The Agreeing Loudly podcast is back from coast-to-coast with a brand new season. Join Jered, Troy, Bill and Pat as they welcome special guest Carson Starkey all the way from the critically acclaimed Margin of Error podcast to discuss whether or not it’s time for a serious third party movement in the United States.
You cannot build a movement for the common people if you hold the common people in contempt. — ThomasFrank at the 2017 People’s Summit
Chicago, IL — This past weekend Jered Weber and I attended the 2nd annual People’s Summit. The first one in 2016, was held shortly after Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), went from a little known and self-described democratic socialist to the brink of the Democratic Party nomination. Taking on Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State in the first Obama administration, who had nearly every endorsement from Democratic elected officials and party leaders, as well as the support of corporate America, Sanders received 46% of the primary vote.
Assembling a coalition of millennials who had previously helped put then-Senator Obama over the top in the 2008 presidential primary and general election, progressives, independents, and populists, Sanders shocked the country, especially the donor and billionaire class by proving that in the Age of CitizensUnited, there was another way forward. There was another way to run a viable national campaign without having to offer fealty to the Super PACS, corporate lobbyists, and special interests holding the country back in the 20th century.
And what was remarkable to so many who flocked to the campaign, new and old, of all different generations and backgrounds, was that it was the ideas and message that mattered. It was the positivity of the campaign and its focus on the issues, and it was the remarkable consistency and authenticity of the candidate throughout the years.
Sanders repeatedly explained that when the people come together in common effort, they win. It was never about him, it was about a “future to believe in.” And we now know it was never about him because the campaign never ended, because ultimately, it was more of a movement than a campaign to begin with.
And that is where the People’s Summit comes in.
The People’s Summit is first and foremost, an Ideas Summit.
Not just ideas for the future of the country, but also ideas on how to fundamentally improve and outright save our democracy. Those critical of the People’s Summit only needed to give these ideas attention at the Center for American Progress and perhaps they would not have to get mad that not everyone is falling in line and “uniting.” Before moving on to an analogy for what to think about the People’s Summit, let me just say that no matter which route one prefers to moving this country forward, there is no need to come together on the issues, on party unity, or anything other than basic civility and decency because we still have three years to go. In other words–see you in 2020.
Bubbles need to be pierced, and introspection and national conversations must continue en masse.
Now onto how to think about the People’s Summit in terms of what it means for the future.
Each year movement conservatism (or what passes as that these days) has its annual ideas conference called the Conservative Political Action Conference, put on by the American Conservative Union. Think of it as a “State of the Movement” address to conservatives from all across the country. Upcoming elected officials and advocates often get heavily promoted and featured at the conference. In addition to think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and others, CPAC gathers all of the various grassroots conservative groups and organizations from around the country. Not being included almost serves as a statement that one is not “conservative” enough or not a “true conservative.”
CPAC operates very much like an ideas and state of the movement arm of the major American political party on the right–the Republican Party.
In 2003, recognizing the power think tanks, ideas conferences and so forth had in propelling the conservative movement to electoral victories through its political arm–the Republican Party, John Podesta founded the Center for American Progress, which is both a think tank and has an annual conference. There is no mystery that the annual CAP conference and its ideas are heavily attached to the Democratic Party. But while the Democratic Party was slow to jump on the think tank bandwagon and invest heavily in the think tank model in comparison to the GOP, its adoption of that model and investment in it represent the final shunning of its historical roots as the FDR “party of the people.” Consider this, CAP founder Podesta was national Chair of the Clinton campaign, Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, and later counselor to President Barack Obama, made several versions of this sentiment throughout the 2016 election cycle:
For every working class voter we lose, we’ll pick up 2 or 3 professional class voters.
That’s the thing with the establishment or corporate Dems. I’m not much of an ideologue, I have a governing and leadership philosophy yes, but at the end of the day I have a healthy respect for facts. A respect that is lacking in so many political leaders and those who cover and follow our nation’s politics today. I’m fine with compromising. All democracies and constitutional systems require it. However, what incentive do people who do not like to compromise their belief systems have to follow a strategy that not only is not their views in key areas, but also does not and has not won? I submit these simple truths about where the party stands in terms of electoral strategy:
And I direct these six points of logic to the failed Podesta mentality from above and a similar mentality echoed by (permanent) Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), which stated that “for every working class vote we lose, we’ll pick up 2-3 moderate Republican voters.”
