Feeding the Dinosaurs: The Death of Movement 2.0

    I'm going to do what I largely dislike doing - linking to a New Republic article instead of writing me own blog piece - because it needs to be discussed.

    10 years ago we'd won the Presidential election, and had introduced a new modern style of grassroots participation that had started with Howard Dean's shortlived efforts in 2004.

    During the 2008 campaign season, we'd congealed all the disparate movement groups into a much more effective, aligned behemoth. And then we, meaning Obama, shut it down.

    And it both promoted and deflated the DNC at the same time. We died with a whimper, not with a bang.

    By the time we got to Bernie & "Movement 3.0", it was like Deja Vu all over again - or a bit as unsatisfying and retread as Woodstock '99. Instead of a people's movement with the long promised national Online Town Hall Meeting, it was more "grumpy old man telling progressives litmus test of how to be progressive".

    And while we're (I'm) going there, the question of why we did nothing against the Russians when we held the White House? (a threat we knew was there in 2014 when Obama instead shut down the Counter Disinformation Program, as pointed out a year later about the time Hillary announced her campaign)

    We've spent a lot of time this last year howling over what Trump and the Republicans have done to us - it's also time to think about what we've done to ourselves, or we'll never dig ourselves out of this hole.


    Haven't read the whole New Republic article yet.

    But popped into my mind reading this piece just posted by American Dreamer  that for now I would just point out what's been going on in the other party in the same time frame. My underlining:

    The Seminar Network, backed by a mix of ultrarich conservatives and libertarians who prefer to wield their influence outside the party structure, has in many ways supplanted the Republican National Committee, which will gather at a more modest hotel later this week in Washington for its winter meeting.

    So there's that, not so many Republican party stalwarts anymore than there are Democratic ones. Maybe less.

    And then to remind of the whole micro-targeting thing. Which would be a much more valuable tool when you are talking something like House races rather than the presidency. With the main national office or even a state wide office, analysis gets more complex, a much bigger and diverse crowd to analyze and then trying to figure out things like what are becoming the swing areas that will get you Electoral College. But ina  small House District, you can figure out exactly what the majority of the constituents want to hear, you could basically have them write your speeches from studying Facebook posts.

    From what I read about the 2008 Obama campaign, they were kind of foreseeing some of this in their set up. But then what happened is the enthused kiddie campaign, many literal 14 year olds and others with 14-year-old-minds fainting at the sight of him doing it the old-fashioned way.  Like I did less successfully as a 14-yr. old for Clean Gene. The cult of personality exciting the kids who excited enough of everyone else. A new face, a cool president for a new generation, instead of same old same old Clintons. Would be historic, a black president, exciting. Give him a chance.

    You and I saw it happen at TPM Cafe.  Bunch of kid minds attacking people like David Seaton trying to raise issues, defending their new pop idol. Micro-targeting on issues didn't happen. It was a groundswell of something that smelled like: populism. Team Obama ran with that, apart from the party, a cult of personality.  Meanwhile did as best they could not to offend the "cling to their guns and bible" people.so as to win enough swing districts.

    So what always happens after that? While actually governing, the savior turns out to be a real person, the kids get bored and disappointed, and the people who care about issues come out and vote in mid-terms as regular as rain and the populi idiots stay home cause they don't even know or care who is running to represent them in their assembly district or whatever. That would no doubt happen this time if there was no special interference as the Trump populi idiots who helped him get into office stay home and the left-of-center people that care about issues and reality of governing make it a point to show up. BUT THEN no doubt there's the Koch money out there micro-targeting. How smart will they be at it? I dunno, but it's not a good thing that they themselves already have experience at the anti-Trump but pro-conservative thing. I'm sure they get that. How good will they be with "hey, we know Trump is an idiot, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, look at all these great tax cuts you got, look at all the stupid Federal regulations that have been rescinded, look at how Mexicans aren't even trying to cross the border" etc.

