If you despise US electoral politics, you may want to skip this one.
In Principle the idea of the party primaries is to take a field of potential candidates, and run them through a bunch of states, drumming up excitement and trying to see who’d garner the most votes. It acts simultaneously as a test-run and a marketing exercise. With me so far?
[source]
The point is that the primaries are when a party exposes itself to this stuff, semi-safely in a semi-controlled fashion, rather than just having a meeting and taking the opinions of some out-of-touch democratic party brass who decide that it’s a repugnant candidate’s turn and then they are shocked to lose the election. In a sense, the primaries are a defeat mechanism against meme-based foreign interference because for foreign interference to work, they’d have to simulate the results of actual election memes. In other words, if the Russians were able to make Hillary look less popular than she already did, they were doing the democrats a favor by showing how easily her candidacy could be torpedoed by the Trump campaign. They just didn’t listen soon enough and do anything to adjust their messaging.
[source]
All of this is upsetting to the “smoke filled room” crowd, who see the nomination as something they control. So we’ve got this really freakin’ odd situation in which Bernie kicked ass in Nevada and the democratic establishment is desperate to get him out because he’s unelectable. Or something. After just demonstrating that he can get the vote out among young people and hispanics, and the unions, that’s somehow not good? I don’t get it. The party brass has got to go, because they don’t understand how to run an election.
* I nearly insert the word “ineffectively saying the same thing”… because I don’t think Bernie has any actual ability to get things done, but maybe he’ll crack the door open a bit so that someone effective and socialist can squeak through after him. In that sense, I am pursuing the same reasoning that a tea party follower used to justify voting for Trump. Fuck it. Let’s have a revolution.
Oh, they are running the election alright. To the point where The Orange Toddler-Tyrant gets re-elected and completes the task of ruining the country.
You have to see it from their perspective. That is, you just need to put your head up your own ass, or better yet, Bloomberg’s. In their world, none of us matter, just them and their money and that nasty smell.
You can be as cynical as you like, but I think there is something resembling sincerity in some of these people. They are just too confined to their little gated community to know any better. Their views are as relevant to the real world as someone who’s locked up in a monastery their whole life. The really weird part is that many of us on the outside still take them as seriously as some medieval people did their clergy. I don’t know what could’ve made anyone ever think they earned that kind of respect.
Their idea of “running an election” is running the media. It’s all just a big-budget show, and it has nothing to do with this “people” thing you keep mentioning, which somehow involves “votes” in an “election.” Personally, I’m kind of satisfied that they’ve pumped out the political equivalent of Rise of Skywalker. Last time, we all generally understood that Batman v. Superman was absurdly bad yet was just sustainable enough for a few to walk away with millions and get a sequel. This time, I’m not so sure.
I need more coffee, because my analogies are getting fucked up right now…. I guess it’s the Bernie/Baby Yoda ticket on one side, with the Justice League on the other. You know who wins. This is the way.
consciousness razor@#2:
You have to see it from their perspective.
If I could do that, would their world-view color mine?
The really weird part is that many of us on the outside still take them as seriously as some medieval people did their clergy. I don’t know what could’ve made anyone ever think they earned that kind of respect.
Good point. They put themselves in position as the gate-keepers to power. That’s the extent of their moral involvement in politics (after all, the democrats were the party of slavery until it was inconvenient for them to be) They never earned respect: they took it. I guess that’s not real “respect” it’s some kind of grudging acceptance.
This primary cycle is going to have interesting implications for the superdelegate system. It was originally set up to prevent the nomination of a candidate who would bomb in the general presidential election, by allowing political professionals to place a thumb on the scales. This assumes that the professional political class has an idea of which candidates are likely to do well, but if that premise does not hold what you actually get is a system for ensuring a failed candidate. I would expect the abrogation of democratic representation to also suppress turnout for a candidate who was not nominated by voters, but by party officials. While the size of that effect is probably small it does mean that a bad candidate is made even worse by the process.
It really does seem like the Democratic primary system is doing the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to, because the party officials are so disconnected from the political realities of the electorate.
johnson catman@#1:
To the point where The Orange Toddler-Tyrant gets re-elected and completes the task of ruining the country.
Polls show Bernie could beat Trump in the popular vote before factoring in the hoped-for “party unity” if he becomes the candidate. I guess it’ll come down to who does a better job of rigging the election.
The really weird part is that many of us on the outside still take them as seriously as some medieval people did their clergy.
Few things filled me more with glee than seeing clip after clip of morose-looking talking heads on MSNBC in the wake of Sanders sweeping Nevada. Their helplessness and desperation, realizing that they don’t have the influence, insight and reach they thought.
After every one of them was blindsided by Trumps victory in 2016 they could have realized, that maybe they are out of touch and need to find out whats going on outside the media circus. But instead they went off the rails on inane Russia conspiracy bullshit and ignored the Lefts reaction to Trump and the shortcomings of the democratic establishment. Now they are dumbfounded again, incapable of understanding why so many people would vote for the prospect of a better life even if you tell them again and again that it can’t possibly be done.