There are not enough professional class voters to form the consensus.
The ones who realigned from the GOP to the Democratic Party did so years ago.
The ones still in the GOP are rich and unpersuadable.
Working class voters are more numerous and more diverse than ever.
Some of them are even organized already, through this thing called collective bargaining.
You can’t build a party of the people if you have contempt for the people. You have to talk directly to the people about the issues, all the people.
Please note that when I say the working class I always mean that anyone who has to work for a living to keep existing. Many choose to work for a living and that is great, but their livelihood does not necessarily depend on it, and they likely have multiple streams of passive income.
Speaking of passive income, George Soros, a major funder of CAP and constant boogeyman that the right wing media likes to use to discredit policy agenda and goals, is not too different from the Koch brothers or any other member of the billionaire class engaged in electoral politics in the CitizensUnited age if one does not personally agree with George Soros. And that is the problem.
Neither party is seriously committed to taking on big, unaccountable, but organized money in politics.
If you are super-rich in America, or anyone really who can sit on their hands making millions in passive income revenue streams, and if your preferred party (whether Dems or GOP) does not win, you always have the other major party to protect your interests for the most part, with only a few exceptions.
It’s the same model. Controlled by the donor class, and dependent on the labor of others to keep itself in power both politically and economically.
I would argue the People’s Summit is an ideas conference, that allows for networking, learning, and updating on the “state of the movement”, similar to CPAC. As of now, it is without a political party attached to it, but I have no doubt, shall a viable third party arise in the next few years, it will be called the People’s Party and it will have started and spear-headed by the 5,000 or so people that have attended the Summit, and those that followed along online, etc.
The central organizing goal of the movement, like the Republican Party, the last third party to replace a major party before in the 1850’s with slavery, is the biggest moral issue of our time — economic inequality and the forces that continue to make it worse, organized big money in politics and legalized bribery and corruption.
A Future Beyond Party Labels and Endless Partisan and Media Sensationalism. A Future that is not just Resistance, but Beyond Resistance.
In the weeks to come, this website will be recommitting itself to trying to churn out regular content the best we can. Apologies if we miss the mark on that front, as we all have busy lives in addition to written commentary, podcasting, etc.
This weekend the third season of the Agreeing Loudly podcast will be on just one topic and prompt: the Third Party option.
In addition, I’m hoping to finish up three articles in a “state of” series on the nation, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party.
If this coalition translated to the electoral college, which I understand is a big leap of logic this far out, but bear with me here, if that DID happen, you would not just see a Sanders victory over the most unpopular presidential candidate of all time (candidate Trump) but you could possibly see the first genuine popular vote AND electoral college landslide since 1988 (and to a lesser extent 2008).
My Constructive Criticism of the Summit.
First of all, folks at the summit of all stripes were amazingly self-reflective of what could have gone better not just for the movement, but also for the 2016 Sanders campaign for President.
My two points for potential improvements to next years Summit.
Get a vets or foreign policy-focused speaker to talk about and call for a national “Peace and Security” movement. There are massive levels of economic implications to our #ForeverWar policy that tie into the larger issues presented by the movement. The social and economic costs in caring for our veterans and veterans issues have been some of the best policy work that Senator Sanders has done, so it only makes sense to feature this going forward.
Reach out to Republicans concerned with the direction of their party, big money in politics, and the growing, unsustainable levels of economic inequality. Perhaps this one will be more controversial, but if we’re truly to talk to everyone, we have to mean it. And we see evidence every day, not so much amongst Republican political leaders but we do see it amongst the rank and file and they are growing uncomfortable with the Trump-led GOP. The GOP is dominated by the interests of the donor and billionaire class even more so than the Democrats most years, and disillusioned Republicans becoming former Republicans would be a key feature of any future coalition, especially in current red to light-red states.
The participants were divided on the question of a Third Party movement, but were engaged, passionate, and committed to the future no matter what — it’s an “All Hands on Deck” strategy for saving democracy for all and creating a 21st century economy that works for the many and not just the few.
Division is nothing new in this political age. Like the rest of the country, there was a split in views at the Summit. Progressives and populists committed to taking on the corporate state are divided on how best to achieve the desired results of taking on big money in politics and tackling the moral issue of our time–the highest levels of economic inequality in a century.
