ok.
so, the first thing i need to do is catch up on dishes.
i then need to do show lookaheads this morning. this weekend slowed me down on that front.
and, then i'll need to boot the laptop back up and finish what i was doing.
Saturday, March 7, 2020
i don't really care if biden or trump wins in november, they're basically the same.
instead, i want to start talking about 2024, now. and, i'd invite the left to follow my lead on this. don't even bother with a biden v trump election, let's just move on to the next cycle immediately.
there has to be a generational overturn coming up, but we keep saying that and it doesn't happen. i'd expect that biden, bloomberg, sanders and warren are probably not coming back next cycle, and that a couple of them will probably actually be dead. steyer has a lot of money, but he might get distracted between now and then. i'd suspect that buttigieg will find another job.
only klobuchar is really likely to come back. and gabbard - who may never stop running.
and, that means you're really looking at a clean slate in 2020. after coming so close, and failing so badly, what does the left need to do to finally take over this party, and push the neo-liberals and religious conservatives out of it?
first of all, i want to see a younger candidate emerge because this may take a few tries. we might really be looking at 2028 or 2032 before we can actually win this thing. so, this person has to be in it for the long haul, and ready to fail a few times. but, what is the right strategy?
i think building on the start of sanders' movement is the right idea, and this is something we've seen a few times, now. where can a leftist emerge in the united states? it would have to either be in new england or in the pacific northwest. california is just too big. they need a smaller area to work with. kshama sawant is potentially the right kind of candidate, as she leans left in a real way and is in a relatively small district that she can probably hold for a long time. i'm not personally convinced of aoc's left-wing credentials, and it would help if she'd write some legislation; i would not consider her an ideal candidate, at this point. while it is going to be necessary to maintain the support of dark skinned voters in the north, it is probably not necessary to run a minority candidate; it is, however, important to ensure that this younger candidate doesn't have a long list of liabilities around issues of race. this candidate may not succeed in winning an outright majority of black voters in the end, but we don't need to give black voters excuses to vote for a neo-liberal candidate. so, that needs to be very carefully scrutinized, and anybody with liabilities of this nature should excuse themselves, under the recognition that it is important to keep an open door to african-american voters, even if there is an understanding that they are probably not going to be a part of the socialist coalition, moving forwards, by their own choice not to be.
first of all, i want to see a younger candidate emerge because this may take a few tries. we might really be looking at 2028 or 2032 before we can actually win this thing. so, this person has to be in it for the long haul, and ready to fail a few times. but, what is the right strategy?
i think building on the start of sanders' movement is the right idea, and this is something we've seen a few times, now. where can a leftist emerge in the united states? it would have to either be in new england or in the pacific northwest. california is just too big. they need a smaller area to work with. kshama sawant is potentially the right kind of candidate, as she leans left in a real way and is in a relatively small district that she can probably hold for a long time. i'm not personally convinced of aoc's left-wing credentials, and it would help if she'd write some legislation; i would not consider her an ideal candidate, at this point. while it is going to be necessary to maintain the support of dark skinned voters in the north, it is probably not necessary to run a minority candidate; it is, however, important to ensure that this younger candidate doesn't have a long list of liabilities around issues of race. this candidate may not succeed in winning an outright majority of black voters in the end, but we don't need to give black voters excuses to vote for a neo-liberal candidate. so, that needs to be very carefully scrutinized, and anybody with liabilities of this nature should excuse themselves, under the recognition that it is important to keep an open door to african-american voters, even if there is an understanding that they are probably not going to be a part of the socialist coalition, moving forwards, by their own choice not to be.
so, the first attempt should be modeled similarly to bernie's 2016 run, both in terms of how he raised money and the policies he pursued. the first run has to attempt to build an unabashedly left-liberal movement by winning in states that actually support left-wing policies - which are states in the northeast, states in the west and states around the great lakes. this first run will probably fail, but it has to be able to elevate it's candidate as the leader of the left - which is not the same thing as the candidate for the democratic party.
