(If you missed the first two posts, they're here and here.)
As the dust is still unsettled following the events in Nevada and the results in Kentucky and Oregon from last night, one thing is clear: the battle between insurgent progressives and the Democratic establishment is now fully engaged.
And the sheep are nervous. Their lackeys in the media have turned ominous. Twitter is the zeitgeist this cycle and if you want to see what's unfolding, look at these two trending topics the morning after the tie in the Bluegrass State last night. Look fast, though, because it won't be relevant to this conversation a week from now.
The first thing we should establish, for the benefit of the slow-thinking Hillaryians among us, is that the revolution is here, and it's here to stay. It's not going away after Bernie finally loses the nomination fight in a week or two, it's going to be heard one final time in Philadelphia, and then it's on to November. Calling the revolutionaries 'violent', using the D Team's rules against them in a tyranny of the majority, and even a little putzy snark casually directed at anybody who dares to think outside the two-party box just feeds the beast.
I don't think most Hillbots get that, though, and I'm lovin' that. On to the headlines ...
-- The pot's boiling over.
A Democratic Party managed by the likes of Ms. Lange and Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is simply not a party I can stand to be a part of.
This has to change, because if it doesn't, their Democratic Party has set themselves up for a massive and catastrophic failure in November.
But whether that happens or not: What kind of loser will Bernie Sanders be? I'm hoping it's a sore one, because his supporters certainly are ... and have every right to be. In the best example I've seen yet of the establishment's cluelessness, there's so much wrong in this piece I almost didn't include it, but you know, blind hogs and acorns. Here's the nut.
Yeah, in revolutions chairs tend to be thrown. Sometimes elbows and even punches.
-- In this, from Mimi Swartz, you see the same mistakes being repeated by the Elitist Caucus of the Clintonite Party, Houston chapter ... which has given the nation the very worst of the Republican Party (Tom DeLay, Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, etc.).
Another excerpt that doesn't do the original justice for its insights.
That's pretty even-handed, yes?
So -- despite that elbow to the Berners' ribs from McLarty -- on a more direct observation, and not to let anybody off the hook here: it's on the Greens to do what they need to do in order to capture the revolutionary movement's most fervent supporters. Either that or more "violence" (sic) is in the offing. Sanders isn't going to move his people over to the Peace Party for them.
Clinton and her ilk is going to do all the chasing off that gets done, and that's going to be significant enough, but Stein, et.al. needs to get the net into the surf and scoop.
There's more to say and to link to, but if I wrote any longer then nobody would, you know, be able to finish reading it all or fully digest what's already in this. So I'll probably have a fourth edition of RNU by this weekend.
As the dust is still unsettled following the events in Nevada and the results in Kentucky and Oregon from last night, one thing is clear: the battle between insurgent progressives and the Democratic establishment is now fully engaged.
And the sheep are nervous. Their lackeys in the media have turned ominous. Twitter is the zeitgeist this cycle and if you want to see what's unfolding, look at these two trending topics the morning after the tie in the Bluegrass State last night. Look fast, though, because it won't be relevant to this conversation a week from now.
The first thing we should establish, for the benefit of the slow-thinking Hillaryians among us, is that the revolution is here, and it's here to stay. It's not going away after Bernie finally loses the nomination fight in a week or two, it's going to be heard one final time in Philadelphia, and then it's on to November. Calling the revolutionaries 'violent', using the D Team's rules against them in a tyranny of the majority, and even a little putzy snark casually directed at anybody who dares to think outside the two-party box just feeds the beast.
I don't think most Hillbots get that, though, and I'm lovin' that. On to the headlines ...
-- The pot's boiling over.
It was really just a matter of time.
With the Democratic presidential primary in its twilight, frustration within the ranks over the party's handling of the primary process spilled out this week as Bernie Sanders supporters lashed out at party leaders, arguing that their candidate has been treated unfairly.
The public outpouring of anger began last weekend at the Nevada Democratic Party convention, where Sanders supporters who said Hillary Clinton's backers had subverted party rules shouted down pro-Clinton speakers and sent threatening messages to state party Chairwoman Roberta Lange after posting her phone number and address on social media.
That led Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other top party leaders to demand an apology and publicly ruminate on the possibility of violence at the Democratic National Convention in July as they prepare for a general election battle with Donald Trump.
A Democratic Party managed by the likes of Ms. Lange and Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is simply not a party I can stand to be a part of.
Throughout the year, Sanders and his supporters have complained about the nomination process and ways they believe it has helped Clinton, including debates held on Saturday nights, closed primaries in major states such as New York, and the use of superdelegates -- essentially free-agent party and union stalwarts who are overwhelmingly backing Clinton.
This has to change, because if it doesn't, their Democratic Party has set themselves up for a massive and catastrophic failure in November.