My unscientific observations of the sentiments is that the People’s Summit activists, organizers, leaders, and followers prefer starting a vital third party movement in this country. This is a sentiment I agree with more and more each day. However, for the time being, reforming the Democratic Party by taking it over seems to be the immediate goal and interest. A goal that has seen mixed results, winning some small battles early on, but losing the more high-profile battles like the DNC Chair election, California Democratic Party Chair election, etc. What is clear though is the ideas and message is winning over public opinion in America at-large. Significant portions of the speech last Saturday highlighted that.
And what is vitally true, is that we have now reached a 1955 William F. Buckley moment for progressives that this website had called for in 2015 and 2016 throughout the Presidential campaign as all of us ranted and raved about how badly the Democratic Party was going to bottom out in the coming years.
Progressives and populists have finally come to terms with the failure of the current model of the Democratic Party, and from this day forward–everyone knows that change will not come from the Democratic Party, change can only be brought to the Democratic Party. And the more and more party leadership grasps onto and protects their hold on power, even in the name of electoral viability (which is a ridiculous reason when you’ve lost nearly every election), the more and more power the movement, independent of any party control–will be. One way or another, the neoliberal and professional class consensus is over. And thank God for that.
I do not say these things lightly. After all, I am a member of the professional class in this country, but I also think that the younger cohorts of the professional class (Gen X and millennials, those under 45 or so) have far more in common (because of issues with student debt, broader acceptance of diversity, etc.) with the concerns of the working class (now more diverse than at any time in American history) than the concerns of the professional class consensus, whose obsession with incrementalism, education and innovation as a key to mitigating inequality (when in reality, it’s rationalizing it), and insistence that all problems can be solved from Harvard or Yale yard, Wall Street or Silicon Valley, New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles, or by lawyers or financial service professionals, etc.
If the leadership of the party would rather go down on the Titanic, so long as they have a first class seat, then so be it. The overriding focus of the People’s Summit was not to re-litigate the 2016 election, but to movebeyond just merely resisting what the Trump administration is doing, because guess what? That only goes so far, both in practical day-to-day terms and in electoral terms.
Folks, the only way out of this is to win elections, and to win elections you need a party willing to adopt a better message. A message capable of capturing a large majority of the nation and turning out and inspiring more voters than at any other point in modern U.S. history, because there are significant obstacles in gerrymandering and voter suppression to overcome.
The ideas and message of the folks who attended the People’s Summit were not welcome at the CAP conference this year, so we took them to our own conference, in the same state where the last successful third party movement in America took off from, Illinois.
The Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist party to end the immoral practice of slavery in this country. Similarly, if neither major party takes seriously the issue of big money in politics and the fact that we are in a 2nd Gilded Age, then it is highly likely that the movement makes a clean break. But as of now, in practical terms, the prevailing consensus was that there is not enough time for 2018, and undecided about 2020.
One of the conference speakers Thomas Frank (writer, historian, and co-founder of theBaffler), put it best at the end of his most recent book “Listen, Liberal!” which was written almost as if he already knew the 2016 electoral result, even though it was published in the summer.
Direct solutions are off the table for the moment… Democrats have no interest in reforming themselves in a more egalitarian way. There is little the rest of us can do, given the current legal arrangements of this country, to a build a vital third-party movement or to revive organized labor, the one social movement that is committed by its nature to pushing back against the inequality trend.
What we can do is strip away the Democrats’ precious sense of their own moral probity–to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge that righteousness is always on their side. It is that sensibility, after all, that prevents so many good-hearted rank-and-file Democrats from understanding how starkly and how deliberately their political leaders contradict their values. Once that contradiction has been made manifest–once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. The course of the party and the course of the country can both be changed, but only after we understand that the problem is us.
Happy Friday! Where to start, where to start? How about a Political Parrots teaser?
While there are questions about what President Trump’s transition team knew and when – now we know what Vice President Pence is busy working on. By the way “transition team” is code for Vice President Mike Pence. Bloomberg
Speaking of Pence…Did Sixpence None the Richer write the most 90’s song ever?
Breaking News: Baby Booms are more entitled than…well…everybody. Here’s the proof.Marketwatch
The Scene and Setting: cultural treasure (in progressive-populist circles) Carson Starkey gets off-stage after introducing Bruce Springsteen to a crowd in San Francisco. The Bay Area is one of the thriving cultural centers of the People’s Republic of California, the first modern-day state to secede from the United States of America just after Trump’s re-election in 2020. He joins Troy Olson, on assignment from his home in Harlem to build diplomatic ties to the land with the 4th largest GDP in the world.