    Edit to add: I got off on some tangents above, but the main thing I am going to say is: neither party is what it once was is the main thing I'd like to point out. Both have to stop dreaming about the past when you could have half the population say they are loyally behind a single platform and ideology. Everyone can have their own opinion on every issue. Not that there won't be massive unifying issues at times, issues and ideologies will swell up and suddenly "go viral" sometimes, but from the bottom up, like for a perfect example: #metoo. Is that Republican or Democrat? Not.

    Republican women support Trump and Roy Moore. Al Frankenstein was forced to resign. I’m not sure the #metoo    movement shows unity.

    Ok well,I am not going to argue the semantics of the word unity. Cross it out and replace it with solidarity. Suffice it to say the words "me too" are very precisely meant to express solidarity.

    And not every single Republican woman supported Roy Moore. Combine those women with other women, like say Ramona, and you've got a viral mass of women expressing solidarity where being women that have been harassed is more important than what party they are from. You're usually very supportive of the idea that party should pander to identity groups, but all of a sudden here you're: party uber alles, where there's Dems and then there's GOP, forget sex, color and other solidarity factors.

    53% of white women voted for Trump. In Alabama, 63% of white women voted for Roy Moore. What group turned the tide and elected Doug Jones in Alabama?


    White identity politics voters wanted Roy Moore in office. Hopefully, events like the Women’s March are indications that white women will take black issues seriously. The speakers reflected diversity. 

    Goddammit, can we stick to the thread for once?

    What happened to our grassroots movement? For years we talked about it, we finally didt it, then we put it away, and then pretend we're doing it again, but even Bernie's is a pretty unconvincing power-to-the-people play - more like ecstatic leader #3563.

    The grass roots movement disappeared and everyone went their separate ways. We are rebuilding connections. The day after Trump’s inauguration, there was the first Women’s March. The sad fact is that women of color had to force their way into roles in the march. Democrats are doing outreach in black communities but this only came after it was pointed out that Sanders and Perez had done outreach in white communities but not in black neighborhoods. Black turnout helped gain victories in several states. 

    There was a surprise victory in a special election in Wisconsin. Scott Walker is so scared that he is violating state law by preventing special elections. He would rather have citizens without representation rather than face further losses.


    Wisconsin is also a state where voter suppression probably threw the election to Trump.


    You have to deal with race to deal with The grassroots and voter turnout. You have to do outreach without alienating different ethnic groups. aver difficult task. Race is part of the Goddamn grassroots discussion.

    Look, we've had the same links, the same points in thread after thread.

    We had minorities involved in grassroots in 2008 - it all got shut down. It's hard to spin up again.

    But it's part that Obama shut it all down, part that none of us fought him on it not that the Hillary wing of the party was terribly empowered Jan 2009, nor did the economic crash motivate us towards in-fighting.

    No there is information that you overlook. Walker is running scared in Wisconsin because he senses an energized base. We elected a Democratic Senator in Alabama. The Evangelicals have ceded the moral high ground for a an adulterer in Chief in D.C. and a pedophile in Alabama. Republicans are selling out the country to the Russians in the name of Trump. People are fight mad. 

    We can have disagreements about whether Franken should have been forced out in the name of #Metoo. The push to vote for the Democrat still applies. We can fight about the role of race. The vote still goes to the Democrat. We can fight about whether the shutdown was worth it. We still vote for the Democrat. The fervor is still there. 

    We post about Russia repeatedly. Even when What comes out merely confirms what we think

    We post about Trump tweets repeatedly.because he verifies what we think

    We can post about Trump’s racism (shithole countries) etc.

    MeToo isn't a grassroots political machine - it's a gender response. It might have knock on political outcomes, but overall it's about human relations, not an election and governance approach. I mean sure, you can say everything is everything so why don't we just talk about everything at once because it all comes together somehow as... everything.

    Blacks are energized to vote and hopefully will turn out at the midterms

    Women are energized and are running for office in record numbers.

    what great sign do you need.

