hillary clinton

Necessary, and Not Sufficient: Election Reflections 2016

 

2016-us-election-logo

November 7, 2016

Well, we made it. And congratulations to us! Despite it all, we’ve succeeded in making this entire presidential election a referendum on “Not Trump” and “Yes, first woman president.”

Both absolutely necessary, to be sure, but sufficient? Time will tell.

Regarding the facts immediately in front of us, though, most “progressives” will indeed vote for Hillary Clinton, and they should. It’s too late for anything else. It wasn’t too late in 2013 when we published this suggestion here at Newspeak Review, but it is now.

So, for all the reasons well understood at this point, let’s go ahead and hope Hillary Clinton wins. (And, by the way, let’s also hope that Jill Stein magically garners the exact maximum number of votes possible without swinging the election. Such deadening gyrations would not be necessary if we didn’t have both corporate parties quietly enforcing a voting system that does not record people’s true preferences, but that’s a subject for another post.)

Just as importantly, though, let’s also move forward with eyes wide open. Because here’s the thing:

Each little surrender like this — each time we kick the can down the road, each time we cajole and abuse each other into carrying water for the political establishment in the name of the latest immediate term imperative — has longer term consequences.

It makes the next Standing Rock more inevitable. It makes the next Syria more likely. It makes taking to the streets more necessary. As we continue our slow 40 year march of one step forward, three steps back, it makes people putting their bodies on the line to protect and defend what is left of our rights and our security and our planet yet more difficult and more certain.

I do not think this is a path that most of us favor, but it is the one we’re on.

Genuine departure from that path will involve significant risk. In this campaign cycle, for example, at no point has Hillary Clinton not been the most likely president elect. That of course feels compelling, and determinative. But such likelihoods did not and do not relieve us of the responsibility to consider issuing a different demand, despite the odds. At some point we will need to take that risk. (Of course many feel we’re already long past that point.) And, as importantly, we must openly express willingness to take that risk so others can see us doing so. We’re closer than we’ve been in decades.

In any case, it’s election day tomorrow, and here we are. We still have the right to vote in this country, and we still have some confidence that our vote will be properly counted. These are things to behold. So do your thing.

And to those of you well-meaning souls who have expended substantial energy supporting a candidate who has already shown herself almost certain to oppose the genuine change that we need, here’s to #Nov9 and on. You know what you have to do.

Happy voting tomorrow, friends.

###

It’s Go Time for Sanders Supporters. Democratic Primary Update

February 21, 2016 — by JT Haines

After three states, delegate counts on the Dem side are even at 51 (non-superdelegates, that is), and Sanders is well ahead in the overall popular vote, 60%-38%. Looks pretty good for Team Sanders, all things considered, right?

Make no mistake. Steadily and per script the corporate machinery of the DNC and Clinton campaign is grinding, quietly telling insiders that this thing could be over as soon as March 1.

The next 10 days are a probably a lot bigger than they seem to many Sanders supporters. Until now, the Sanders campaign has enjoyed tremendous success on social media, at rallies, and through millions of $27 donations. It is very clear that people want an alternative to the politics of Wall Street, Wal-Mart, and Monsanto, and they want it now. So it might feel as though the campaign can simply continue and grow, that the real Sanders v Clinton moment will happen some time in the future, like at a convention or at a general election.

That may yet happen. And because of the delegates Sanders has won and will win, the demands of the campaign will be present on some level going forward, regardless of who wins the next several states. However, the reality is, a couple more primary “victories” by Clinton would allow her campaign, and the mainstream corporate media that donates to her campaign, to pivot the narrative back from one about political revolution to the preferred narrative of inevitability. It’s happening already, even with the delegate count tied, and the next couple states are tough sledding for Sanders. If enough talking heads say it’s over, people will start to believe it.

In order for conversations about the possibility of Sanders winning to continue in their fullest form (as well as conversations about superdelegates, corporate contributions, and DNC manipulations that come with them), there will need to be a new surge on the Sanders side, and probably within the next 10 days.

This means Sanders supporters, most critically those in Super Tuesday states*, going beyond social media and talking directly to friends and neighbors about voting on March 1. Only major turnouts have the chance of counteracting the incredible amount of establishment machinery leaning on the process on the other side. (Turnout was low in Nevada.)

Short of this, a few minor concessions notwithstanding, prepare yourself for what is certain to be a really, really, unpleasant summer of being told that you must vote for a candidate who does not believe it’s necessary to challenge the system nearly as much as you do.