The Democrats have recently won complete control of all levels of government after the 2028 Presidential, Congressional, and State Elections. Carson and Troy reminisce on how it all happened.
So what just happened there? What’s your take Professor Starkey?
(note: Carson recently took a job at a Twin Cities area university, his favorite course is an elective on “American History as Told By the Music of Bruce Springsteen”)
Well, Hillary took a teaching job at Columbia, and avoided public endorsements, which allowed Seth Moulton to become governor of Massachusetts. Keith Ellison became Minnesota’s first black senator after Al Franken retired to become senior producer at Saturday Night Live. Tulsi Gabbard took legislating seriously, stopped surfing, and co-authored Medicaid-for-all w/ Kirsten Gillibrand.
You’re maybe giving too much credit to the winning team here. I attribute these historic wins for the Democrats to GOP incompetence. Who knew their policies would be widely disliked and disastrous for the country? Well… you knew.
That’s true. Life got hard for a lot of cable news viewers when they lost SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws.
It also helped that rural monopolies by cable companies pushed prices to over $100 per month when they could have just had Netflix for $9 per month. Did these companies really think that no millennials would tell their parents to downsize in this area?
Right. Disastrous policies forced some hard choices on boomer parents. Some folks lost their Fox News fix.
The two-front war in Syria and Iran certainly didn’t help in the ’22 midterms (historicalnote: the first decent cycle per expectations in a decade for the Democratic Party). They should have pursued a draft but of course that would have led to even worse results at the ballot box.
The National Guard wasn’t ready. Also Republicans shouldn’t have run Dakota Meyer for President in 2024. His limited policy knowledge was surpassed only by Bristol Palin’s ugly bigotry.
They definitely over-estimated how much Trump had prepared the country for ugly bigotry… at some point people were going to get sick of it. It did not help that golden boys J.D. Vance was unable to beat Sherrod Brown for the Senate, and Tim Tebow was still trying to play professional sports (as of this writing: Tebow is under contract with the Las Vegas Raiders and is likely to be cut this fall)…
Sherrod Brown…forgot about him after he retired from the Senate to be a Supreme Court Justice. But we finally prioritized the judiciary.
(Continuing)… Donald Trump Jr’s failed term as Governor of New York didn’t help. Who knew New York state could do so much worse than Andrew Cuomo?
Lessons learned I suppose.
Speaking of Cuomo, worst presidential campaign in modern history? 2020. Wow. 5th in the Iowa Caucus.
He wasted 30 million dollars on campaign ads touting his fleet of collector cars. The donors were furious. But Cuomo moved to Goldman Sachs and soldiered on.
That’s a write-off for them made easy after the Supreme Court extended the privileges and immunities clause to corporations in the early 2020’s.
The DNC finally got out of the way of President Sanders, perhaps it was the overwhelming numbers and widespread misery.
I had my doubts if we were ever going to move on from a one party GOP state, especially after California became its own Republic. Which deep down had to burn many Texans because they didn’t get there first.
One of the few places capable of that course of action economically. Silicon Valley refused to relocate, it made sense. Regarding Texas, Governor Ted Cruz was unpersuasive.
Of course the downside to California leaving was that we were officially passed in GDP by China… but I imagine hysterical white people think it’s worth it. Demographic majorities for another decade or so.
That coal industry recovery never happened.
Didn’t need to. Trump correctly assumed that those voters would never vote for a Democrat anyway. The real question I have is–how long will these new majorities last and will they finally go after the needed big reforms?
Medicare-for-all would be a good escalation.
Let’s hope lessons have been learned. Now is the time. Although I have my doubts majority leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi will push hard enough for it.
Paired with universal basic income it may be hard. I suppose the revenue for those policies hinge on the corporate repatriation. Which Schumer and Durbin oppose with a bigger cut in the rates.
So admittedly, I was wrong about that “permanent” minority leader status. Apparently negative 30 favorability ratings nationally do not translate locally. Either way, it has been a lonely White House for President Sanders, not unlike Trump with the GOP.
The infrastructure is still not there, and he is not built for grandiose moments in the spotlight.
