2016 Democratic Caucus Endorsement
Mar 23, 2016 at 4:00 am
The Stranger Election Control Board's Endorsement for the 2016 Democratic Caucuses
David Wilson
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
In case you're wondering, that sound you're hearing right now is a million Slog readers losing their mind in unison.
Really? Bernie votes against a couple gun bills and this is how you generalize his political career? Hillary has done this on a number of progressive topics, but hey, you found the one example that works against Bernie. That quote above applies way more about Hillary, but whatever.
I guess I'm just disappointed that once the Election Control Board gets through it's sausage making and settles on Hillary (which I'm sure was contentious and far from a consensus decision), that the anonymous author felt the need to frame the decision as clear-cut and obvious, vilify the "loser" and create an endorsement without very much nuance.
Instead, why couldn't you have talked about reality; this is a close call, Hillary is smart, a grinder, pragmatic, and willing to compromise, often to a fault. Bernie is the idealistic, more radical, more principled (for better AND worse) candidate. Hillary is more likely to achieve incremental gains, but unlikely to shake things up in a fundamental way. Sanders is more likely to massive change, but is a lot more likely to fail utterly and crash and bern (sorry!). She is the safe choice. He is the high-risk/high-reward choice.
Then the Election Control Board could tell us that in their view the Hillary approach is smarter, and more likely to pay off. See?! No trashing Bernie necessary! Yes, Bernie is compromised (particularly on guns), as all politicians are, but no honest assessment of the two could conclude that Bernie is more compromised that Hillary, who too often follows her constituents rather than leads them (see gay marriage), has proven not to be politically brave (see Iraq invasion) and has taken some downright sketchy positions such as the TPP trade deal, and OMG, Wall Street and her various secret paid speeches.
I like them both, and I'd support them both in the general. But I'll caucus for Bernie. Now, was that so hard Election Control Board?
It's admirable that Clinton has won the favor of African-Americans, but here's the reality: more than 90% of African-Americans will vote for the Democratic candidate. Whether it's Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Independents, men and Caucasians are far more up for grabs and Bernie does far, far better with them. If your first interest is keeping Trump or Cruz out of the White House, vote Bernie.
"Black voters matter. Democrats don't win national elections without black voters, and they're speaking unambiguously in favor of Hillary."
What the fuck is the SECB suggesting here? That if Bernie wins the nomination he'll lose the general election because black voters won't vote for him? You all think they're going to sit home and not vote when the opponent is Trump/Cruz? You're mixing shit together and making it seem like we should be fearful of voting for Bernie in the primary.
Bernie feels a lot of things that need feeling, and thinks a lot of things that need thinking, and says a lot of things that need saying ... but he not strong on getting things done that need doing. He - and we - would fare even worse with expanded GOP majorities in House and Senate (and state leges), which would be the upshot of a Sanders nomination (EVEN IF he managed to land in the White House).
He's a socialist. Fine. I'm a socialist. But I need a candidate who practices the Art of the Possible, not just strains his back trying to un-jam the Overton Window.
Yes, the economy is rigged ... but the size of the big banks is pretty tangential to the core problems. Like Trump, and Cruz, he's produced no real plans to put his plans into effect. And he's got a bunch of followers mindlessly echoing baseless talking points about our eventual nominee - doing the Trump's work for him.
So yeah, I'm feeling the Bern - and in this age of progressive medical science, nobody should have to.
Hillary is clearly not the "Real Progressive"; that is a ludicrous claim. Hillary is bought and paid for by the moneyed interests and everybody knows it. How do you explain her 6 years on the board of Walmart and her promotion of Fracking and Monsanto? Is it really ok with you that she is bankrolled by the banks, fossil fuel companies and big Pharma? Is it at all concerning to you that her campaign manager is John Podesta, whose lobbying firm represents companies like Walmart, Lockheed Martin, BP and Bank of America? Hillary Clinton is an establishment politician and in no way progressive. We can expect our wars to continue and the gap between the rich and poor to continue along the same trajectory.
Your claim that only Hillary can beat back Trump is also off the mark. Trump is popular partly because he recognizes that millions of people are struggling economically and he provides them easy answers and solutions that are not really solutions at all, but racist, nationalist demagoguery. Trump will skewer Clinton for her establishment complicity in their circumstances (Nafta,TPP, Bank bailouts, etc.). He will call her out for her scandals, real or perceived. Trump literally has NOTHING on Bernie. People are not afraid of Democratic Socialism. Ask a Trump supporter and many say their second choice is Bernie. If logic isn't enough to convince you, how about the polls? The polls show that Bernie is much stronger against Trump than Clinton.
The Stranger has been going down hill for a while and I hate to say this may be the nail in the coffin.
Way to discount, undervalue and take for granted the support of African-Americans for the Democratic Party. I hope you're not doing outreach for the Sanders campaign.
