Saturday, November 12, 2016

More and more evidence is rolling in that Bernie Sanders would have won; and that, yes, we could have had another New Deal

"I would rather run against Crooked Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders and that will happen because the books are cooked against Bernie!"

--Donald Trump, Twitter, May 4, 2016

"I knew--everybody knew--that this was not a fair deal... Bernie really had a movement out there, and it wasn’t right to treat him that way."

--Harry Reid (D-Nev), Senate Minority Leader, "Harry Reid On Bernie And The DNC: ‘Everybody Knew That This Was Not A Fair Deal’," Huffington Post, July 27, 2016

Above: In this audio clip, Hillary Clinton talks down to Bernie Sanders' supporters. Though she's not as mocking as some have suggested, there are some troubling things. For example, in the beginning, multi-millionaire Clinton says some of Bernie Sanders' supporters are living in their parents' basement, a common scorn we're used to hearing from right-wingers, not Democrats. And if you listen carefully, you can hear some of her donors laugh when she says it. Also, at around 2:24, Clinton says, derisively, "I'm still trying to understand the revolution part," referring to Sanders' call for a political revolution, and her donors really yuk it up. It's no wonder that Clinton and her wealthy donors don't understand the "revolution," because Sanders' call for reform was, by and large, a call to get big money out of politics. In any event, this audio seems to support a recent Forbes headline: "A Big Part Of Hillary Clinton's Defeat: She Alienated Millennial Voters." Youtube link for the above audio clip:

The Pundits, Who Were Wrong About Everything, Are STILL Trying To Convince Us To Agree With Them

Many political pundits--mostly centrists--are trying to convince us that, "No, no, no, Bernie Sanders would NOT have won if he had been the Democratic nominee." Yep, the people who were wrong about everything else; and who called us pie-in-the-sky dreamers (or worse) for supporting Bernie and not Hillary; and who brushed us aside when we pointed out that Bernie was polling WAY better than Hillary against every Republican, are now continuing with their uppity attitude and essentially saying, "Well sure, I was wrong about everything else... but I'm right about this!" Well, hmmm, please forgive me if I don't trust your judgment anymore. (See, e.g., Michael Tomasky, "No, Bernie Sanders Would Not Have Won," The Daily Beast, November 11, 2016, where he writes, "I’ve written two post-election columns, and in both, I admitted I got this election wrong," and then goes on to try to convince us that he's right about Bernie Sanders not winning).

More Evidence Of A Sanders Victory Against Trump

In any event, more evidence is rolling in that, yes, Bernie Sanders probably would have won. The Huffington Post recently reported that a "national survey of more than 1,600 registered voters, conducted by Gravis Marketing two days before the general election, found that Sanders would have received 56 percent of the vote while Trump would have won 44 percent." The survey was commissioned by supporters of Bernie Sanders but, as long as it followed proper survey methods, it's yet another piece of evidence that Sanders would have won (see my recent blog posts for more evidence).

Still more evidence: At U.S. Uncut, there is an interesting and detailed state-by-state analysis of some key general election states, with comparative electoral college maps, indicating that Sanders probably would have beaten Trump. ("If anyone doubts Bernie Sanders would've crushed Trump, show them this").

Above: An image showing the likely result of a Sanders-Trump match-up. Image is from the above-cited U.S. Uncut article, used here for educational, non-commercial purposes.

The Delusion That Clinton Was More Electable Than Sanders

Many Clinton supporters keep saying, "Clinton had more votes than Sanders during the primaries!" But they consistently fail to understand what Steve Benen of MSNBC pointed out back in April: "there’s another key consideration that often gets overlooked: the kind of primary or caucus has a big effect on the outcome. More specifically, the question to keep in mind is whether the nominating contest is 'closed' (only Democrats can participate) or 'open' (anyone can help choose the Democratic nominee). It’s surprising just how much this matters. In closed contests, Clinton tends to have more success, while in open contests, Sanders, Congress’ longest-serving independent, has consistent enjoyed an advantage."

Sanders was far more popular with Independents than Clinton; and when you consider (a) that more and more Americans are shunning party politics (see the Gallup poll, "Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows"), and (b) that Independents were shut out of many Democratic Party competitions, well, we have yet another piece of evidence that Sanders would have won the general election.

Bernie Sanders supporters (including myself) kept yelling, "People don't like Clinton! She represents the establishment in an anti-establishment national mood! Sanders is polling better in head-to-head match-ups with every Republican! Sanders is polling better in terms of favorability! The Democratic Establishment is rigging the primaries!" To all of this, the pundits, the Democratic Party elites, the pro-Clinton celebrities, and others replied: "Sanders is not electable. Sanders can't get things done. You're misogynistic little children who don't understand politics. There's nothing wrong with the Democratic Party laundering campaign money for Clinton, to avoid donation limits, and you're a bad person for bringing it up."

Above: A favorability poll from April 2016. This poll indicates that, given a choice between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Independents probably would have voted for Sanders in large numbers. Given a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, however, the results would be quite different. A significant number of Independent voters would go to Trump and, when combined with Republicans voters, could very well cost Clinton the election, especially with low millennial interest and turnout (which indeed happened, as millennials were much more interested in Sanders than Clinton). This poll is not conclusive, of course, but it is further evidence of a Sanders victory against Trump. Image from NBC News, used here for educational, non-commercial purposes.