    I think you might get some confusion here because I believe short term as to the next two elections is quite different from long term after that. Because: Trump.  Trump is the gift. Koch et. al. have the hard job right now, they have to convince they are not Trump. You've got the majority wanting Trump out of their face every day. Just get out the protest vote, 2/3 of the electorate want to be able to protest, send the message they want Trump out of their face.

    It's so clear cut all that you have to be afraid of is Trump dissing Koch candidates or of Trump turning pro-Dem after the 2018 elections.

    At the same time you are talking 50-state strategy type things. That's totally different, an anti-GOP message. That's harder because times they are a changing. What's their message? They don't know either. They've got Freedom Caucus and RINO's and everything in between.

    You know how I feel about this: all indications are big tent parties are over!  Why even bother.

    Maybe others disagree. To them I would point this excerpt out, from an article that just popped up on my Firefox new tab,  from a site I never visit, just because I haven't cleared my cookies, the algorithms have learned my interests of the day right quick [<- read  that again. GET THE POINT? THE FUTURE  OF POLITICS IS HERE NOW)

    [....] In truth, social media is not a telescopic lens — as the telephone actually was — but an opinion-fracturing prism that shatters social cohesion by replacing a shared public sphere and its dynamically overlapping discourse with a wall of increasingly concentrated filter bubbles.

    Social media is not connective tissue but engineered segmentation that treats each pair of human eyeballs as a discrete unit to be plucked out and separated off from its fellows.

    In truth, social media is not a telescopic lens — as the telephone actually was — but an opinion-fracturing prism that shatters social cohesion by replacing a shared public sphere and its dynamically overlapping discourse with a wall of increasingly concentrated filter bubbles.


    Little wonder lies spread and inflate so quickly via products that are not only hyper-accelerating the rate at which information can travel but deliberately pickling people inside a stew of their own prejudices.

    First it panders then it polarizes then it pushes us apart. [....]

    Before you scream too loud,that we're all going to hell on a handbasket don't forget: politicians were always seen as lying liars, people just had no alternative. They voted party line because grandpa and grandma did the same, it's not like they read white papers on the party platform. Individual thinking resulting in idiosyncratic populist movements is the future, not following a party line (not, like on this website, some like to do: say it over and over and over as if that would change someone else's mind, if saying it the 100th time might do the trick.)

    So now the parties are going to be ground up, yes maybe every day sometimes. Populism without the demagogue. Scary witch hunt hysteria sometimes, other times great change, and everything inbetween.

    It's gonna be a brave new world for quite some time. You really think the GOP has a clue about what to do long term? Get real.

    Yes, 1,000-district strategy is more like it.

    Hell, kids these days aren't even watching TV, for them newly registered 18-21 yr. old voters, TV ad time is worthless. They probably aren't going to be home for "outreach", better know how to create a flash mob on a "trending" instead.

    TV, newspapers, any traditional outlet has trouble competing with Facebook news and similar - people do 1-stop shopping (aside from us news junkies), so they'll get their news while chatting up friends, and the for-pay papers are getting replaced with the free pared down dailies in metros and such.
    The online town hall idea was long about differentiating - servicing more viewpoints, more people. 1 district can be extremely complex. It calls into question whether 1 representative is really the right way to even represent that complexity, not that the continuing chaos and push & pull lends itself to more elegant, forward-thinking models. But yeah, how to tune messages for both Franklin Tennessee and Los Angeles and Harrisburg and Cheyenne and find some thread - or somehow not use thread - how *do* you kill off the big tent dream thing while replacing it with something more 2020?

    What group turned the tide and elected Doug Jones in Alabama? 

    This is stupid. In a close election any small fluctuation in voting patterns can be used as the "reason" a candidate won or lost. You can claim increased black turnout or black women as the reason for Moore's loss. But that black turnout would have been negligible in Alabama if the white vote for Jones wasn't twice the white vote for Obama.