Fair point. The race is already on for who succeeds him. Do we swing back toward centrist-corporatist-neoliberals? A progressive heir? Does this growing Millennial Party that was willing to follow as long as Sanders got nominated but now is furious because they still have no place in electoral politics unless they run as Republicans bolt?
Larry David keeps making fun of Sanders, but it isn’t as funny as 2016.
Everyone looks old and tired. We’re bogged down in 4 fronts now (Afghanistan-Iraq-Syria-Iran), and despite the best efforts of the Sanders administration, we’ll soon enter our 29th straight year at war without a draft… it seems insane.
There’ll be some super attractive Iran War vet with a square jaw and two kids that runs against Tom Cotton. And progressives will soon be placated with Center for American Progress think tank jobs. The ebb and flow of the game I suppose…
So I guess we’ve answered the question. We’ll lose our majorities in the ’30 midterms, meaning we blow a redistricting year, and can look forward to President Tom Cotton. Or President Rubio because it’s now a tradition that we pick him to win. Like Chris Berman picking the 49ers vs. the Bills in the Super Bowl for 13 straight years.
It is fitting that his nickname is Boomer. BA in history from Brown in ’77, which of course leads to a major job in broadcasting for reasons. Meanwhile, no amount of doctoral degrees, community involvement, subsequent pounding of pavement was able to similarly convince the powers that be otherwise about the younger cohorts.
Because I’m a big believer in the fairness doctrine (R.I.P.), because the remaining viable Republican candidates are this guy, this guy, and apparently, this guy thinks he still is. And most of all, because I believe in competing in every election, every time, in every district — here is the case for winning in 2016.
I won’t lie. This still isn’t the most important election of our lifetimes, but since writing the “Case for Losing in 2016” last month, we have had some curveballs. The main one being the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, opening up a seat on the Supreme Court and setting off political jousting and theater matched only by the Republican Primary sideshow between a ventriloquist doll, a gameshow host, and the eventual Republican nominee unless it is stolen from him at this point, Donald Trump.
In the end, the 2016 election isn’t important because of anything Sanders, Clinton, or anyone else is saying. It is highly unlikely Hillary’s November victory will carry the coattails needed to pass for instance, equal pay legislation, tax reform, or even criminal justice reform. If Bernie is able to pull off a historic comeback in the primary, it is highly unlikely someone who only recently became a Democrat will be able to work with a Democratic Party, whether it is in the majority or minority, that all too often, did not want to work with and help out President Obama.
The case for winning in 2016 is not about playing offense, but about playing defense. 2016 is not about a political revolution, or the American Dream, or making the country “Great Again”, rather it is about whether our political system can endure all of these forces that have been spiraling out of control the past four-plus decades in the areas of economic inequality, politics and the corporate media, corporate control and centralization of money in the hands of the few, and the political power and influence that money buys.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect. Bernie Sanders is not perfect. But what does it say about the strength and health of our republican democracy if we turn to Donald Trump, a man who has never held public office before, inherited more money than many make in a lifetime to “invest”, and worst of all, treats other people, especially the most vulnerable people, with contempt and disrespect?
Electing Bernie Sanders won’t make America a socialist country, or even a European-style social democracy. However, Bernie has shown himself to be a man of incredible integrity, character, and consistency throughout his life. Like previous Democratic Presidents, he started with very little and now is a remarkable comeback away from the highest political office in the land. Even if he does not win another state his influence, especially with the Millennial generation, will be felt for decades.
Electing Hillary Clinton won’t make America an alternating monarchy between a few political oligarchs. I happen to think that if Hillary was a politician that was never married to former President Bill Clinton, she may have already been President. She has had a remarkable life and career, and there is no denying that she is well-qualified to be President, if there ever is such a thing as being qualified to be President.
Finally, Electing Donald Trump will almost certainly not “Make America Great Again.” For months, pundits and voters have been trying to pin down what Trump’s ideology is. The best argument I’ve heard, courtesy of Vox, is that of Trump authoritarianism.
This country has some serious problems, but we’ve also come a long way these last eight years in many areas. Trump’s message for what is wrong with America and what will make it great again remind me of the personalist, one-party authoritarian regimes we’ve read about in history. I don’t truly believe Trump will do the things he has said he’ll do, but I also do not want to take any chances.
