CNN contributor Bakari Sellers: ‘Bernie 2020 died 4/4/18’

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Bernie Sanders in the Deep South

Last week, I joined Bernie Sanders in Memphis, Tennessee, and Jackson, Mississippi, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Sanders was overwhelmingly well received by both passersby and the local audiences who came to hear him speak. But so far, the media coverage of his trip has revolved around a brief aside, in which Sanders faulted the Democratic Party for its recent legislative failures:

The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure,” said Sanders. “People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama. He was obviously an extraordinary candidate, brilliant guy. But behind that reality, over the last ten years, Democrats have lost about 1,000 seats in state legislatures all across this country.

But Thursday’s critiques were only loosely tethered to Wednesday’s words, which, on their face, were fairly uncontroversial: Who could defend as successful the “almost unprecedented” loss of legislative seats over the last ten years, or Hillary Clinton’s defeat to game-show host Donald Trump? In Mississippi, when Sanders called the Democratic Party a “failure,” the audience erupted into applause.

In fact, if Beale Street could talk, it would tell a very different story about Bernie Sanders than the now-familiar critique that he is insufficiently sensitive to racial issues. As I walked with Sanders down Memphis’s famous thoroughfare, his popularity, including among the predominantly black crowd attending the commemorative festivities, was self-evident. The senator was stopped every few feet by selfie-seekers and admirers. Yes: Perhaps this is to be expected of any politician with a national profile, but given his poor showing in Mississippi during the 2016 Democratic primary, in which he secured less than 17 percent of the black vote, I had thought the senator and his small cohort might go unnoticed. I was wrong.

Later, at a hotel in Jackson, Mississippi, two black receptionists chatted substantively about the senator after he went upstairs to change for the evening’s event, remarking that Sanders hadn’t forgotten the people who had voted for him — the people he was fighting for. Unlike other politicians, they agreed, “Bernie hasn’t proven himself to be that way yet.

So I asked Sanders what he thought about critics who say he seems to care more about white voters than people of color. “It’s just not true,” he said. Sanders explained that he believes his agenda, which includes Medicare for All and free public education, will have an especially “profound and positive” effect on communities of color. And he’s right: Blacks and Latinos are, respectively, two and three times more likely to be uninsured than whites. And although black Americans are about as likely to enroll in college at a higher rate than any other racial group, we are less likely to matriculate — in part due to difficulty paying for college.

Having said that,” he continued, “is racism a very significant and powerful force in American society that has got to be addressed? The answer is absolutely. Will a Medicare for All or single-payer system end racism in America? No, it won’t. So above and beyond moving forward on strong national programs, we’ve got to pay a special attention to communities of color, which are especially hurting right now.

Sanders went on to cite the racial wealth gap, the disproportionate incarceration of black Americans, and the unequal public education system which plagues many low-income communities. “So it’s not either/or,” he explained, rejecting the race versus class framing that has become popular since the 2016 presidential election. “It’s never either/or. It’s both.” He continued: “It is making sure every American has high quality health care as a right — the right to excellent education. But it is also addressing the special problem of racism, of sexism, of homophobia, etc.

When I asked for examples of identity-specific problems that cannot be resolved by class-based initiatives, Senator Sanders identified the need to improve access to homeownership, which plays a key role in the racial wealth gap, as well police reform. He specifically praised the work of Philadelphia’s progressive district attorney Larry Krasner, who now requires that incarceration costs be stated on the record at sentencing. And he emphasized the need for police reform: “What we have got to do is have national police training which says that lethal force is the last response and not the first response.

King’s economic message — “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring” — hung over the discussion both literally and figuratively, and the panel opened with a chorus of young black students demanding, “What does economic justice look like on southern soil?

During the discussion, it was difficult to ignore the parallels between late-period King’s focus on economic equality and Sanders’s own priorities: “You have to appreciate that while [King] was [challenging President Johnson on the Vietnam War], suddenly the money for his organization starts drying up,” Sanders said. “And then in the midst of this … he said, we gotta attack racism in all its forms, but we have to deal with economic justice. I’m gonna to organize, he says, a poor people’s march – a poor people’s campaign. We’re gonna march on Washington. We’re gonna have low-income African-Americans, low-income whites, low-income Latinos, low-income Native Americans, we’re gonna stand together to demand that the United States change its national priorities — man, what courage that was.

But few, if any, Democratic politicians have paid much attention, much less a personal visit, to the struggling state – despite the fact that, in addition to being red, Mississippi is also blackest state in the union, with a population that is 37 percent African-American.

But in order to ensure that black voters turn out, Sanders understands that people need something to vote for, not just someone to vote against. They need to feel heard.

Mayor Lumumba’s closing remarks at the panel reinforced the theme that identity alone is not enough: “There was a time,” he explained, “where our fight was to get leadership that looked like us. Now our mission must be to have leadership that thinks like us.