SHAME ON YOU. Voting isn't a fucking joke.
http://www.jaxworx.com/musings/game-day/
African-American votes in Presidential elections
2000 Gore 90% Bush 9%
2004 Kerry 88% Bush 11%
2008 Obama 95% McCain 4%
2012 Obama 93% Romney 6%
Male votes in Presidential elections
2000 Gore 43% Bush 54%
2004 Kerry 44% Bush 55%
2008 Obama 49% McCain 48%
2012 Obama 45% Romney 52%
Independent votes in Presidential elections
2000 Gore 46% Bush 48%
2004 Kerry 50% Bush 48%
2008 Obama 52% McCain 44%
2012 Obama 45% Romney 50%
http://www.thestranger.com/2016-democrat…
I'm done listening to anything The Stranger has to say when it comes to politics anymore after this stupid shit.
2) I cannot BELIEVE you guys are endorsing Donald Trump!!!
That's just all gone out the window. Everything is (as well it should be, arguably) suspect.
I stand with Bernie Sanders as the Real Progressive! I will be at my Precinct's Caucus on Saturday with the rest of my over-the-hill friends and neighbors, who also are all standing together for Bernie... For a Future to Believe In for ourselves, our kids, and our grandchildren!
I'm not upset that you are taking for granted that African-Americans are a reliable voting bloc of the Democratic Party. It just demonstrates you don't understand party politics and that national political parties are essentially coalitions, which is why you think the Stranger was insinuating Sanders won't receive the same level of support as previous Democratic nominees. That's not the argument they are making though. The argument they are making is that a very large and important part of the Democratic coalition is resoundingly behind one candidate, and it's probably good idea to listen to them on this issue. if you have an issue with that, fine. Though, if you hope to keep African-Americans as part of the Democratic coalition you're reason for discounting their opinions shouldn't be to get more white votes.
Regardless, the reason to support Clinton over Sanders as the Democratic nominee is that Sanders was not a member of the Democratic Party until recently, he's not worked to get other democrats elected, and as he said in an interview, the only reason he's running in the Democratic primary is because of the media exposure.
Sanders' bubble would undoubtedly deflate and I have no idea what the constant drumbeat of "Socialist" will do.
Both Clintons, along with Rahm Emmanuel, have been leaders of the New Democrats ever since Bill was president in the 90's. The whole point of the New Democrats has always been to destroy the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to end the New Deal era, to get big money from Wall Street and other corporate donors (MIC, PIC, etc.) in exchange for selling out traditional Democratic constituents - mainly working people and minorities.
There is nothing progressive about Henry Kissinger's foreign policy. There is nothing progressive about ending welfare as we know it. There is nothing progressive about ending the New Deal ("the era of big government"). There is nothing progressive about starting a war with Iraq, destabilizing Syria and Libya, and supporting a right wing coup that overthrew democracy in Honduras. There is nothing Progressive about deregulating Wall Street.
There is nothing Progressive about the Clintons. It is so counterfactual that it is obscene to claim otherwise.
I don't know if you read this endorsement closely, but when they say: "Democrats don't win national elections without black voters," they ARE insinuating that Bernie won't enjoy similarly strong African-American support that all Democratic candidates enjoy.
As a person of color and someone how has held positions at nearly all levels of the Democratic party, I feel confident that I understand party politics and how the Democratic party is a diverse, multicultural coalition of people from all backgrounds. And as a Democratic party officer, I'm not swayed by your tribalistic argument against Sanders: "He's a johnny-come-lately to the Democratic party." As someone that has helped write Democratic party platforms, he hews far closer to the Democratic ideal of a politician than Clinton does.
It's not a tribalistic argument against Sanders, it's a realistic and pragmatic one. Jimmy Carter ran and was elected as, essentially, someone outside of the Democratic Party. The result was a disaster of a presidency and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. I'd prefer we don't have repeat of another ineffective Democratic President that accomplishes little while in office for only 4 years.
Just like he got rid of the $15/hr faction. He's kinda liberal, but only kinda. Not willing to face serious change from the status quo. Seattle is basically a pretty nice place for while business owners like him, and so not too much progress, not too fast, thanks.
"[T]he reason to support Clinton over Sanders as the Democratic nominee is that Sanders was not a member of the Democratic Party until recently" is pure tribalism. People who have a (D) after their name are good, those who don't are bad. That's a tribal argument, not an effectiveness argument. All Democratic Presidents since the 60's have run as outsiders. Jimmy Carter was a Georgia Governor who ran as D.C. outsider and an honest, reliable candidate following Watergate; Bill Clinton was an Arkansas Governor who was head of the centrist, Third-Way DLC who ran as a D.C. outsider; Barack Obama had been a U.S. Senator for only 2 years before running for president that ran as a D.C. outsider running on the message of changing how D.C. operates. If you think it's Jimmy Carter's "outsider" nature that was the cause for his failure to win reelection, I'd recommend you pick up a history book.