the second run should attempt to build on this by trying to broaden the support base by chipping away at the rank and file of the party, but it should be done in a way that de-emphasizes identity (including race) and focuses more on issues of class. i understand that a lot of people will find that upsetting, but that's because they're neo-liberals. it should just be explained in cordial language that they're not aligned with the socialist movement, and should seek political representation that better reflects their views.
the voters most likely to react well to an election that is explicitly about class are voters in the midwest and voters in the southwest, which should be the states where the candidate focuses most of their energy on winning. the intent should be to try to maximize turnout in these states by appealing to economic issues, like universal healthcare and the (un)affordability of higher education. while race should be de-emphasized, open doors and accepting policies must be paramount. equality is equality is equality!
while the southeast should not be totally abandoned, minimal resources should be expended on trying to win church-going black voters. rather, the way to interface with the black church is to run a series of stalking-horse candidates that split the vote. that's the only way to get a socialist to win the nomination; that is what we should learn from bernie's disastrous strategy - it's never going to work, you have to find a way around them. and, once our socialist president takes office, there should be a very serious, organized effort to increase access to education in the deep south, in order to beak the political power of the black church once and for all. democrats will have a better chance of winning georgia again after a left-wing president makes a few important changes to tweak the demographics....
and, that's the coalition that a socialist candidate needs to build - "liberals", workers & poor people, western hispanics (with some caveats) and young people together should carry enough states in the northeast, the great lakes, the midwest, the southwest and the northwest to win enough states to get a majority at the convention.
the opposite, neo-liberal coalition that a socialist coalition will seek to defeat will consist of southerners (including southern blacks, southern whites and south-eastern hispanics), seniors and the managerial or "middle" class and will win states in the deep south and along the eastern seaboard.
the second run should attempt to build on this by trying to broaden the support base by chipping away at the rank and file of the party, but it should be done in a way that de-emphasizes identity (including race) and focuses more on issues of class. i understand that a lot of people will find that upsetting, but that's because they're neo-liberals. it should just be explained in cordial language that they're not aligned with the socialist movement, and should seek political representation that better reflects their views.
the voters most likely to react well to an election that is explicitly about class are voters in the midwest and voters in the southwest, which should be the states where the candidate focuses most of their energy on winning. the intent should be to try to maximize turnout in these states by appealing to economic issues, like universal healthcare and the (un)affordability of higher education. while race should be de-emphasized, open doors and accepting policies must be paramount. equality is equality is equality!
while the southeast should not be totally abandoned, minimal resources should be expended on trying to win church-going black voters. rather, the way to interface with the black church is to run a series of stalking-horse candidates that split the vote. that's the only way to get a socialist to win the nomination; that is what we should learn from bernie's disastrous strategy - it's never going to work, you have to find a way around them. and, once our socialist president takes office, there should be a very serious, organized effort to increase access to education in the deep south, in order to beak the political power of the black church once and for all. democrats will have a better chance of winning georgia again after a left-wing president makes a few important changes to tweak the demographics....
and, that's the coalition that a socialist candidate needs to build - "liberals", workers & poor people, western hispanics (with some caveats) and young people together should carry enough states in the northeast, the great lakes, the midwest, the southwest and the northwest to win enough states to get a majority at the convention.
the opposite, neo-liberal coalition that a socialist coalition will seek to defeat will consist of southerners (including southern blacks, southern whites and south-eastern hispanics), seniors and the managerial or "middle" class and will win states in the deep south and along the eastern seaboard.
at
05:07
regardless of how sanders does with southern black voters, and it was never very likely that he was going to do much more than eat away at the margins with them, because they lean overwhelmingly towards conservative value systems and the centrality of the church in their lives, his path to victory was reliant on his dominance amongst northern white "liberals" - who are secularist soft socialists that rarely or never go to church and mostly don't believe in god at all.