    Fully 96 percent of African Americans supported Jones, similar to President Obama’s 95 percent support among this group in 2012. But Jones fared much better than Obama among white voters, garnering 30 percent of their votes, twice the 15 percent who voted for Obama. Jones made particularly large gains among white women and those with college degrees.

    We can go through the exit poll results and find any factor as the cause of the loss. Jones won with white college educated voters. Was that the reason he won? Could be, anything could be. Moore  did worse with white voters than previous senate candidates. That could be the reason too. The number and % of white evangelical voters dropped in the special election over previous elections. Many just decided not to vote for either candidate. Is that the cause?

    Jones won because everything rolled his way. If it weren't for the black vote he'd have lost. But if he had the black vote and didn't have the increased white college educated vote he'd have lost. If he had the black vote and the increased white college educated vote but the white vote for Moore was the same as previous senate candidates Jones would have lost. If Jones had the black vote and the increased white college educated vote and the white vote for Moore was less than previous senate candidates but the white evangelical vote was the same as previous elections Jones would have lost. Any one change in any of the large voting blocks would have led to a Jones loss.

    Your position that democratic wins are all because of the black vote and republican wins are all about racism is simplistic and foolish.


    Thanks for commenting. Blacks were key to the Alabama victory. The majority of whites wanted Roy Moore elected. 17% of black men in Virginia voted for Ed Gillespie. If Gillespie won, we would be blaming the black male voters. 

    Your ideology blinds you to reality. Blacks were one of several pillars that resulted in the Alabama victory for Jones. Jones would have lost if any one of the pillars didn't exist. That is absolutely clear from the exit polling. Everyone who looks at the polls with an unbiased eye can see it. But you don't look at polls for information. You search for a piece that supports your ideology and run with that piece and that piece alone.

    Your ideology binds you to your conclusions 


    ​Multiple sources cite the surge in black turnout as the reason for the victory 

    Alabama ride every trick in the book to suppress black votes. They even closed centers where people could obtain voter IDs. Voter ID is just another name for attempts to suppress votes.


    ​Blacks overcame obstacles to make their voices heard.

    What the exit polls show is that Jones doubled the white vote that Obama got.

    Jones benefitted from near-unanimous support from black voters, historically large support from whites

    Fully 96 percent of African Americans supported Jones, similar to President Obama’s 95 percent support among this group in 2012. But  Jones fared much better than Obama among white voters, garnering 30 percent of their votes, twice the 15 percent who voted for Obama. Jones made particularly large gains among white women and those with college degrees.

    Prove that if Jones had only gotten the same 15% that Obama got the increased black vote alone would have given him the win. If you were rational you'd admit you can't. If you were honest you'd admit that Jones needed both the increased white vote for him and the increased black vote. If you were rational and honest you'd admit that the increase in the white vote for Jones was numerically greater than the increase in the black vote for Jones. Both were needed but the increase in the white vote was a numerically larger factor in Jones' win. But you'll never admit it or face the facts because you're a dishonest irrational ideologue.

    Without the black vote, Jones would have lost. It took a pedophile for whites to vote for Jones. Blacks turned out despite the obstacles put in place. The black percentages for Jones are similar to those for Obama. The difference was the surge in the number of black people voting. Blacks made up a third of the vote in Alabama. Blacks voted in historic numbers. Did some white voters refuse cast a vote for a pedophile on the Republican side, yes. 


    Jones needed over 25% of black voters to win the Senate race. When Jones is up for re-election and his opponent is not a pedophile, he will mostly lose a portion of the white vote, while maintaining the bulk of the black vote.

    The black surge is leading the Democratic surge. The white vote for Jones was less than predicted. Black voters overcame the white shortfall. 


    Just thank the black voters in Alabama for the win.

    Jones was projected to need 35% of the white vote to win

    Jones got 30-32% of the white vote

    Black voters filled in the gap with a historic number of voters



    ​Thank you black voters of Alabama.