Frustration For Us, Hubris For Them

I cannot even begin to explain the frustration that we Sanders supporters had throughout this entire process. We knew that Sanders was generating enormous amounts of energy and enthusiasm with independents, millennials, and a whole host of other people. But the corporate media downplayed his campaign, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her buddies rigged the primaries, and Hillary Clinton marched on, knowing full-well that she was one of the most disliked candidates in U.S. history. What was she thinking? Was the following her calculus?: "Well, I know I'm extremely disliked, and that Sanders is very well-liked, but they'll hate Trump more than me, so everything will work out fine."

Make no mistake about it, Clinton's hubris, and her lust for prestige, put Trump in the White House. And it's quite possible that it will also make Sarah Palin (or someone very much like her) Secretary of the Interior, in charge of our national parks & forests. Such a placement would be a tragedy, likely undoing over a hundred years of national park development; fundamentally changing our national park system - a system that is the envy of the world and loved by tens of millions of Americans. You better believe that the Koch brothers are drooling over a Sarah Palin appointment as Secretary of the Interior: "Yes!" they're probably salivating, "The national parks are ours, not the people's! Why? Because we have the money!"

Above: In this video clip (with NSFW language), Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, who has provided far better political analysis and foresight than the mainstream media, wonders why the Democratic Establishment is continuing on with its failed strategy. Youtube link:

The Democratic Party Has Hemorrhaged Millions Of Votes, And All Their Political Power, These Past 8 Years; But They're Continuing On As If They Haven't

Take a look at the popular votes for the Democratic Party candidates Obama and Clinton over the past three presidential elections:

2008: Obama - 69,498,516

2012: Obama - 65,915,795

2016: Clinton - 60,828,358

The Democratic Establishment, backed by Wall Street and the mainstream media, has been hemorrhaging millions of votes each year. And yet these various entities are still plodding on with their failed corporate strategy & mindset--even after the Democratic Party's loss of all three branches of government (and even after the loss of 1,000 other political offices over the past several years). Yes, they're wondering if Chuck Schumer, the corporate Democrat, can save the party; and wondering if Tim Kaine, the Wall Street darling, can be the new Democrat leader; and grooming another Clinton for high political office; and, once again, preparing for the next "first woman president."

Special Note (so I'm not labeled a misogynist): I'd love to see a woman president... as long as she's a true progressive, and not a corporate "progressive"; but the truth is, I really don't care. Give me a sexless, self-fertilizing Martian, who fights hard for the working class, and I'll vote for him, or her, or whatever.

Above: In this video clip, Cenk Uygar of The Young Turks speaks on the possibility of Chelsea Clinton being "the next extension of the Clinton Brand." He says, "No, no, no, number one: We're done with the Clintons... pack your bags and go home... I'm done with the idea of royalty... enough with the Bushes, enough with the Clintons." I wholeheartedly concur. Dear Clintons, please go away. Go make more millions of dollars, hobnobbing with hedge fund managers, corporate CEOs, and George Clooney & his celebrity friends in gated communities, but leave us alone. Youtube link:

The Myth That Sanders Couldn't Win Because Republicans Would Call Him A "Socialist"

Many Democratic elites and many Democratic voters have remained steadfast in the belief that Sanders could not have won because, once the Republicans hammered away at the "socialism" angle, it would be game-over for Sanders. Don't believe it, for a few reasons:

First: Americans elected a black president with a Muslim-sounding name in 2008 - only a few years after being attacked by Muslim extremists (9/11).

Second: "Millennials have a higher opinion of socialism than of capitalism" (Washington Post).

Third: The "Majority of Democrats say socialism has 'positive impact'" (Politico).

Fourth: Since Sanders had the overwhelming support of Independents, we can probably deduce that most Independents don't have a problem with Bernie Sanders'-style socialism which, truth be told, is more "let's-enhance-social-programs-for-the-common-good" than it is anti-capitalism.

And Fifth: Republicans call every Democrat a socialist. For heaven's sake, they hammered away at Obama for being a Marxist, Muslim, Kenyan-born Anti-Christ, and Americans still elected him! Twice!!

In sum, the notion that Sanders was not electable because Republicans would call him a socialist, or a Marxist, is complete nonsense. Many Democratic voters psyched themselves out over this overblown "issue" - falling prey to their own self-fulfilling prophecy.

Above: This is why Hillary Clinton lost - lack of authenticity. And when we tried to warn the Establishment about it, they laughed us off, "Ha ha ha, what do you little progressives know?? We have the Wall Street cash, not you! That means we're right, and you're wrong! Hmmph, Children!" Image used here under license.

The New Democrats Have Beaten The New Dealers 

Zach Carter of the Huffington Post recently wrote: "New Democrats have been battling New Dealers for 45 years." Well, congratulations New Democrats, you've won; you've thoroughly trounced the New Dealers. Now go away, and let real progressives bring back some sanity to our broken nation. We have a lot of work to do, especially after you've put into power--through your arrogance, elitism, and hubris--the most terrifying administration in modern American history. Seriously, go away. We're better off without you, than with you.


"Here’s an idea; rather than Sen. Bernie Sanders withdrawing from the race for the good of what’s left of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democratic Party, why doesn’t Hillary Clinton? After all, polls are showing her losing to Donald Trump even before Trump opens his big guns on her and as voters learn more about the two Democrats’ respective records and programs, whereas Sanders wins... Needless to say, the pundits have been wrong about almost everything else in this interminable electoral season. They are wrong about Clinton coasting to victory."

--Dr. Gray Brechin, New Deal scholar, San Francisco Chronicle, "Letters to the Editor, May 17

(Dr. Brechin was right, all the way back in May; so why didn't the Democratic Establishment listen to him? Oh, that's right, because his opinions aren't Goldman Sachs-approved yet. Sorry, I forgot. Oh well, maybe next time...)

No comments:

Post a Comment