his campaign's tactic was to hold his base (these northern white liberals), sweep the states in the north and then do as best as he could by trying to chip away at black voters in the southeast and hispanic voters in the southwest.
i stated from the start that this would fail, especially in the southeast, and that he should have been focusing more on trying to get turnout up amongst white voters in the midwest. he would also then need to find a way to split the vote in the southeast, because they were never going to support him. to be clear: my argument was never that bernie shouldn't want these voters' support. obviously, there's a lot of delegates there, and it would help to not get routed in the south. it's also useful to build an inclusive movement. i even argued that he shouldn't give up on the south entirely. rather, my argument was that bernie had absolutely no fucking chance in hell at succeeding in convincing these people to vote for him, no matter what he did, because they don't support his policies, and they don't like jews. by continuing to focus on the south, despite their repeated rejection of him, he was acting like an obsessive ex-boyfriend that won't take no for an answer.
the sanders campaign ignored my advice, and decided to put all of it's resources into trying to win the south, thereby abandoning the voters that vaulted him into the spotlight, and gave him a chance at a run. to use punk rock terms, what bernie sanders really did in his strategy was sell out - he turned on his hardcore fans to try to build a mainstream audience. as is so often the case, this backfired. badly. and, now we're waiting patiently for a disaster in michigan that will functionally end his political career.
he barely got 50% in vermont. if they can primary him, they will.
in the later stages of the campaign, i began to realize that his neglect of these northern voters had actually opened up serious liabilities in the viability of his campaign, as he was losing tons of support to klobuchar, to warren and most notably to buttigieg. i wondered out loud if he was sure he was going to carry vermont - and he did, but not very convincingly.
the sanders campaign ignored my advice, and decided to put all of it's resources into trying to win the south, thereby abandoning the voters that vaulted him into the spotlight, and gave him a chance at a run. to use punk rock terms, what bernie sanders really did in his strategy was sell out - he turned on his hardcore fans to try to build a mainstream audience. as is so often the case, this backfired. badly. and, now we're waiting patiently for a disaster in michigan that will functionally end his political career.
he barely got 50% in vermont. if they can primary him, they will.
in the later stages of the campaign, i began to realize that his neglect of these northern voters had actually opened up serious liabilities in the viability of his campaign, as he was losing tons of support to klobuchar, to warren and most notably to buttigieg. i wondered out loud if he was sure he was going to carry vermont - and he did, but not very convincingly.
but, none of the other candidates really took off - the vote was splitting up, dramatically. he was getting exactly the split in the south he needed, too. by sheer luck, sanders was still ahead - despite following a hopeless strategy of abandoning his base and carrying out outreach to people that don't like him, and barely getting a third of the vote much of anywhere. it seemed like he was going to win big last tuesday, by sheer bullshit luck.
a series of events happened at the last minute that created a very volatile election on super tuesday, one that i'm not convinced of the fairness of. i feel like we got overwhelmed by a sneaky magician, that this is all sleight of hand. the results are too compact, too clean. it looks like the kind of bullshit election you see come out of russia. but, one thing is apparent from the polling that led up to the vote - sanders' strategy was a catastrophe, and i was right to criticize him for it.
we can't know for sure if abandoning the southeast to focus on building a coalition of white "liberals" and southwestern hispanics (along with young people everywhere) would have been a better strategy - the experiment wasn't done. i can make my case that it made more sense, and was more likely to lead to victory for a candidate like sanders that has essentially no appeal to southern blacks, but nobody can be sure that it was a better path. somebody would have to try it and see if it works or not.
a series of events happened at the last minute that created a very volatile election on super tuesday, one that i'm not convinced of the fairness of. i feel like we got overwhelmed by a sneaky magician, that this is all sleight of hand. the results are too compact, too clean. it looks like the kind of bullshit election you see come out of russia. but, one thing is apparent from the polling that led up to the vote - sanders' strategy was a catastrophe, and i was right to criticize him for it.