    A whopping 30% of white voters in Alabama voted against the racist pedophile

    Percentage-wise more than three times more black voters voted against the racist pedophile.

    And because they did the racist pedophile lost. Elections are won by the person who gets the most votes. Not on who gets the greater percentage of a minority of voters. There's no special award for that. You've been shoveling this stupid bullshit since Trump won but facts are facts. Only 3 in 10 of Alabama voters were black.

    Here's another fact for you. 8% of republicans voted for Jones. If those republicans hadn't voted for the democrat Jones would have lost. If I was as stupid as you I could easily say that those republicans were the key to Jones winning the election. White democrats and black democrats got the vote close and then a group of white republicans filled the gap.

    That's the answer to your question, "What group turned the tide and elected Doug Jones in Alabama?"

    I'd add that there's no special award for voting. To the contrary, people that can vote and don't should be ashamed. Not expect "outreach" to get off the sofa. Many people fought and many died for that right. That's why I sometimes find the arguments offensive that we should all appreciate that this or that group got up off the sofa to go to the polls.

    He doesn't even realize how insulting and offensive his comments are in this and other ways. He appears to be pushing a goal but every effort is counter productive.

    I argued for outreach to the black community. How is that offensive? Outreach helped with wins in Virginia and Alabama. Isn’t it more offensive to suggest that black voters who were not enthusiastic about voting should be ignored. Why are you so upset?

    Voters do expect political parties to tell them their votes are important. This is why Sanders and Perez did their outreach to the working class. Hillary is criticized for not reaching out to voters. Taking voters for granted is a reason cited for her loss. Why should black voters not demand outreach?

    Ignoring unenthusiastic voters because they are just “supposed” to come out to vote is suicidal. 

    There is no voter fraud. There are cases in multiple courts handling cases because voter ID is a cover for voter suppression 

    I stand by both statements 

    Democrats need to continue outreach in black communities. I point out that Sanders-Perez tour because that outreach was limited to the white working class. Blacks were ignored until recently

    Democrats need to fight against voter suppression in all it’s guises.

    Yes, we all get our crush on some savior next-year's-model, multiple times over the years, but this was different in that the organizational structure could have simmered along between elections & actually maintained some of the momentum. There was actually a mechanism to "make me do it", as the prez was supposed to be demanding - except he cut the connection. So we keep coming back to the 50-state-plan, but at some point we need to do it (though it looks like a 1000-district plan now)

    I do think that a more diverse outreach is underway.

    But crazily disorganized. Like walk for X rights once a year? How will it drive an election cycle? How do I get my opinion in? Or is it like wind, you just have to hope it blows your way?

    Messy, like making sausage. It’s politics.

    That's a sop. LBJ got into office and rammed legislation through. So did Bush Jr. They were prepared.

    Cementing coalitions isn't as easy, but with some focus and energy it can be done. One of the alternatives is Occupy Wall Street where no one's really in charge. You saw how well that worked. A few dymaic, inspiring, not *too* demanding leaders would be nice.

    In 2007-08, Obama was uniquely well-positioned to lead a broad-based movement comprising various strands of the notoriously fractious Democratic coalition and even going beyond traditional Democrats. Because he is an African American Democrat, he started the race with  great credibility among a large majority of blacks and many social justice warriors. Because progressives recognized his primary primary opponent as their enemy and the ally of corporatists and militarists, we were casting about for any viable alternative and the young, handsome, articulate, seemingly progressive community organizer more than filled the bill.

    Wisely, Obama positioned himself slightly to the left of Hillary on most issues - health care, trade deals. Her pro-Iraq War vote cost her support as did her typically off-putting and tone deaf campaign style. At the same time, Obama let corporate America know that he was not their enemy. He gave highly-compensated speeches to Wall Street which many progressives were too besotted to worry about much.