But whether that happens or not: What kind of loser will Bernie Sanders be? I'm hoping it's a sore one, because his supporters certainly are ... and have every right to be. In the best example I've seen yet of the establishment's cluelessness, there's so much wrong in this piece I almost didn't include it, but you know, blind hogs and acorns. Here's the nut.
The next chapter of Democratic politics isn’t about Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders; that battle has already been resolved. It is the war between Clinton-ism (the pragmatic progressivism that has defined the party since 1992) and Sanders-ism (an unapologetic socialism that is more ambitious, and more risky, than anything the party has proposed since the New Deal). And wars tend to be bloody.
Yeah, in revolutions chairs tend to be thrown. Sometimes elbows and even punches.
-- In this, from Mimi Swartz, you see the same mistakes being repeated by the Elitist Caucus of the Clintonite Party, Houston chapter ... which has given the nation the very worst of the Republican Party (Tom DeLay, Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, etc.).
Hillary Clinton is coming to town, but not for any public events. Instead, she plans to appear at a fund-raiser at a loyalist’s grand Houston home. The cost of attending is detailed on the Evite: $2,700 for a Champion, $1,000 for a Fighter and $500 for an Advocate (not surprisingly, first to sell out).
No doubt Mrs. Clinton could draw an adoring crowd, but it’s accepted as a waste of time for national Democratic candidates to come here to seek actual votes, as opposed to cash. Texas has become as predictably red as California and New York are blue, with the predictable result that it has become nearly irrelevant in the presidential races.
These Democrats, like their GOP counterparts, have more money than sense. Sheep passively lining up to be shorn, and then sent to slaughter. Have you ever heard of a lamb sacrificing itself, though? A mutton cutting off its own wool, or slitting its throat?
(While the Republicans took over the state), Texas Democrats’ case of learned helplessness became chronic. They hardly bother to run for dogcatcher. Wendy Davis’s ignominious defeat in her 2014 run for governor proved it was time to start over, but strategic efforts have not taken off.“They spend a lot of time updating voter files, but nobody knows how to use those things,” one longtime Democrat told me. The difference between pragmatism and self-pity has become hard to discern. That was never the norm.
It's tragic, I know. Brutal self-examination prior to a pending emotional breakdown is hard intellectual work, but the alternative is full collapse. It could get worse than it already is, if the people in charge of the Texas Democratic Party state convention -- already in possession of a three-to-one margin of delegates to national, and more than that overseeing the rules, credentials, and other committees -- try to pull off a Nevada-style purge.
-- I don't think my warnings are going to stop them, however. So then we get to ...
Most voters are not excited about their current presidential options. Polls show that only 36 percent of the country has a favorable view of Trump, who is currently cleaving the GOP establishment in two without a hint of remorse. Hillary Clinton is doing only slightly better at 42 percent.
Only Bernie Sanders has a favorability rating above 50 percent, but his campaign has been unable to usurp the entrenched powers in the Democratic Party and is largely seen as an exercise in movement building at this point.
Another excerpt that doesn't do the original justice for its insights.
Whether widespread cynicism will motivate voters to support third-party long shots or simply drive down turnout may largely depend on how much exposure the alternative candidates get. Front-runners like Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarians John McAfee and Gary Johnson are enjoying some media coverage and appearances on network TV, but it's nothing like the daily obsession over Clinton, Sanders and especially Trump, who regularly generates headlines by offending pretty much everyone besides guaranteed Republican primary voters.
It's clear that television exposure is one key to electoral success; Trump's made-for-TV personality propelled him to the top of a major party. Thus, the Greens and Libertarians have ramped up legal efforts to force the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to require the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the nonprofit that sponsors the debates, to include their candidates during prime-time programming.
That's pretty even-handed, yes?
(Green Pary spokesman Scott) McLarty said it appears clear that Sanders will not stage an independent campaign and will endorse Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination. However, McLarty emphasized that the movement Sanders inspired will continue, and its first challenge to the dominant political system should be to demand that a Green Party candidate is included in the presidential debates.
"You know, if you're in the movement for single-payer universal health care, which Bernie very strongly supports, as the Green Party does too ... [and then] to say, 'well, we are not going to push for the Green Party candidate to get into the debate because we want Hillary, the lesser evil, to get elected' ... then you are basically silencing your own point of view," McLarty said. "And I don't see any movement having any success if it participates in its own silence."
So -- despite that elbow to the Berners' ribs from McLarty -- on a more direct observation, and not to let anybody off the hook here: it's on the Greens to do what they need to do in order to capture the revolutionary movement's most fervent supporters. Either that or more "violence" (sic) is in the offing. Sanders isn't going to move his people over to the Peace Party for them.
Clinton and her ilk is going to do all the chasing off that gets done, and that's going to be significant enough, but Stein, et.al. needs to get the net into the surf and scoop.
There's more to say and to link to, but if I wrote any longer then nobody would, you know, be able to finish reading it all or fully digest what's already in this. So I'll probably have a fourth edition of RNU by this weekend.
