, freakish.

How to explain a political culture in which that near-half does not even think to utilize the coalitional politics that are foundational in parliamentary systems - not the mass electorate, nor its progressive leaders (someone “more well known” than you).

I think we know that the US’s ‘winner take all,’ ‘lesser of two evils’ thinking exists in place of such a coalitional politics. But, imo, the US’s two party system cannot by itself explain the lack of ‘coalitional rule’ outside of Congress - the right liberal features of the US run deeper than its form of government.

On the other hand:

But you and I think it’s a good idea - heck, this thing is snowballing!

1 Like

So the 15 million people who have been marching in support of Black Lives Matter – the biggest number of demonstrators in US history – aren’t protesting under a Trump administration?

1 Like