Framed this way, Sanders’s frequent focus on universal programs seems less an evasion of our nation’s obligation to remedy the harms it has inflicted on marginalized groups, and more an effort to provide the redistributive remedies people of color have long demanded."
What is the "business model" and how is it used to predict what's going to happen? Democrats are going to rock in November. Did Democrats change their business model?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
What is the "business model" and how is it used to predict what's going to happen? Democrats are going to rock in November. Did Democrats change their business model?
The business model is accepting corporate campaign contributions and being beholden to special interest donors over Democratic constituents. The problem with your narrative is that, I agree, Democrats overall are going to likely do pretty well in November, but so will Justice Democrats who accept no corporate campaign contributions or superPAC money. One is poised to take Paul Ryan's seat, another one is threatening Feinstein's seat, 80% of the campaigns run in Texas have been successful. The progressive message is taking ground across the country fueled by grassroots activism despite establishment propaganda.

The two reasons the Democratic party will likely perform well this election are 1. Because Trump/GOP have performed so unprecedentedly bad and 2. Because many of the Democratic candidates that are running are actually progressive, which has energized the Democratic base, Independents and even many conservatives

There will also be many establishment Democrats who win as a result of the hatred for the Trump administration and GOP policies and poor GOP candidates/name recognition/money/etc. But unless the congress that wins actually does something in regards to passing progressive policy, it will only be a matter of time before the anger for the Trump administration fades and people get tired of the same old status quo that caters to the business class
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The business model is accepting corporate campaign contributions and being beholden to special interest donors over Democratic constituents. The problem with your narrative is that, I agree, Democrats overall are going to likely do pretty well in November, but so will Justice Democrats who accept no corporate campaign contributions or superPAC money. One is poised to take Paul Ryan's seat, another one is threatening Feinstein's seat, 80% of the campaigns run in Texas have been successful. The progressive message is taking ground across the country fueled by grassroots activism despite establishment propaganda.

The two reasons the Democratic party will likely perform well this election are 1. Because Trump/GOP have performed so unprecedentedly bad and 2. Because many of the Democratic candidates that are running are actually progressive, which has energized the Democratic base, Independents and even many conservatives

There will also be many establishment Democrats who win as a result of the hatred for the Trump administration and GOP policies and poor GOP candidates/name recognition/money/etc. But unless the congress that wins actually does something in regards to passing progressive policy, it will only be a matter of time before the anger for the Trump administration fades and people get tired of the same old status quo that caters to the business class
If Democrats are using the same business model why aren't they going to fail in the fall? Oh, the business model explains why Democrats fail but only if Republicans govern well or if candidates are truly progressive. Yes, that makes sense, except,

Alabama's senator is not a Bernie Cult type of progressive. In fact, he's more centrist. Same with Scott Lamb (PA-13 winner) who endorsed the ACA but not universal healthcare. Also Lamb accepted money from the DCCC. Isn't that taboo in the Sanders Cult rule book but OK in the Democratic Party's "business model"?

The problem with your analysis and Bernie's "model" to explain failure and success is that they are designed to empirically fit past data. It's like using stock market gains or losses to predict future results. There is no fundamental explanation for why the "business model" explains anything. In my world where models are used to forecast certain results, we don't use that kind of model because they are unreliable and and upon closer inspection are really just wishful thinking coupled with confirmation bias.

In other words, Bullshit.
 
Last edited:

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
There is no fundamental explanation for why the "business model" explains anything.
Accepting corporate donations to compete with Republicans is the Democratic party business model. For years, establishment Democrats have argued Democrats also need to accept corporate donations in order to compete against Republicans, people like you have supported that position. Now, many Democrats who are actually campaigning on a progressive platform have been raising more money through grassroots campaigns than their establishment counterparts, Randy Bryce in Wisconsin vying for Paul Ryan's seat being one of them. The leader of the House! Embarrassment not witnessed since Eric Cantor.

Where the Democratic business model fundamentally fails is voters realize accepting corporate campaign donations poisons their ability to represent constituent interests. Voters know that if their representative accepts corporate campaign donations, they are likely to represent said special interests over their own since those contributions are the lifeblood towards their reelection 95% of the time.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Accepting corporate donations to compete with Republicans is the Democratic party business model. For years, establishment Democrats have argued Democrats also need to accept corporate donations in order to compete against Republicans, people like you have supported that position. Now, many Democrats who are actually campaigning on a progressive platform have been raising more money through grassroots campaigns than their establishment counterparts, Randy Bryce in Wisconsin vying for Paul Ryan's seat being one of them. The leader of the House! Embarrassment not witnessed since Eric Cantor.

Where the Democratic business model fundamentally fails is voters realize accepting corporate campaign donations poisons their ability to represent constituent interests. Voters know that if their representative accepts corporate campaign donations, they are likely to represent said special interests over their own since those contributions are the lifeblood towards their reelection 95% of the time.
What you spouted are beliefs.

I have shown you studies that convincingly show Trump's victory was due to how people with racist leanings and sexist leanings, not some belief by Bernie. The study built a statistical model that was back-tested and statistically valid.