    Ultimately, Obama proved to be more style than substance - although there is substance - and once he achieved his political end, he abandoned the millions in the movement that brought him to the dance. In retrospect, it's quite likely he recognized early on didn't want us throwing monkey wrenches in his grand plans to achieve bargains with Republicans and to unify the country under a vaguely socially progressive neo-liberal order.

    In this (accurate) telling, Bernie is the anti-Obama. Old and cranky, his end is not power for himself - famously he told Elizabeth Warren that he would not be the turd in Hillary's punchbowl if Warren would be - but economic and social justice and peace. Thus, unlike Obama, he continues to support the progressive democratic movement that coalesced around him based on his policies, not his persona.

    Hal, we are watching Trump undo the good things that Obama accomplished, including healthcare. Trump is creating turmoil in the Middle East. You are unable to see this.Obama rescued the economy. The surge in the stock market began and continued under Obama. The decrease in black unemployment began and continued under Obama. If Sanders ran head to head against Obama, Sanders would lose. Fortunately, there will be choices other than Sanders in 2020.

    Which of Sanders' policies do you think are inferior to Obama's for African-Americans?

    Hal, I said that Sanders would lose to Obama in a head to head contest. Obama had policies, Sanders has wishes. I have been arguing that Democrats need to do outreach to the black community to win political races. One person actually argues that if voters say that they want to stay home and not vote, those voters should be left alone. Another argues that voter ID is the law. If votes are suppressed, well stuff happens. Both are losing options.

    Sanders and Perez did their outreach to the white working class. Sanders neglected black communities. Democrats are now reaching out to black communities. They are funding black activists to energize the black vote and it is working (See VA and AL). Democrats have finally come around to fighting voter suppression. Voter ID is a scam.


    ​Bernie Sanders, like Trump, has good words, but Sanders is not bright enough to bring his words on voter ID to black communities. Bernie Sanders says voter ID is a cover for voter suppression 


    Bernie Sanders does not bring that message to the black community. That allows Cory Booker to fill the vacuum.


    Kamala Harris also speaks out about voter suppression 


    Sanders does not think it important enough to show up. Black voters will opt for people they see. Sanders could have been the go to guy for black outreach and voter ID scams, but he just didn’t show up.




    RMRD - in your personal opinion whose policies would lead to better results for African Americans if implemented:

    1) Bernie's opposition to free trade deals like those Obama championed with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia and the TPP or Obama's pro free trade deal policy.

    2) Bernie's position that the bailouts in 2009 should be of underwater and struggling homeowners or Obama's prevailing view that the big banks should be bailed out.

    3) Bernie's Medicare-for-all proposal or Obamacare.

    4) Bernie's call for tuition-free public colleges and universities or Obama's non-committal stance.

    5) Bernie's call to rein in the drone program or Obama's expansion of it.

    Hal, you keep saying policies. All  I hear are wishes.

    Edit to add:

    If Sanders runs in 2020 and receives overwhelming white support, he may win the nomination.

    You're not at all addressing what the New Republic article is addressing, that Obama built an organization and then did nothing with it after he was elected and didn't really turn it over to working for Dem party objectives, either. And the article purports that led to Trump getting elected

     Will it be the same old same old as in:

    I think the decision needs to be made and discussed on “this vs. party” or “this and party.” The discussion should focus on—What is best for Barack Obama, his politics, his agenda and his future.

    Would it be the right thing to do for Sanders to just rinse and repeat? Or run as a newly loyal Democrat and use the party system as is? Suggest changes to  the system? Or would he start a new party with his followers that helped other candidates that otherwise would run as Independents like he has? Would he just let things fly as they might and welcome a bipartisan Congress? And whatever it is, how might it be executed now that the internet has developed further and there are things like Cambridge Analytica?  Etc.

    Because even though I wasn't here at all (on this site) during the campaigns, I 've already read this debate between you and rmrd and others hundreds of times. I can't imagine how tired it's getting to others who read it a hundred times more, would be great if it moved on past this one narrative, over and over and over. 