we can't know for sure if abandoning the southeast to focus on building a coalition of white "liberals" and southwestern hispanics (along with young people everywhere) would have been a better strategy - the experiment wasn't done. i can make my case that it made more sense, and was more likely to lead to victory for a candidate like sanders that has essentially no appeal to southern blacks, but nobody can be sure that it was a better path. somebody would have to try it and see if it works or not.
but, it should be clear that i was absolutely right to criticize the strategy that he took, which has failed horribly.
and, i will have nothing but vicious and brutal criticism for joe biden, moving forward. i will not form a common front behind a neo-liberal candidate. i will not back the party. i will not fall in line.
and, i will have nothing but vicious and brutal criticism for joe biden, moving forward. i will not form a common front behind a neo-liberal candidate. i will not back the party. i will not fall in line.
at
03:42
thanks to 538 for doing the work, here.
but, it's just firming up my previous analysis about the unlikeliness of what happened, and what i've been saying for what is actually several months now.
first, note that if there were really that many people making voting decisions at the last minute, it does suggest that the two candidates that dropped were actually the two strongest candidates in the race. if the polls say that 60% of late deciding voters in tennessee swung to biden at the last minute, what that tells me is that there was a relatively good chance that one or both of (buttigieg, klobuchar) may have been on track for a serious upset - because most of the voters there probably weren't taking bernie sanders very seriously, due to serious ideological disagreements (voters in the south, both white and black, being much more religious and much more conservative than voters in the rest of the country). it also reflects the reality that there was an actual decision to be made among more moderate voters, while sanders was the only thing vaguely approaching a left-liberal candidate in the race. but, we've been robbed of finding out what might have happened...
so, i don't have any particular reason to doubt that a large number of voters decided late.
what i'm far more skeptical about is the idea that so many people that self-identified as very liberal (with the meaning of the word 'liberal' in the confused american sense, presumably - in context, it doesn't mean support for private property or free markets) would vote for biden. that's an incoherent piece of data. it's like doing a poll and learning that 40% of christians voted for satan. i see it in front of me, but i don't believe that statistic.
regardless, as mentioned previously, it doesn't matter if sanders' support has collapsed amongst whites, which was the obvious conclusion to draw, although i do once again thank the site for doing the work. nobody really expected sanders to be competitive with religious and conservative southern blacks, except maybe for him, in whatever fit of delusion brought it on. but, he was supposed to win northern whites, and by large margins. that was the reason he was competitive in 2016 - he often won northern whites by large margins.
if he's lost that support, and it appears as though he has, he's going to lose michigan, and perhaps rather badly. he can't win in these states without carrying white voters by a large margin, and they seem to have abandoned him fairly thoroughly.
so, i don't have any particular reason to doubt that a large number of voters decided late.
what i'm far more skeptical about is the idea that so many people that self-identified as very liberal (with the meaning of the word 'liberal' in the confused american sense, presumably - in context, it doesn't mean support for private property or free markets) would vote for biden. that's an incoherent piece of data. it's like doing a poll and learning that 40% of christians voted for satan. i see it in front of me, but i don't believe that statistic.
regardless, as mentioned previously, it doesn't matter if sanders' support has collapsed amongst whites, which was the obvious conclusion to draw, although i do once again thank the site for doing the work. nobody really expected sanders to be competitive with religious and conservative southern blacks, except maybe for him, in whatever fit of delusion brought it on. but, he was supposed to win northern whites, and by large margins. that was the reason he was competitive in 2016 - he often won northern whites by large margins.
if he's lost that support, and it appears as though he has, he's going to lose michigan, and perhaps rather badly. he can't win in these states without carrying white voters by a large margin, and they seem to have abandoned him fairly thoroughly.
the result is that we're going to be stuck with another democratic nominee that is basically the same as a republican. we're going to have to listen to him talk about god, and how he loves the troops and how america's the best and all of this other nauseating, conservative bullshit.
at
02:56
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)