To vote on March 1 in Minnesota:
Go to your precinct caucus location, which you can find here: http://caucusfinder.sos.state.mn.us/  Voting will take place between 6:30 and 8:00pm. Heads up, a few things that are confusing people:
  1. Party caucus locations are NOT election polling locations. You have to look it up. [Update: I’ve been on the doors myself this weekend. I’m finding that nearly everyone thinks they’re going to their polling place (in our case, a church), when actually they’re going to the caucus location (in our case, the high school). Gotta check — Spread the word!]
  2. You do not have to stay around for all the party business to vote in the binding presidential poll. In other words, if you want to vote and leave, you can do that.
  3. Voting is from 6:30 to 8:00. If you’re in line by 8:00 you can vote.
  4. The poll is binding — meaning, the results determine how many delegates the candidates will get at the national convention from Minnesota. Think mini-primary.

 

*Super Tuesday Democratic states include:

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.

Did Bernie Just Kinda Win?

Screen Shot 2015-12-18 at 7.30.33 PM

By JT Haines, December 19, 2015

Mark December 18, 2015, on your calendars.

The Sanders campaign has been gaining momentum for months, picking up a number of significant labor endorsements (CWA, AWPU, NNU), hitting two million individual contributions before Obama topped out at one million, and gaining in the polls. He’s also polling better against Republicans, and Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings have been trending badly in the wrong direction all year. And, anecdotally, the people who say they simply won’t vote for Secretary Clinton with or without a nomination seem to this time really mean it. (Don’t they? Disclaimer: I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, and my social media feed is a verifiable silo.)

But even with all this, the conventional wisdom has continued to be: Secretary Clinton simply has too much (corporate) cash, even bigger labor endorsements (NEA, AFT, AFSCME, SEIU, Building Trades), and too many super delegates already lined up for any of the rest of it (i.e., real people voting) to matter.

That is, perhaps, until yesterday.

Briefly: A vendor-caused glitch in a voter file program recently allowed both campaigns to temporarily view one another’s voter data. At least one Sanders staffer saw some data. (It has been alleged that the Sanders campaign reported the glitch two months ago.) Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) shut down the Sanders campaign’s access to voter files as a result of the breach.

The reaction has been swift and revealing.

For its part, the Sanders campaign immediately sued the DNC, with campaign manager Jeff Weaver making this pretty astounding statement: “The leadership of the Democratic National Committee is actively trying to undermine our campaign.” (CNN)

Here’s a tweet from David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist, about the suspension of access:

And former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said “it seems like the DNC is doing all it can to blunt the momentum of Bernie’s campaign.” (Time)

Access was granted by the end of the day, but the damage may have been done, as the general response on social media has been intense, bordering on outright revolt.

For a good example, I recommend a swing through former Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak’s facebook page. Yesterday, Rybak posted a lengthy comment seeking to explain what is going on with the data breach and subsequent DNC actions. RT is a powerful and popular Democrat, and now the Vice-Chair of the DNC, so one might expect comments on his feed to be somewhat muted. Or at least more muted than elsewhere. But the vast majority of the now 94 comments — often from Rybak’s own apologetic fans — are openly distrustful of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign.

Here’s one:

“As always, this is not a reflection on my apprecration (sic) for all you do RT. I am simply angry. This also happened October and the Sanders campaign made sure the DNC fixed it poste haste because, while the Sanders campaign could see Clinton’s campaign, the Clinton campaign could also see the Sanders’ campaign. How come no one is asking to audit the Clinton campaign? Debbie Wasserman Schultz and NGP must be fired.”

What’s the big deal, you might ask, won’t we be on to the next thing by January? Perhaps. But this to me feels different. It’s as if permission has now been granted for a lot more people to move past private suspicion and concern about things like debate timing and media coverage, to now openly questioning the DNC and democratic establishment. That’s going to be an even bigger deal come caucus/primary time. As Buzzfeed put it, “this is the war Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ progressive coalition was ready for.”

I thought my friend Matt Barthelemy captured the sentiment well:

Hesitant Hillary Clinton supporters – especially all you electeds/opinion leaders who have already publicly endorsed her – if this blow-up turns out to be the establishment-favoring-its-candidate BS it smells like, it’ll be a great chance for y’all to justify jumping ship and pivoting over to support this election’s People’s candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, so we can win this for real.

‪#‎FeelTheBern‬

So let’s see what happens. In the meantime, mark December 18, 2015, on your calendars. I wonder if, by next November, we might just look back on it as the day Bernie Sanders won the presidency.

###

Update: By the way, this Dec 21 HuffPo blog piece (Hillary Clinton Is Better Than the Republican Candidates. But I Still Wouldn’t Vote for Her) exhibits the exact sentiment I’ve been talking about. I saw some of this in 2012 among those disappointed with a perceived abandonment of progressive priorities by Obama in his first term. I see a lot more of it now. Lines in the sand are being drawn, with eyes wide open towards the costs and benefits. At some point, the DNC may have to answer a question: Is it defending the party? Or is it defending specifically HRC and the version of the party she represents?