    I'm not sure if this comment, in its entirety, is addressed to me but I'll assume it is. My initial response here on the TNR article was a positive one. I do agree with it. Moreover, in that response, I set forth why I believed Obama was able to build a successful progressive coalition and why, in my view, he dismantled it or at a minimum did nothing with it. I contrasted Obama's decision to leave his millions adrift with Bernie's to try to nurture a lasting progressive movement.

    Regarding what Sanders should do in the future, I think he is doing about the best he can by supporting those trying to reform the Democratic Party from within, like Keith Ellison and Our Revolution, while remaining independent. I understand that there are many people whose loyalty to the Democratic Party prevents them from supporting him. But I do not understand those people. I support the most progressive viable candidate in every election. In most cases, I care very little to which party, if any, the candidate belongs. I do understand that in legislatures, it's important to try to deny Republicans a majority. But since Bernie (and Angus King) caucus with the Democrats, it's irrelevant to me that they're not officially Democrats right now.

    Regarding the tiresome disputes between me and most everybody else here about Bernie versus Hillary and Bernie versus Obama, I'm not sure what to say. I think policy trumps pretty much everything else and I have problems with many of the policies that Obama championed and huge problems with nearly all of the policies that Hillary championed. It matters not one whit to me that they're Democrats. Actually, it bothers me because the harm that has resulted from their bad policies has led to Republican electoral success.

    At the end of the day, you need a coalition. To form that coalition, you need people who do not pass your purity test. There are energized women as seen by the turnout for the Women’s March. There is an energized group of black voters. White suburbanites are getting energized. Most of the energized may not pass your purity test. Sanders had an opening in the black community, but he blew it. In the age of the woman, Warren, Gillibrand, and Harris, and Stabenow are more viable. Booker and Harris will crush Sanders in the black community. The question now is what is  Sanders willing to do to help the Democratic Party. 

    All of the above candidates can probably survive the appeal neede to attract a segment of women voters. Some voters may still harbor ill feelings about Sanders helping wreck Hillary’s chances. Most, if not all, of the above are probably capable of bridging a racial divide. Sanders has harmed himself in the black community. I see a coalition that can coalesce, but Sanders seems to be the weak link. Other than Sanders, who do you see as a viable alternative? I consider all the names above as acceptable. There are people that I left out who will come to the forefront. Who is acceptable to you if Sanders is rejected?

    Actually, you can't build a coalition without a purity test. You needed purity tests to create a civil rights movement and a reproductive rights movement and a gay rights movement and an environmental movement. The question is what kind of movement are you trying to put together. Are you trying to build a movement that promotes economic justice, social justice, both, or that merely seeks to defeat Republicans? Tell me what movement you're trying to build and I'll tell you what purity test you support.

    If you're going to ask me questions, you'll have to answer the one I asked you earlier without clever dodges like Sanders has a wish list. So whose policies, if enacted, would be better for your community?

    "Are you trying to build a movement that.....merely seeks to defeat Republicans?"

    Classic remark from an arrogant guy totally unaffected by Republican policy.....and who clearly doesn't give a damn about those who are impacted.  Those who are having their lives, and their families lives, turned upside down or destroyed.

    "Are you trying to build a movement that.....merely seeks to defeat Republicans?"

    Classic remark from a guy utterly insulated from the devastating harm done to hundreds of millions by A) neo-liberal economic policies supported by both Democrats and Republicans, B) imperialistic military policies supported by both Democrats and Republicans, C) punitive immigration policies supported by both Democrats and Republicans, D) pro-fossil fuel policies supported by both Dems and Republicans.

    You see where I'm going dontcha NCD?

    Note well that I can make my point and win the argument easily with you And yet avoid leveling any insults like "arrogant" at all.

    Sanders is old. Who is your next candidate?