Since you're big on "uncomplicated prose", I didn't say DC outsider, I said "outside the Democratic Party", which is not synonymous with being a DC outsider or someone who is running as a DC outsider (and running as a DC outsider, is meaningless as anyone can say they are a running as a DC outside, and in fact many have).
Now, the DLC was not outside the Democratic Party in 1992, so Clinton was not outside the party when he ran. Obama gave a key address at the 2004 Convention, he was not someone outside of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008.
As for Jimmy Carter, great ex-president, horrible, ineffective president. And I didn't say his "outsider nature" was the cause of his failure to win reelection, that's you putting words in my mouth. His presidency was a failure because his WH was poorly staffed and he had an antagonistic relationship with a Democratic Congress, both caused by him essentially operating outside of the Party he's supposed to lead.
I never said politicians without a D beside their name are bad, again, that's you putting words in my mouth. I suggest you stop doing that as you're failing miserably. What a Sanders WH will look like is a legitimate question and one that needs to be answered. I have a good idea what a Clinton WH will look like.
1. pick both sides and wait to see who wins
2. claim to have been for the winner all along
3. once everyone else is onboard, immediately declare that the winner is a sellout and how much better the loser would have been instead
Repeat forever.
Your reckless front cover endorsing Hillary Clinton showed you're either jerks or assholes. Jerks if it's an April Fools not explained inside the newspaper. Assholes if you're actually endorsing Hillary.
I later went online and picked each of the "age" surveys. Even more aggravating, you assign Bernie to 30-and-under, and lump the rest of us into a Hillary group. Insulting.
Likewise with printing two editions with 85,000 copies endorsing Bernie and another 85,000 for Hillary--which edition lists a "Feature" endorsement on Page 14, but it's actually buried on Page 40. It explains nothing, and says I would be "stupid" and "self-defeating" to vote for Bernie. That's elitist-pig talk.
And talk about "self-defeating." This election is serious; your delivery weak. When the Election Board's split, just say so. Print two editorials and sign them. Two editions without explanation? Not even sophomoric. Just "stupid," because you wasted your political capital and earned derision.
--Mark Hennon
I learned from my mistakes. Hillary for President in 2016.
1st button (young) - Sanders
2nd button (older) - Clinton
3rd button (no age) - Sanders - but Urgutha Forka saw Trump!
Just how many endorsements are floating around? Is there one for Ted Cruz? Or perhaps the buttons might non mean a thing and its all serviced by just one method that picks an editorial at 'random', or from a seed value provided by the button. You guys are having too much fun.
What needs to be said as loudly and often as possible is that preferring Sanders' policy platform to Clinton's isn't a good reason to vote for him, because we're not electing a prime minister. Even in the (extremely unlikely) event the Republicans lost congress, either Sanders or Clinton will be well to the left of the median vote in Congress. Sanders' idea of "political revolutions" is lazy nonsense; revolutions end at the White House, they don't stop there. The best thing that could happen for Sanders' political agenda is for him to do well but just lose the nomination and go back to the Senate and promote it. Let Clinton take the inevitable (and unfair) blame for Congress's do-nothing obstructionism, and grow the movement by electing and winning over more legislators. Sanders can't even be bothered to construct a theory of how his shortcut is going to work; I can't see why the rest of us should take him seriously until he does that.
(The Clinton derangement syndrome in this thread is insane. Stop falling for Republican propaganda so easily, kids.)
Sorry, no, I didn't actually get a Trump endorsement, though that would have been great fun! Choosing the "no age" category merely forced me to pick one of the actual age categories.
But I felt like being sarcastic since the SECB was doing the same thing. :)
On issues that the Stranger has cared about most their is not that much difference. Don't belive me? Go read Dahlia Lithwick's piece today about the SCOTUS questions about the birth-control mandate.
Still don't believe me? Go read about the NC anti - LGBT bill.
Sure Bernie raises tax more on the rich and Hillary is more progressive on guns. I really wish Hillary would not have called Kissenger a friend.
Both listened to Black Lives Matter groups and improved.
I am glad Bernie is running. He has been a force for good. If he wins, we should all support him. But please don't forget that Hillary's favourable ratings come after 30 years of attack. Hillary knows what is coming and has taken it before. Hillary's economic plans are better fleshed out.
Relax progressive American neighbours. You have a couple of good candidates.
Ya think?
@82 is right; the amount of emotion and energy invested in this primary is way out of proportion with the stakes. There's really just not that much at stake in the Democratic primary, people. We're not going to have a window of opportunity a la 09-10. The job will be: appoint a decent SCOTUS justice or three, keep the lights on, and stop the Republicans in congress from blowing shit up.