The 2016 Presidential election is an important one and the Democratic Party must win it. Even if the victory is lonely, even if the next administration is playing defense more than offense, relegated to commander-in-chief, appointment, and chief executive powers. Trump’s likelihood as the GOP nominee, and the likely alternative to his bully and book-burner combination, Ted Cruz, is an equally dislikable figure.
We must win, even if history strongly points to a 2020 loss and a failed opportunity in a redistricting election. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
If you spend any time working in, volunteering for, or being around campaigns it’s way too easy to get inured to the cloud of cynicism that permeates every aspect of 21st-century American political life. I know that I’m all too guilty of giving up on candidates and writing off the American electorate’s dedication towards meaningful leftist reforms. During last night’s “Agreeing Loudly Coast to Coast” Super Tuesday extravaganza (you can watch it below or follow this link) I and some of my colleagues essentially declared Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign over. While I still believe Sanders’s path to victory is insurmountably narrow, there is hope . . . there is always hope.
If you’ve read any of my previous posts, you know I’m an enthusiastic reader of Jacobin magazine. Today, political scientist and author Corey Robin offered five theses arguing that Bernie Sanders’s primary campaign is not dead. Definitely read them yourself, but in sum they are:
Close contests in Nevada, Iowa, and Massachusetts could have easily given seven states to Sanders and eight states to Clinton by now. These close contest demonstrate that Sanders’s best asset is his supporter’s energy and passion, while Clinton’s most potent weapon is her “aura of inevitability.” Don’t give into to the inevitability.
Exit polling in Massachusetts show Sanders gaining support among racial minorities, the working and middle classes, first-time voters, independents, very liberal and moderate voters, and unmarried women (he nearly tied Clinton among women in Oklahoma). Clinton’s support comes from those making more than $100,000 per year, liberal voters, self-identified Democrats, and married women – all demographics who reliably turn-out to vote. Vote early; vote often.
Sanders’s support comes from more people than white men. He won more female support in Vermont and New Hampshire, 41% of non-white voters in Massachusetts, and (maybe?) half of the Latino votes in Nevada. When Sanders wins a state, he tends to win in all demographic categories.
The racial divide in this primary campaign is a real problem; however, non-white voters tend to be divided according to generation, with older voters supporting Clinton and younger voters supporting Sanders. According to a Reuters poll below, Sanders now enjoys more support among young African American voters than Clinton. Sanders also does well in racially diverse states outside the South, which shouldn’t be discounted, but will be won by the GOP in the 2016 general election (thanks, Shelby County v Holder).Future states look better than the South for Sanders.
Outside the South, Sanders has won or came close to winning every single state. Moving forward, the electorate looks much friendlier for him. Don’t believe Nate Silver and Vox. This can still be won.
That said, I hope Sanders does well. While he is, in the words of my comrades Carson Starkey and Troy Olson, an “imperfect vessel,” I hope he’s the Democratic party’s nominee in 2016. Much of this is based on the rationality of my pinko heart and pinko soul, but it is also based upon the pragmatic rationality of my mind and the fear of my brown body.
To me there is no case for losing in 2016, even as a thought exercise. There is no better time than now than to begin reforming the ills of the political system’s inequalities and the excesses of American capitalism. If Sanders or Clinton loses it will be the most vulnerable who will suffer the most from it. A Sanders victory, imperfect as the man is, will energize and legitimize Progressivism in the United States. And while I am less certain that a Clinton victory will do the same, I know Americans will bode well in a nation she governs. The same cannot be said for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or the increasingly irrelevant Marco Rubio.
So hope for Sanders victories from here on out because you have to. Better yet, hope, vote, unionize, and bring a friend. Unless they’re a Republican. In that case don’t swap shifts with them so they can vote on election day.
On the eve of Super Tuesday, I thought I’d just lay it on the line and briefly mention how I think things will go. Unlike the first four states for both parties, I don’t expect my track record to continue but here goes nothing.
Late last year I said Hillary would win Iowa (and eventually, the nomination, and become the 45th President of the United States), Bernie would win NH, Cruz would win Iowa on the Republican side, and Trump would rebound with a win in NH.
In discussions with “Agreeing Loudly” contributor Pat Meacham, I was pressed to say if Bernie would win Nevada or not. I struggled with this state a lot, but eventually went with Hillary.