… Bernie is stomping the shit out of the anointed ones …
36% ain’t that much of a stomp.
… he can get the vote out among young people and hispanics, and the unions…
Can he? 91% out of Nevada Democrats didn’t vote or caucus.
“they’re never around when there’s work to be done because they’re busy proactively leveraging their synergies somewhere else.”
Ha! You really know corporate-speak!
By itself, that raw number doesn’t really tell us anything useful. Is that more or less than usual, and by how much?
A bit of googling found this:
I think the point @7 is that three states have voted so far. Three of the smaller states, and two of them were caucuses, which means the actual percentage of folks who voted there was even smaller than in a primary state. And now we’re supposed to believe that the race is over?
The point is, if it’s bad to have a bunch of wealthy party leaders choose a nominee in a smoke-filled room, why is it so much vastly better to allow a few tiny states to pick the nominee? It’s past time for Democrats to institute a national primary with ranked-choice voting. How can we whine and complain about the electoral college, when we’re relying on a system that’s even more unrepresentative?
It’s not a perfect parallel, but the democrat mentality of self-appointed expeets deciding is reminiscent of the 1994 NFL draft and a bloviating”expert” who refused (and still refuses) to admit he was wrong. These people would rather lose the crown than give up their pettty fiefdoms.
@brucegee1962:
Are you by chance a Warren supporter? Because I have heard the “ranked choice voting” argument a lot from them. Is there any evidence that Sanders wouldn’t have won the first 3 States or that Warren would have done way better than she did with ranked voting?
I mean in principal I agree, the US electoral system looks like one enormous clusterfuck.
brucegee1962, @ #11: I interpreted Pierce’s posting of that statistic as intended to cast doubt on the idea that Sanders “can get the vote out among young people and hispanics, and the unions”, since that’s what he quoted and followed with the question “Can he?” If it was intended as a comment on the general state of the race or the validity of process, rather than Sander’s ability to get the vote out, then it was rather poorly expressed, to say the least.
And on that point, ,a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nevada_Democratic_caucuses”>wiki tells me that “[p]articipation in the 2020 caucuses (105,195 initial alignment votes in the official count), was 25% higher compared to the approximately 84,000 people who participated in the 2016 caucuses, but 4% less compared to the approximately 110,000 voters who participated in the 2008 caucuses.” I can’t find numbers for any earlier caucuses. Make of that what you will.
Bernie is winning nearly every demographic, except older voters & Southern blacks. He’s even winning (narrowly) conservative/moderate Democrats. Even the cultural conservatives are starting to Feel the Bern: https://twitter.com/james_dasher/status/1232060956445990912
@brucegee1962:
A lot of people seem to forget that this is essentially an internal party selection process. I really don’t think people should be complaining about this system being “even more unrepresentative.” For one, what does it even mean to be “more representative”? Should the Democrats be allowing everyone to participate in their nomination process? Should they allow everyone to be the potential nominee?
Someone like Marcus should understand why a system that is “more representative” could be problematic. Being “more representative” likely means being more open to exploitation. If we’re being honest (and not blinded to the Bernie religion — and, yes, I’m seeing a lot of mindless following of Bernie even here on FreethoughtBlogs that is quite disturbing/disappointing), it makes sense for Democrats to want to place restrictions on their (I cannot stress this enough) nomination process. I’m fine if people want to critique the process, but to suggest that Democrats shouldn’t be upset about a non-Democrat (which Bernie is, I must point out) trying to take their nomination is really stretching it.
On that note, I do have to gripe a bit about Marcus’s comment that Warren is “a mere politician, willing to compromise quickly if it’ll get her elected.” First of all, has Marcus bothered to consider that Warren is trying to figure out how to get shit done? I must say a fear I have about a Bernie presidency is that he ends up being ineffective due to not having enough allies in Congress and, consequently, enthusiasm for progressive issues goes down the toilet. (I hope I’m just overly cynical about this.) Second, though, let’s be honest that Bernie is a politician, too. As I noted earlier, he is not a Democrat. So why doesn’t he just go run as an independent (like he does for Senate)? It’s probably because he wants the party machine to help him win the general election. He’s looking to exploit (yeah, I said it) the networks the Democratic party has in place. And even if I’m wrong about this and he is instead not running as an independent because he expects that will result in Trump getting elected (now and back in 2016), that would mean he is (was) making a political calculation. Politician. Deal with it, please. Also, please stop treating him as though he’s some sort of Messiah in general. You’re probably all atheists. It’s embarrassing to watch.
@17 Leo Buzalsky
So why doesn’t he just go run as an independent (like he does for Senate)?”
Oh thats very easy to answer: a three way race between Sanders, Trump and the Democrats nominee would split the progressive/left vote and get Trump reelected. DNC people are still mad at Ralph Nader for running as an independent in 2000 and he got <3% of the popular vote. Sanders would likely get way more than that, given his massive grassroots campaign and field operation.