The paper that reviewed these studies is here: http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

You spouted a model that you said was valid then hedged with "but republican governance bad" and "but the candidates are progressive". Your analysis is just your opinion, man. What Bernie and you propose is an empirical model based upon an unproven theory and only works looking backward, not forward. There is better analysis that says there are better explanations than Bernie's opinion for why Democrats are going to win big in 2018 and 2020 without hedging around like you do.

Edit: Also there are pretty good studies that show better funded campaigns tend to beat less well funded campaigns. Just saying your idea that Democrats should eschew legal campaign donations for some untested idea is horse shit.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
What you spouted are beliefs.

I have shown you studies that convincingly show Trump's victory was due to how people with racist leanings and sexist leanings, not some belief by Bernie. The study built a statistical model that was back-tested and statistically valid.

The paper that reviewed these studies is here: http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

You spouted a model that you said was valid then hedged with "but republican governance bad" and "but the candidates are progressive". Your analysis is just your opinion, man. What Bernie and you propose is an empirical model based upon an unproven theory and only works looking backward, not forward. There is better analysis that says there are better explanations than Bernie's opinion for why Democrats are going to win big in 2018 and 2020 without hedging around like you do.
OK, so why are Democrats going to win big in 2018, aside from the points I made that Trump and the GOP are terrible and that voters will actually have some progressives to vote for? What policy based issue(s) is the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer pushing front and center ahead of the elections?
Edit: Also there are pretty good studies that show better funded campaigns tend to beat less well funded campaigns.
Then why is it so hard for you to admit that the politician who accepts more "legal campaign contributions" wins most of the time? You say these contributions are legal, which they are, I agree, but I think that's a problem, since, obviously, even you agree, the one who spends more usually wins, and it has nothing to do with the message. You just said the one who spends more usually wins, that's how you justify establishment Democrats accepting corporate "legal" donations. Because you think that's the only way they'll be able to beat the Republican.. Now we have multiple sources of data that show actual progressives who run on a progressive platform can raise more than them through grassroots. And those that do accept corporate or PAC money aren't popular within the Democratic/progressive base. They don't bring out the numbers that they need to win reelection in Nov. Moderate Democrats running in purple states have all chosen to move to the right so far, bold move, we'll see how that plays out for them..
Just saying your idea that Democrats should eschew legal campaign donations for some untested idea is horse shit.
Voters don't view them as "legal campaign donations". They view them as what they are, bribes. The only hope the Democratic party has left is to collectively refuse all corporate bribes and vote in congress according to their constituents interests. Support medicare for all, 85% of Democrats, end the war on drugs, 90% of Democrats, etc..
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Democrats are going to win because as you say, Trump and the GOP congress failed. They didn't fail because they were inept, they failed because people of this country didn't support what they planned to do. Democrats succeeded in blocking for the most part Republican initiatives only because the people of this country opposed the destruction of the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid. The tax bill that was passed in December made it into law because of Republican shenanigans. I don't think it is very popular among voters and Republicans will pay for that bill. I passed because large donors wanted it. Do we have to review the vote count to say this was a Republican bill and Democrats had nothing to do with it passing?

I don't really understand why you would say that the Democratic funding model is the reason for Republican wins when the Republican "business model" is even more extremely tilted toward big money donations. You lose me there.

I sent you a study that lends credence to the idea that much of Democratic Party losses in 2016 were due to racism and sexism. This explains results in 2016 but also the study points out that Trump is pretty unique in the way racists and sexists flocked to him and not other Republican leaders.

I think the votes favoring Republicans in much of the past 10 or so years is that populism and white racial politics are very strongly held positions in much of this country. They don't give a flying fuck about how their candidate funds their campaign as long as the politician promises to keep out Mexicans, more jobs, cheap gas and low taxes. Basically, I'm saying that red state voters vote for Republicans because they are pretty conservative. To win in those districts, Democrats will have to give the nod to what the people in those districts say that they will support.

The strategy going forward into 2018 for the Democratic party is to win at the local level using core Democratic values such as unions, subsidized healthcare -- the ACA, support for civil rights, education and other issues that affect family well being. There will be no one size fits all set of policies that a candidate must hew to. This is in complete opposition to the litany of litmus tests you and other Sanders Cultists insist upon. In other words what you call a Progressive is also called a loser in districts that are conservative or lean that way. In order to take the house, Democrats must win in a good number of those districts. What you call Progressive will do fine in liberal states like mine. But actually, Pad, universal healthcare as Bernie defined it in 2017 will only play as an issue in a tiny number of districts. The theme of 2018 is to strengthen the ACA. The ACA is progressive whether you choose to say so or not.

Oh and how a campaign is financed isn't going to be an issue that affects people's votes in 2018. Not in 2020 either. You heard it here. Book it.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Basically, I'm saying that red state voters vote for Republicans because they are pretty conservative. To win in those districts, Democrats will have to give the nod to what the people in those districts say that they will support.
Why would a conservative vote for Republican light over a more conservative Republican in a red district?
 
Top