    It's a sad fact in today's political world that there's no obvious progressive alternative. Elizabeth Warren maybe. Whose policies - Obama's or Bernie's - are better for the only community for which you've ever professed the slightest concern?

    Hal, your purity standard leaves you with few options. You are an elitist, come join the proletariat.

    Edit to add:

    BTW Warren supported Hillary


    Whose policies, if implemented, - Obama's or Sanders' - would be better for the only community you care about?

    On a secondary note, why are you almost completely unconcerned with policies? In the 1990s, the Clinton's policies did grievous harm to the only community you care about, yet you still support them. Why don't you care about policies?

    You are aware of the current Constitutional crisis?

    Why are you unconcerned with policies? Oh I don't care.

    Thank goodness

    The Women’s March was a bellwether. Some white women were alienated when black women voiced their opinions prior to the first march. White women were not used to being criticized 


    This year was more focused on GOTV but there were attempts to connect to working class women of color.


     Compare that to Bernie’s ham handed purity test comment. “Not enough to say I’m a woman vote for me.”


    Given that Sanders repeatedly disqualifies himself, which candidate appeals to you as a coalition builder?

    I answered your question repeatedly. Other than Bernie Sanders, who qualifies as a leader of the movement that has to be rebuilt?


    You didn't answer whether implementation of Bernie's policies or Obama's would better serve the only community in which you have ever shown any interest whatsoever.

    Unicorns versus horses

    So you're saying that Obama couldn't have pushed to bail out homeowners instead of big banks, is that right? You're saying that Obama had to urge Congress to endorse "free" trade deals with Panama, Columbia, and Korea and the TPP, right? You're saying that Obama had to go to the Republicans and offer cut backs to social security right? Look I get it. You support the black guy almost no matter what. But don't you have some obligation to be intellectually honest? Obama didn't have to side with the big banks. He didn't have to push for more "free" trade like the Clintons and he didn't have to offer to cut future social security payments.

    Currently, we are in a Constitutional crisis. So whatever faults Obama had and whatever infrastructure he didn’t leave, we need to be building today. I don’t see Sanders doing that. Sanders was/is not President and won’t be President. I love alternate world sci-fi, but I can’t expand on what Sanders would have done. It is likely we would be in a depression.

    follow the retweets to end up at an interesting district-by-district a-nightmare-to-analyze thing on 2018:

    Important perspective https://t.co/bTsCri0tGS

    — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) February 1, 2018


    Something Democrats should be paying attention to: the Trump campaign spent $5.8 million in 2017 on digital advertising, almost 1/3 of its entire budget for the year. Was anyone countering that messaging?

    — Tom Bonier (@tbonier) February 4, 2018

    That was the question the article notes from 2010 when the GOP was beating up Dems on the bailout, Obamacare, et al - and they could only muster 300,000 calls to Congress after unilaterally disarming.

    8 years later, it ain't got any better. Of course the Trump campaign spend is augmented greatly by the Russian dirty tricks spend. And still we don't respond, we just complain to Facebook and Twitter.

    Princeton U. historian Julian E. Zeltizer ( the editor of a new book, The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment..) addresses your topic here in detail:

    Where Is Barack Obama? The former president’s reticence in the Trump era is only hurting his party

    @ The Atlantic, March 10

    scroll down to middle, starting with paragraph

    When Republicans invested in state and local elections, with an eye toward controlling the redistricting process in 2011, the president did not fight back by leading an equally aggressive effort for his party.....

    I note he is not blaming Obama exclusively, he does add this

    Like most Democratic presidents before him, as the political scientist Daniel Gavin argued, he didn’t pay attention to the financial or electoral health for the party. 

    More accurately, Obama hobbled the party structure on ascension and then tried to unhobble it quickly before his 2nd term ended. LBJ was in a whole different time, and Carter was relatively short term, up for a food fight. Hillary was ready to take the time and energy - pre-election she was willing but conditions were too chaotic. After was never to be.

    Latest Comments