It's a bit funny that you call the Sanders coalition a religion but slam Sanders for not swearing fealty to the democratic party, you must be pretty well-off if that is your main concern. Also I see the "Sanders is your Messiah" bullshit a lot, it's a canard that your opinions are not well thought out. You are just stating that you don't care much for Sanders, don't understand why so many people do and don't bother finding out. The cult-slander works with supporters of every candidate btw, i.e. look at the insane #StillWithHer people on twitter who support someone who isn't even running (and hate Sanders with a passion), or the Kamala Harris ardents at the khive.
Dunc @ # 9: Is that more or less than usual…?
Good question. Pls note that my cited source, rawstory.com’s David Cay Johnston, seems somewhat Sandersphobic.
Dunc @ # 14: …I interpreted Pierce’s posting of that statistic as intended to cast doubt on the idea that Sanders “can get the vote out among young people and hispanics, and the unions”
Close – pls read it as an expression of concern that the promised/implied landslide has yet to reach the full strength needed.
Leo Buzalsky@#17:
On that note, I do have to gripe a bit about Marcus’s comment that Warren is “a mere politician, willing to compromise quickly if it’ll get her elected.” First of all, has Marcus bothered to consider that Warren is trying to figure out how to get shit done?
Now is not the time to be figuring out how to get shit done. That comes when/if she’s in office. Now is the time to state broad principles and elaborate on one’s platform and beliefs. I would be quite happy if Warren got the nomination (because the alternatives are pretty horrid) but, as I said, I do consider her “a mere politician” as soon as she starts shifting her messaging around in order to improve her chances of getting elected. I can be an idealist, and I would like the politicians I support to be idealists, too.
Naturally, a lot of that goes out the window in the name of “getting things done” if the candidate wins. That’s where I start to worry – I was deeply disappointed in Obama’s shift from fake-left to obvious center as soon as he got into power, and I’m sensitive to where I see signs of that in other politicians. Naturally, I see them there, in all of them, right now. But I was disappointed to see Warren switch her messaging so strongly based on polling, in order to get a few more percentage points here and there.
I don’t venerate Bernie – not by a long shot. Although, I was impressed that he was willing to stand up (sort of) to AIPAC in the last few days, but it’s too little too late, there. As I have said elsewhere, I don’t take any candidate seriously if they are talking about all the stuff they’re going to spend money on, and not a single goddamn one has suggested offsetting the costs by cutting defense and ending wars. Those are such obvious moves, and would probably be popular with (depends on which poll you like) around 80% of Americans – they’re not addressing the issues of the public, they’re positioning themselves against other politicians. A plague on the lot of them.
[Bernie’s barely even a socialist, and hardly a radical. He’s a part of the establishment and has played nicely within the framework given to him by the establishment, forever. Trump’s a radical. Unfortunately, the wrong kind. My support for Bernie is given equally guardedly. For a politician to be running and for me to whole-heartedly support and cheer for it would have to be someone like Shirley Chisolm – who, by the way, could run the table on these goobers if she were alive and fighting today.]
Pierce @ #19:
Entirely reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.
In relation to the percentage of Democratic members participating, most membership organisations of whatever kind have around 10% of active members.
Straight from the horse’s mouth — Fox News, if you can stomach it (just a fun choice for a source, so why not?):
Bernie Sanders reveals ‘major plans’ to be funded by new taxes, massive lawsuits, military cuts
He has been emphasizing that M4A would save us money, not cost us more, so a question like “will you get this extra money by slashing some other part of the budget?” is pretty strange to begin with.
And he’s been banging on that “tax the rich” drum very hard for ages, so you could also think at least some of the costs could be accounted for in that way, with increased revenue instead of lower spending elsewhere.
And he’s been talking about getting out of our endless wars, which among other things involves cutting at least part of that budget. But it’s not obvious that he’d need to connect that particular proposal with cutting military spending, when he’s pitching the program to people …. you mainly want to discuss details and concerns about your healthcare plan, not go on some wild tangent about foreign policy, when the topic is healthcare.
Anyway, he does intend to hack away at the military budget too, so you really shouldn’t be complaining about that. (Fox News will complain enough for everyone.)
@Leo Buzalsky(17):
Simple the system in place for electing the POTUS is specifically built to exclude third party challenges to the two primary parties in power (while allowing a way out if one side loses by only this much by fallaciously stating that those people who disliked both candidates so much that they deliberately cast a protest vote would have voted for them, thus they lost because of a third party candidate and not because people couldn’t even stand to hold their nose and vote for them). The fact that he gets in as an independent for the senate is already a small miracle since a similar barrier exists at the senate and congress levels.
Well if the political system were sane maybe, but currently the people (who can afford it) are paying the cost privately. M4A would make the cost public spending, so the funds need to be made available within the budget. A more honest question would be “how will you strongarm your ideological opponents in both parties to restructure health care financing (so people no longer need to die of a lack of health care and we spend less on it [no one on cable news would ever add that])?”