That was my assumption but the ambiguous wording combined with the headline implying the article being about Sanders left me unsure. Thanks for clarifying.
If you convince people the only thing they can do to oppose fascism is vote every 4 years, a position that is historically and objectively false – fascists don’t care about democracy – then dont act shocked when their mobilization is underwhelming.
I didn’t say that voting every 4 years was the only thing they could do though. I said “they could stop the rightward slide of the Democratic party by just showing up en masse in the primaries.”
Democratic party leaders were instructing volunteers to remove anyone from their lists who mentioned the Palestinian Genocide. They were intentionally not mobilizing the exact people you want to just mobilize.
Also, have you ever tried to mobilize a group to do political action? It ain’t easy, even when you aren’t tying your own hands behind your back
See this is what I’m saying. The voters in question are waiting for the Democratic party to put a better candidate forward before they will vote for a Democratic nominee. But when there are enough of these voting-eligible people to split the vote and give the Republicans the win, then surely there’s enough of them to put a better candidate on the ballot without the party doing it for them.
I’ve posted in previous threads with sources … over 99% of the legislative offices around the country (state legislatures and US Congress) are held by either a Democratic or Republican nominee. And we are one presidential election away from it being 60 years since a 3rd party candidate received a single electoral vote. Ross Perot received just shy of 19% of the national popular vote in 1992 and received zero electoral votes. I’m not saying the Democratic party deserves every non-Republican vote, but the winner of over 99% of every race at the state and federal level will be won by either the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. Punishing the Democratic party in the general hasn’t done anything to move the party left, and we saw Bernie’s campaign in 2016 see the DNC adopt many of his campaign planks, and that led to more progressives running in and winning primaries. We see how well the threat of well financed primary campaign makes incumbents support an agenda. So clearly the primaries are where we should be applying pressure on the Democratic party.
Thanks for your input. I believe the Uncommitted movement was originally a movement to pressure Dems in the primaries, and I think that the result of that movement was that they couldn’t be moved left, at least not on the issue of Israel who is carrying out a genocide. So there were a lot of people who made the same political calculation as you did. This time, it didn’t seem to work. I am opposed to the idea that the mainstream of the dems even can be moved left, but I know a lot of people who hold out hope, and are showing up to try and make that happen.
There’s probably a lot that can be accomplished locally, to a certain extent. And while I remain skeptical I’m not going to like brow beat or sabotage someone who disagrees with me (unlike the democrats.) But to me, the dems represent the same class interests as the republicans, just maybe a different faction of that class. But I agree that we live in a real world with real existing social forces, and if we want to change things then we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. The actual left doesn’t have the resources to deny reality like the republicans, and many democrats; we have to deal in hard and fast truths.
So I guess my strategy is to organize who I can on the far left, while others (like you maybe) organize on the center- left, and when things get bad enough that the mainstream of the democrats can no longer abide any positions to the left of Chuck Schumer, then you and I can come together to create that third party I hope for.
We call this the “dirty break” strategy, where we prepare for a split from the dems but in the mean time work within the existing framework to fight against the worst abuses of maga and the billionaire class, while trying to achieve progressive gains for workers
That was my assumption but the ambiguous wording combined with the headline implying the article being about Sanders left me unsure. Thanks for clarifying.
I didn’t say that voting every 4 years was the only thing they could do though. I said “they could stop the rightward slide of the Democratic party by just showing up en masse in the primaries.”
See this is what I’m saying. The voters in question are waiting for the Democratic party to put a better candidate forward before they will vote for a Democratic nominee. But when there are enough of these voting-eligible people to split the vote and give the Republicans the win, then surely there’s enough of them to put a better candidate on the ballot without the party doing it for them.
I’ve posted in previous threads with sources … over 99% of the legislative offices around the country (state legislatures and US Congress) are held by either a Democratic or Republican nominee. And we are one presidential election away from it being 60 years since a 3rd party candidate received a single electoral vote. Ross Perot received just shy of 19% of the national popular vote in 1992 and received zero electoral votes. I’m not saying the Democratic party deserves every non-Republican vote, but the winner of over 99% of every race at the state and federal level will be won by either the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. Punishing the Democratic party in the general hasn’t done anything to move the party left, and we saw Bernie’s campaign in 2016 see the DNC adopt many of his campaign planks, and that led to more progressives running in and winning primaries. We see how well the threat of well financed primary campaign makes incumbents support an agenda. So clearly the primaries are where we should be applying pressure on the Democratic party.
Thanks for your input. I believe the Uncommitted movement was originally a movement to pressure Dems in the primaries, and I think that the result of that movement was that they couldn’t be moved left, at least not on the issue of Israel who is carrying out a genocide. So there were a lot of people who made the same political calculation as you did. This time, it didn’t seem to work. I am opposed to the idea that the mainstream of the dems even can be moved left, but I know a lot of people who hold out hope, and are showing up to try and make that happen.
There’s probably a lot that can be accomplished locally, to a certain extent. And while I remain skeptical I’m not going to like brow beat or sabotage someone who disagrees with me (unlike the democrats.) But to me, the dems represent the same class interests as the republicans, just maybe a different faction of that class. But I agree that we live in a real world with real existing social forces, and if we want to change things then we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. The actual left doesn’t have the resources to deny reality like the republicans, and many democrats; we have to deal in hard and fast truths.
So I guess my strategy is to organize who I can on the far left, while others (like you maybe) organize on the center- left, and when things get bad enough that the mainstream of the democrats can no longer abide any positions to the left of Chuck Schumer, then you and I can come together to create that third party I hope for.
We call this the “dirty break” strategy, where we prepare for a split from the dems but in the mean time work within the existing framework to fight against the worst abuses of maga and the billionaire class, while trying to achieve progressive gains for workers