Thread: The Left better brace itself for war

Originally Posted by Moot

Older generations were young once, too. Once upon a time, the young peoples choice of McGovern was replaced with the establishment choice of Humphrey at the 1968 Democrat convention and all hell broke loose. Perhaps you've heard of the Chicago riots, no? Somehow I don't think there's going to be a riot worth noting if Bernie loses the nomination to Hillary...because she's winning the popular and delegate vote fair and square...state by state.

On the other hand if Trump is the clear people choice by way of voting and the establishment blocks him at their convention you very well may get your riot.

Originally Posted by Moot

Older generations were young once, too. Once upon a time, the young peoples choice of McGovern was replaced with the establishment choice of Humphrey at the 1968 Democrat convention and all hell broke loose. Perhaps you've heard of the Chicago riots, no? Somehow I don't think there's going to be a riot worth noting if Bernie loses the nomination to Hillary...because she's winning the popular and delegate vote fair and square...state by state.

McGovern was a minor candidate in 1968. The young peoples' candidate was Eugene "Clean Gene" McCarthy.

Originally Posted by Moot

Older generations were young once, too. Once upon a time, the young peoples choice of McGovern was replaced with the establishment choice of Humphrey at the 1968 Democrat convention and all hell broke loose. Perhaps you've heard of the Chicago riots, no? Somehow I don't think there's going to be a riot worth noting if Bernie loses the nomination to Hillary...because she's winning the popular and delegate vote fair and square...state by state.

Who said anything about a riot? No, millennials see democracy dying and the government becoming increasingly corporatist but the nation isn't going to overcome decades of growing voter apathy over a single nail in the coffin. What's going to happen if Bernie loses the nomination is the voter apathy grows and the democrats will lose the white house, the house, and the senate, and we'll have either 4 years or 8 years or republican rule, depending on how long it takes for the next recession to trigger.

Originally Posted by gavinfielder

I don't see the obstacles in the Clinton camp eventually coming to Bernie's camp should the primaries go his way. Obviously I'm biased here, but all the more reason I need to be enlightened.

I do, however, see the obstacles the other way around. Clinton is a corporate shill, and that's not something she can just get rid of. I think Bernie taking the nomination would give democrats a fighting chance but if Hillary wins the nominaton, the republicans will take the white house and everyone will know why.

I'm starting to think that might be a lesson that needs to be learned the hard way. Let's be clear, I am not saying, like Chernyshevsky, 'the worse, the better.' Nor am I ambivalent about the consequences, both for workers, and the human race, as a whole, of a Cruz, Rubio, or lord forbid, Trump administration. That being said, the common wisdom in the Democratic party, and among the pundit class, is the 'Mondale myth'; the belief that a candidate like Sanders can't possibly win in the general. This was the argument of Clinton, and the DLC, neoliberals like Blair, and 'New Labour', who argued the party needed to move to the right, to move away from organized labor, etc. Which, I would argue, is a classic case of confirmation bias, they found the answer they were looking for. I think Hillary's loss might do more good than harm. I think it would teach the Democratic Leadership that if they don't stand up for workers, workers will not vote for them. I think it might be beneficial for the standard bearer for that clique, a 'serious' politician, a right-wing corporatist hawk, to get totally creamed in the election. I think it might teach the Democratic leadership a painful, but necessary lesson.

Originally Posted by FieldTheorist

Some will, some won't. I doubt it will be enough to cost her the 2016 general (It could be, but it's unlikely).

The point that I'm making here is that New Democrats (Clinton-era Center-Right Democrats) are on borrowed time. They may take the 2016 nomination, but the demographics are shifting against the New Democrats and a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters like myself are not willing to compromise with the establishment on this. We may vote for Hillary in 2016, but that will come coupled with a plan to crush the New Democrat oligarchy. Youth are going to take back the Democratic party and forcibly remove the Clintonite establishment from power, and that's the war that I'm referencing.



Yes, the battle will take a decade or two --as I say in the OP.



It became popular in no small part due to Millennials. Another lesson that was taught to Millennials is that you have to dig your feet it in and push hard for something.



No one thought that, including Sanders himself. With Clinton being the likely nominee, there's no need to even discuss the white flag. They're just walking right up to the door, with her arms open wide to them.



If there's one thing that the Sanders candidacy taught me, it's how these two statements are necessarily related. The Clintonite Democratic establishment will not let go of the Democratic party willingly. It will need to be done with media wars and political battles.

If your view is truly representative then there is indeed an intra-Dem war in the offing, but that's a large "if." If the New Dems are driven out, would you expect them to migrate to the Repubs? Their presence might be just the thing the Repubs need to become a durable and sober center-right governing party.

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

If your view is truly representative then there is indeed an intra-Dem war in the offing, but that's a large "if." If the New Dems are driven out, would you expect them to migrate to the Repubs? Their presence might be just the thing the Repubs need to become a durable and sober center-right governing party.

Those New Dems you speak of will migrate right back to the couch, as they did in the last two mid-terms .

Originally Posted by NIMBY

Those New Dems you speak of will migrate right back to the couch, as they did in the last two mid-terms .

I don't think that's accurate. The Clintonite New Democrats tend to be regular voters.

Originally Posted by NGNM85

I'm starting to think that might be a lesson that needs to be learned the hard way. Let's be clear, I am not saying, like Chernyshevsky, 'the worse, the better.' Nor am I ambivalent about the consequences, both for workers, and the human race, as a whole, of a Cruz, Rubio, or lord forbid, Trump administration. That being said, the common wisdom in the Democratic party, and among the pundit class, is the 'Mondale myth'; the belief that a candidate like Sanders can't possibly win in the general. This was the argument of Clinton, and the DLC, neoliberals like Blair, and 'New Labour', who argued the party needed to move to the right, to move away from organized labor, etc. Which, I would argue, is a classic case of confirmation bias, they found the answer they were looking for. I think Hillary's loss might do more good than harm. I think it would teach the Democratic Leadership that if they don't stand up for workers, workers will not vote for them. I think it might be beneficial for the standard bearer for that clique, a 'serious' politician, a right-wing corporatist hawk, to get totally creamed in the election. I think it might teach the Democratic leadership a painful, but necessary lesson.

Depressing sumbitch aren't you.

I agree with the assessment, but I do agree with FieldTheorist is correct in that the next recession is coming, and the effects of that on political demographics cannot be overstated. That, and a pyrrhic victory over the long term for liberals is really a hard a pill to swallow when I think of what Clinton manages to do in the White House. I think this movement we're seeing from the establishment democrats on supporting payday lenders is a dark foretelling of what we'd likely see in a Clinton administration.

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

If your view is truly representative then there is indeed an intra-Dem war in the offing, but that's a large "if." If the New Dems are driven out, would you expect them to migrate to the Repubs? Their presence might be just the thing the Repubs need to become a durable and sober center-right governing party.

That raises an interesting point. I think it's likely they'd go to moderate republicans, but moderate republicans are also a dying breed. Perhaps more likely they'll drift to the leftism of the new party.