For Bernie supporters out there that may be upset with how pessimistic I am on his chances, I’m sorry. Just being honest here. He needed to win Iowa and Nevada to have a chance on Super Tuesday. He needed true momentum that stretched beyond the most friendly demographic states for him. Three straight wins off the bat would have kept the margins down in South Carolina. If those things happened then we’d have a contest.
Bernie has the correct diagnosis for what ails the body politic, but he is not the right vessel for this message. And certainly not the right vessel to implement it. He is like Barry Goldwater for the Republican Party in 1964, influential and ahead of his time. Sixteen years later the conservative wing of the GOP got their winning candidate, Ronald Reagan. Hopefully it does not take the more egalitarian factions of the Democratic Party sixteen years to find their winning candidate, but I fear it will.
On the Republican side, despite what delusional (once and future President) Marco Rubio might tell you, we do not have a contest anymore. Even members of the GOP establishment and conservative wing of the party are beginning to come around to Trump’s candidacy, making clear their endorsement of some version of white supremacy to anyone who wasn’t convinced of it before.
The GOP establishment hesitation had nothing to do with him saying racist, sexist, and other crazy thing. Rather, their reluctance to embrace him early on had more to do with Trump being too “moderate” on the continued existence of social insurance programs in their present form and other issues such as his criticism of free trade deals. To the extent Trump can be pinned down to a political philosophy or ideology at all, he resembles George Wallace a lot more than George W. Bush.
For Rubio to have any chance he needs to win his home state of Florida and gather momentum heading into the “Winner-Take-All” GOP primaries. This is unlikely to happen. Cruz is likely to win his home state of Texas but for him to have any chance he needs to start winning SEC primary states. He needed to win South Carolina to be viable. On Tuesday, he needs to win Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. I would be surprised if he won more than one of those states.
It’s over. To what extent it is over, and when we can begin to shift the conversation to Clinton vs. Trump and the potential electoral map is a story for the voters in the Super Tuesday states to tell.
Tuesday predictions are broken down into three tiers, a landslide, winning easily, and winning narrowly.
Millennials were the chosen generation. It was said that they would destroy the old social order, not join it. They were to bring equality to the world, not leave it in darkness. This is Part Two of one Millennial’s cynical take of the Leftist potential of his generation.
by Allan Branstiter
It is a truth universally acknowledged that Millennials, as a single generation, are the most diverse generational cohort in American history (20 percent are Non-white Hispanic, 14 percent are African American, and 6 percent are Asian). Almost 40 percent of Millennials are bilingual, and a whopping 71 percent say that they appreciate the influence of other cultures on American life. Observers often note the demographic diversity of our generation when attempting to explain what makes us uniquely liberal as a whole.
As I mentioned in Part One of this series, I question the intrinsic liberality of our generation. Whereas Part One sought to undermine the notion that Millennials are rejecting capitalism as a generation, Part Two seeks to explore the racial dynamics of our generational cohort. In the end, I argue that while Millennials are diverse and culturally aware, these traits do not inevitable lead to racial harmony and justice.
Millennials were the chosen generation. It was said that they would destroy the old social order, not join it. They were to bring equality to the world, not leave it in darkness. This is Part One of one Millennial’s cynical take of the Leftist potential of his generation.
by Allan Branstiter
It’s 2016 and the importance of the Millennial vote in this election cycle has been the subject of many discussion, especially as it relates to the rise of Bernie Sanders. Pundits have pointed to Sanders’s strong support among Millennials to explain how a self-identified democratic socialist from a state of little consequence could emerge as a legitimate threat to Hillary Clinton’s coronation as the Democratic presidential candidate. Prior to last year, most Americans knew Sanders as the crazy socialist who sometimes appeared on the Sunday morning political shows to decry the Democratic party’s failure to take legislation far enough to the left. How could this pinko, they think to themselves, challenge THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL MACHINE IN AMERICA for the presidency?
Their answer? Those dang moon-bat lefty Millennials are embracing socialism as their preferred alternative to the excesses of modern American capitalism. To many, our generation is seen as either refreshing upstarts who are injecting much needed energy into a tired political process, or ungrateful usurpers who do not appreciate the meaning of fortitude and hard work. I’m here to tell you that Millennials are neither the spiritual saviors of the American left, nor are they fully opposed to capitalism or social inequality. As a result, Democrats should not take their support for granted, and Republicans should not discount the appeal of conservatism among Millennials.