"Relax progressive American neighbours. You have a couple of good candidates."
You have a right to your opinion. I see a world of difference: corporatist vs. main street; foreign intrigue vs. domestic agenda; a legislator with accomplishments that benefited people without needing fanfare or publicity and who crossed the aisle to get it - couldn't find anything for Hillary: Absence of focus on inequality vs. focus on inequality - Did Hillary ever mention inequality before Bernie brought it up?; Those off the top of my head.
Perhaps we just have different values.
$.cookie('e4030',articleBOid, { domain: IDX.env.cookieHostName, path: '/', expires: 7 })
And refresh. Replace articleBOid with articleHOid to get back to Hillary. I just snipped this from the appropriately-named code that the Stranger uses, here: https://www.thestranger.com/assets/base/…
Also, pasting things random strangers on the internet tell you to into your console is a bad idea. This stranger promises his snippet does what it promises, and if you know your jQuery you can see that it's just setting a cookie, but, uh, don't get in the habit, k?
$.cookie('e4030',null, { domain: IDX.env.cookieHostName, path: '/', expires: 7 })
Maybe do a hard refresh (Ctrl-F5) if you're looping too. Enjoy reading the article you really wanted to!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…
And then to look at Hillary's record on reproductive health, international women's healthcare, gender pay equality, and Planned Parenthood:
http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/…
And then ask themselves whether we can really afford to have a lame duck president, which is what Bernie will be when all of his grand plans for revolution are blocked by congress.
Life would be so much easier if it were as black and white as corporatist vs. main street, etc. Unfortunately such is not the case. Bernie is receiving donation from all kinds of people - some of whom are no doubt bankers and others are no doubt CEOs and stockbrokers. Should he turn that money away? What if spouse of a Fortune 500 makes a sizable donation? Does that taint or compromise him? Regarding Hillary's resume´, it is hard for me to believe that you were unable find a multitude of examples of her work on behalf of the most vulnerable citizens. As a young woman she worked (and has continued to work) shoulder to shoulder with Marion Wright Edelman to build the Children's Defense Fund into the primary lobby on behalf of children. This may not seem so remarkable, but at the time no organized entity was advocating for the best interests of children - after all, they have no money. I really recommend that you check out her website to read her platform regarding people with disabilities (an area that Bernie has been slow to address and vague in his proposals). As far as inequality is concerned - are you kidding! (That is a rhetorical question.) Hillary is the first female candidate for President who has ever come this close to being the party nominee. Do you think she needs an aged, white male to remind her of inequality? Despite decades of thinly veiled misogynistic attacks on her character she has remained in the game. Despite vicious, hateful, misogynistic comments like many of those in this comments section (@101) she has remained a staunch advocate for women and all who are faced with discrimination. Despite being vilified, dismissed and under the scrutiny of those who wished to see her fail as Secretary of State, she has remained an international voice of reason. I have often wondered how she manages to retain her compassion. Is she the pure-as-the-driven-snow, leftist candidate of my dreams? Nope, and I happen to think that is a good thing. Is she able to work effectively with opponents in order to achieve the best outcomes possible? Yes, without a doubt and I happen to think that is the best we can ask of any leader. During the next debate I would ask that you watch the candidates non-verbal behavior. What I have seen is Bernie persistently interrupting by thrusting his hand in the air and impatiently contorting his face in a grimace. How does one listen to the other speaker if they are wrapped up in challenging what they have said? Then I want you to watch Hillary while Bernie speaks. She turns her body and her focus in order to listen and consider what he is saying. That ability to focus and listen carefully and demonstrate respect are the skills that prevent conflict. They are the skills of a leader.
Is Trump an evil asshat. No question about it. But Hillary is a corporate stooge. And while I would vastly prefer her in the White House over the likes of Trump, Rubio, Cruz etc; Lets make no mistake about it. With the corporations backing her, she's nearly equally as dangerous.
We quiver at the thought of Trump as POTUS, and rightfully so. He's a self-serving moron. Anyone with a half an ounce of effort can find evidence this guy has been a waste of oxygen for years now. But lets look a little deeper.
From the scams in Arkansas, to constant double-speak, to glaring down the very people that would dare to ask tough questions in a public forum, Clinton is just as big of an asshole. She just has the political wherewithal to try and hide it. And she does it well.
That's why I'm so disappointed in The Stranger's thoughtless endorsement of Clinton over Bernie Sanders. It shows the kind of fear we must stand against. Why, when Sanders holds free rallies at Key Arena literally overflowing with people, while Clinton sips coffee in Medina, far from scrutiny, collecting checks, that we should feel comfortable supporting her?
I expect views like this from the Seattle Times, or even the PI online, or a national syndicate. Not from The Stranger.