Starker on 4/3/2020 at 03:46
Quote Posted by heywood
It might not be a clear unambiguous win if the perception is that people are being pushed out of the race to help another candidate.
When the general election comes around, the party is going to need experienced campaign staff, volunteers, and donors for their fundraising, canvassing, and voter turn-out efforts. Most of those people will have been supporters of a different candidate, and if they don't think the party gave their candidate a fair shot they're not going to be motivated to work for the nominee. I don't know how Amy Klobuchar's supporters will respond to her sudden exit, but there's some really pissed off Buttigieg supporters.
Also, wide open primary races attract new people into the party: voters, volunteers, donors. And a lot of those people are motivated by issues, policies, and causes. You can't assume that everyone's overriding motivation is to beat Trump and that alone is enough to win.
Klobuchar never had a chance, but even Buttigieg was clearly treading water at that point. You simply can't win without the black vote, if you're a Democrat, and he never managed to increase his appeal among black voters. And they very obviously did drop out to help Biden or else they wouldn't have endorsed him. And if their supporters are pissed now, think how pissed they would be if nobody got the majority and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Biden.
Issues and policies might fire up the activists, but it's not the activists that Democrats really need to get out. And beating Lord Dampnut should be the main thing, IMO. If that's not the number one issue for most people, I don't know what is -- 4 more years of now completely unshackled Lord Dampnut breaking all norms and remaking institutions might just be enough to deal the killing blow to what's left of the republic and transform it into something else entirely. Even in the best case scenario it is certain to be disastrous for Democrats as well as anyone to the left of them.
Quote Posted by heywood
Also, remember that Obama started the 2008 race as a long shot outsider from the left that nobody thought could win the Presidency. Hillary was the establishment favorite, and they had a bitter battle that lasted all the way through the last contest. They ended up tied nearly 50/50 and the nomination was decided by the super delegates. So like I was saying to Starker above, tough primary fights don't seem to hurt your chances in the general election.
I don't think Obama is a very good example in that regard. He was a one of a kind superstar and there's nobody like that in the arena now.
Tony_Tarantula on 4/3/2020 at 04:21
Quote Posted by Starker
I don't think Obama is a very good example in that regard. He was a one of a kind superstar and there's nobody like that in the arena now.
Obama never was a "long shot outsider". He had some significant billionaire backing long before the general public knew about him:
(
https://socialistworker.org/2013/05/13/obamas-favorite-billionaire)
Quote:
f she has avoided much public scrutiny prior to her nomination to be commerce secretary, she should be appreciative that Chicago is Rahm Emanuel's town now. The combative mayor has functioned as the central public face of an aggressive neoliberal project. In an Emanuel-less city, Pritzker would be an ideal villain among the local 1 percent--a kind of long-lost Koch sister in a red blazer and a blue state.
President Obama addresses a press conference with Commerce Secretary nominee Penny Pritzker
President Obama addresses a press conference with Commerce Secretary nominee Penny Pritzker
To call Pritzker the One Percenter's One Percenter wouldn't be a description of character, but a mathematical reality. Her estimated net wealth of $1.85 billion makes her not only one of the richest people in Illinois, but one of the wealthiest people on the globe (number 825 this year, according to Forbes magazine).
The Chicago Tribune, always reliable in its boosterism for the local elite, wasted no time in praising the nomination. "She should be confirmed," the Tribune's May 3 editorial announced. "Pritzker has the potential to be a transformative commerce secretary."
.....
Like many in the urban business class, Pritzker's political allegiances have been primarily to the Democratic Party.
In 2008, her most prestigious role was Obama's campaign fundraising chair. In 2012, she was national co-chair of Obama's re-election campaign. She has also served as one of his campaign "bundlers"--well-connected individuals who tap their networks for large contributions--collecting more than half a million dollars for his runs in 2008 and 2012.
Now, the president gets to return the favor.
And his first job out of college was at (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation) a known CIA front company.
Renzatic on 4/3/2020 at 04:51
Hey guys, Tony visits the Socialist Worker. As liberal progressive types, we should believe everything he says now.
Anyway, back to lament over the state of the real world.
(
https://www.yahoo.com/news/super-tuesday-michael-bloomberg-says-130033578.html) Michael Bloomberg has said he will eat at a Chinese restaurant in the coming days to show solidarity with businesses who have been hit by public fears about coronavirus.
He is Democrat Donald Trump.
Gryzemuis on 4/3/2020 at 15:38
Quote Posted by heywood
Trump won over Republican voters, and the Republican voters picked Trump to run. That's how democracy is supposed to work. They went on to win the Presidency and both branches of Congress in 2016, and now the Republican party is more unified than I can remember, or at least since the early Reagan administration. So I'd say it worked out well for them.
Not so sure all Republicans are happy. The "let's stick it to the libs" voters are happy. But I'm sure lots of other Republicans are not. For Republican politicians, Trump is probably way too unpredictable. The only value Trumps seems important is loyality (like a mobster boss). You can't run a country long-term on only loyalty. Also, the methods of Trump are sometimes borderline criminal. Or even beyond that. E.g. systematically calling all MSM "Lügenpresse" is straight out of the playbook of the 1930's Nazis. I'm sure there are Republicans that don't like that.
Quote:
If there's only two viable slots on the ballot, the nominating process for both parties has to be democratic, otherwise we're a bunch of hypocrites. If the parties are effectively controlled by their "establishment" (a euphemism for party bosses), and they have the power to vet candidates, then we have no more democracy than Iran or Russia.
More parties would be nice. The US government can split companies with too much power (like they did with AT&T). Maybe they should split the Republicans and Democrats in a bunch of parties. Like split each party into 5 smaller parties.
Oh, wait. :)
Quote:
There was no shortage of good candidates this time. About 30 different people got into the race, and there was a field of 20 who made the first couple of debates.
I can't say much about this, because I don't follow US politics very closely. But as an outsider, the only names I heard were: Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg. Too bad the other 27 didn't make it further than week 3.
Quote:
Also, remember that Obama started the 2008 race as a long shot outsider from the left that nobody thought could win the Presidency. Hillary was the establishment favorite, and they had a bitter battle that lasted all the way through the last contest. They ended up tied nearly 50/50 and the nomination was decided by the super delegates. So like I was saying to Starker above, tough primary fights don't seem to hurt your chances in the general election.
That is my point. Why can't the Democrats have more outsiders like Obama was ? I think such outsiders have a much higher ceiling than old-school politicians. Because old-school politicians carry all this luggage. They might have a negative image with certain groups of voters. Etc. If I can come up with this, experienced politicians (like the Democrat establishment) should be able to think of that too. Why have it so that your most serious candidates are all 75+ years old seniles. Or bbillionaires (it's supposed to be a party for the working class, right ?). I just don't understand how a party can be that amateuristic. (Not that the Republicans seem more professional. They thought Jeb Bush was their best candidate to become president).
