You can thank yourselves, INDY, for endorsing Clinton.
Democrats have been afraid to own their actual positions for 40 years on a national stage. You had a rare opportunity this year. It's a rare occasion that an articulate, well-spoken, competent, and competitive progressive candidate emerges and you swatted him down for a big fat check. Maybe you should've stopped and thought for a moment before endorsing the single most disliked democratic nominee in the history of the party for the past 100 years? When the ties between the war machine and the financial machine and the democratic candidate are too obvious, the base doesn't turn out. Young people don't turn out. And many people who voted for Trump to stop Clinton would've abstained from voting, or would've voted for Sanders, had a populist alternative that wasn't a race-baiting narcissist been available on the democratic ticket.
Good job Indy, now we're all screwed.
NC needs to vote in November. Vote early, and vote hard. These sponges want to throw gay employees out on the street? Well let's show them what the street looks like too.
The cowards in the general assembly will keep their majority no matter what, but every statewide office is vulnerable, including McCrory's. We should fight to flip all of them.
"a choice of pragmatism over populist idealism, of a theory of change oriented around attainable, incremental progress instead of lofty, unrealistic promises"
How is supporting the less electable candidate pragmatic? I understand that you *think* Clinton has better chances in the general and therefore... but there is historic precedent that a candidate that offers sweeping reform is sometimes the stronger choice. Relative to the times we live in, nothing in Sanders' platform is particularly radical. We can point to many other countries that subsidize healthcare and college tuition, many of whose citizens enjoy a higher level of security and quality of life than ours. At the same time, Clinton is doing worse than Sanders in every national poll against Republican opponents. And while you might be tempted to say "But Sanders hasn't been attacked from the right yet"... ah... but neither have those Republican opponents been attacked from the left. If the Republican party gets a contested convention and they nominate say... Mitt Romney or John Kasich... I'd like to see your article about pragmatism if Hillary were to lose to either of them. Against Trump, sure she'll probably win but Sanders probably would win too. The thing is the center-left will always push the goalposts. We're never ready for a progressive candidate. It's always too soon.
Understand that you are playing quite a gambit, nominating such a toxic and detested frontrunner.
Comparatively, when FDR was elected, many of his Keynesian New Deal reforms were completely untested. His platform was utterly radical for the time, and the Great Depression made radical reform the electable position.
Well the middle class in this country lives in a great recession still. GDP is back up but we're not feeling it. In my generation, where Sanders' support was the greatest, we're beginning to enter the stage of our lives where it's obvious we're not going to be able to afford kids, due to the poor pay we're getting for our level of technical expertise and experience, and the level of college debt we were saddled with. We're a permanent generation of renters and serfs.... and we can see that without huge reform to rising tuition costs, there is a looming college debt bubble that will destroy this country.
Make no mistake, I'll vote for Clinton in November. I'll fight to make sure she wins. There are still many gains that could be made through the Supreme Court nominations she'll have to make, and that will affect campaign finance, redistricting, and voter suppression. Clinton will be a reasonable president and I'm not worried about her. But I am worried that we are not moving fast enough to fix this country's feudal economic system, as well as climate change. Some of the older Clinton voters wanted a female president for their trophy mantle before they died and I understand that. Some of us are going to have to live through the world we are creating by not acting though. There's nothing remotely radical about wanting to fix that now.
@Steve - Incremental progress requires progress though. Meekly avoiding regressions is the most we can expect from this type of democrat (Hillary), and even then that might be optimistic.
Sanders has shown in Congress and as mayor of Burlington he's actually very pragmatic--far moreso than Clinton. I suspect if you looked at a list of bipartisan legislation they've both voted on, you'd quickly reconsider Clinton's electability. General election polls and favorability ratings tell the same story: Clinton's not a strong candidate. She has a huge independent problem, and a huge trustworthiness problem. There are many conservatives who would actually be swayed by Sanders' damn near opulent record of uncorrupted public service (and the fact that he's more pragmatic on some issues like guns).
What I've seen from Obama's '08 election, compared to Gore's and Kerry's failures, is that democrats win not by being moderate, but by having courage. Playing the center and avoiding concrete proposals is a cowardly strategy that has not gone well for democrats for the past 40 years. Democrats also need the youth vote. The difference between getting that vote and not getting it is the difference between 2008 and 2014.
@proudlyunaffiliated - Since this is sales tax revenue it's the poor and middle-class in the cities paying for the poor in the country, not the rich (who also live in the country).
Bernie Sanders is that rare moment in US politics where someone with actual progressive views comes along who's well-spoken, sharp as a tack at debates, and not for sale. For those of you young voters who were disillusioned with Obama... this is the real deal here.
Usually the token progressive in the democratic primaries is some kooky moonbeam new-hippy candidate who admits to seeing UFOs, has less charisma than a sloth with a glandular problem, or wants to morally crusade against violent video games. Sanders is the first chance in my lifetime and probably many of your lifetimes at voting for a presidential candidate along the lines of FDR and LBJ. When a progressive runs that republicans cannot easily pigeonhole or strawman, they generally get destroyed.
If you want another Bush in the White House, go ahead and vote for Hillary. See what happens when the 18-29 vote sits out yet another election. By now the party should be realizing that the difference between 2008 and 2014 is the difference between young voters showing up, and not showing up.
If you want to see what it looks like when democrats steal the blue collar vote, vote for Sanders. And if you're worried about having another white guy in the office instead of a history-making candidate... I understand. But having an actual good president who gets things done would also be history-making in its own way. It's been 40 years since we've seen anything like that. Something to think about.
So when democracy no longer exists and a state creates a permanent one-party government, and that government does everything in its power to deprive its citizens of social and economic rights, at what point do people get fed up and opt for a revolution?
I suppose North Carolinians are too domesticated to do that... as long as things get worse slowly they'll sit in the pot and boil like frogs.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation