NEW vs OLD political reality

It was funny last night to listen to pundits wax poetic on the great lessons learned last night and in this primary season. Big proclamations about new political fault lines and new coalitions. Old parties dying and the unknowns of having two very unpopular frontrunners clashing for months in a polarized country.

In other words, they were doing what they should have been doing for months, instead of pointing a camera at Trump and pressing record. They are irresponsible, not very bright, and VERY late to the party. The Berners tried to reach them by showing up 18,000 strong in the Bronx, in the same New York City where the media feedings occur daily. They were ignored. We know why. Anything to push HRC up the hill and prevent a real progressive from running the one sane party we have left in this country.

Well, they were right about one thing last night, finally. Things have changed. They have changed so much, that assumptions that Democratic Super Delegates had made about the 2016 race when they endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2015 ARE NO LONGER VIABLE. A new reality means a new choice needs to be made. By taking his campaign to the convention, Bernie Sanders is doing them the favor of offering them a chance to change their endorsement IN LIGHT OF NEW POLITICAL REALITIES.

This piece goes over how the realities on the ground have changed, and how that impacts the choice Super Delegates have the chance to make in Philadelphia.

2015: Certain political assumptions lead the the Democratic party to rally around HRC, freezing out other viable competition.

2016: New political realities have emerged that must be acknowledged. Once a Super Delegate acknowledges the new political reality, it will be much easier to justify to themselves and others a reconsideration of their original choice. It is not disloyal. Not to their country, party, or constituents. Indeed, supporting HRC in this new political environment is loyal only to the Clintons, but would be disloyal to the country, party, and their constituents.

Let’s look at how Democrats could have rightly looked at things in 2015, but how things have changed in 2016. These changes must be acknowledged for them to be loyal to their original political mission of serving their country and constituents, instead their new mission which seems to be to prop up Hillary Clinton.

E-mail scandal
2015: This appears to be another small matter that the GOP is jumping all over. The press isn’t helping with their interest in it. But if HRC is so sure of this being nothing, we trust her. In the past, when the Clintons said a scandal was nothing, it has always turned out to be nothing. Even Benghazi is nothing as proven by HRC’s 9 hour appearance before Congress. It will be a non-factor in 2016.

2016: The FBI has granted immunity to the guy who set up the server. Many retired and current (off the record) intelligence and FBI officials have weighed in and said this could be a big deal, or at least should be. We know it’s taking a long time, Clinton and her aids will or have been interviewed, and a bombshell could truly drop at any time. I know Democrats don’t want to really consider this, but Obama has given FBI Director Comey total control on this matter. He has done this preserve his own legacy. He has given inappropriate verbal support to Clinton in interviews, but the investigation and possible recommendations for prosecution are actually out of his hands, and he will hard-pressed not to follow whatever recommendations come out of the FBI. So Obama cannot help HRC. This is a ticking political time-bomb and it would be naive to think otherwise. It has only really been discussed in GOP circles, and that has made it harder for Democrats to see the political damage this will do in the general election no matter the outcome. Even if they all escape prosecution, the entire fall will be spent litigating whether or not it was due to being protected by Obama.

The new paradigm makes nominating somebody under FBI investigation very risky.

Clinton Cash
2015: Articles in the NY times from the Clinton Cash author had big pushback by Clinton world, the Democratic party, and MSNBC types. There was more reason, without a closer look, to think this is another GOP witch hunt that the Clintons will brush off like in the past. It seemed safe for Democrats to ignore this scandal in a similar way to the e-mail scandal.

2016: Mainstream publications like Bloomberg are now reporting on these conflicts of interest. If Bloomberg types are going to litigate every conflict of interest charge between now and November it’s not going to pleasant for Democrats. Looking closely at these connections between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and donations from foreign governments must be very disconcerting for any HRC backer. If Bloomberg Media types are going to do that, this is a very politically damaging scandal waiting to happen as it is litigated throughout the fall.

https://twitter.com/NicoleJeanLTL/status/727864860164431875

The new paradigm makes somebody with all these conflicts suspect-especially NOW

The GOP vs Democratic Party Match Up
2015: The Democrats could assume that the GOP standard bearer would be a typical GOPer. Maybe Rubio or Walker. A guy with establishment backing and some Tea Party credibility. They would carry the burden of the Koch Brothers, the neo-cons, the Wall Street banks, big Pharma, and unfettered free trade. Meanwhile, Clinton would carry on the mantle of a relatively popular President. She would have the jobs rebound, demographics, youth, women, and the usual cudgels of abortion and birth control against the dumber loudmouth GOPers. Similar to 2008 and 2012. The GOP would carry the Iraq War banner, the party of the rich banner, and the bought and paid for banner.

2016: Trump has up-ended all that.
—Trade advantage vs HRC -HRC is the free trader
—Conflicts of Interest (bought and paid for) - Trump is “self funding” Clinton has defended her big donors vs Sanders all spring. HRC sounds like the Citizen United GOPer and Trump sounds like Obama on this stuff
—Youth: HRC has alienated the youth by sliming Sanders and tolerating shady elections
—minorities: HRC still has them
—Wall Street connections - HRC is the Wall Street candidate, Trump is the reformer
—Iraq War and aggression - HRC is the Iraq/Libya neo-con and Trump is the non Iraq war guy

Under the new paradigm, and with media amnesia, the entire GOP record on all issues will be subsumed under the new “policies” of their standard bearer Trump. It washes away the Wall street bailout, the Iraq War, NAFTA, and lots of other negatives for the GOP. And it puts the Dems on the defensive on huge issues that we usually dominate on. VERY DANGEROUS

Political Fault Lines:
2015: Democrats could assume we would have similar left/right battles, but as shown above,

2016: we are now in a new paradigm. It is not left vs right. it is insider (HRC) vs outsider (Trump).-and outsiders rule this year. It is also elites vs blue collar. Once again, HRC is on the wrong side in people’s minds.

Under the new paradigm, HRC is the toxic compromised insider. Trump is the clean outside reformer. Wow.

The Democratic nominee:
2015: Democrats could assume then that HRC was the only viable candidate. Sanders was considered a protest candidacy. Under Citizens United the GOP money onslaught was feared by Democrats. Dipping into HRC’s network seemed the best way to raise easy cash. And since there was no real perceived competition to HRC, there was no downside to backing HRC and tapping into the cash.

2016: Bernie Sanders proved to be viable. That makes the Democrats’ early backing of HRC somewhat obsolete in political reality.

Under the new paradigm, Super Delegates have a legitimate choice. Sanders or HRC. Sanders is viable. They have the right and the duty to make a smart choice between them again at the convention, incorporating the new realities.

Fundraising:
2015: Relating to the last point, Democrats assumed that tapping into HRC cash was the way to go in a Citizens United world

2016: Bernie Sanders showed a new way. By actually representing real people, you can get them to give you small donations in mass numbers. Now we have to show this will work for other peoples’ champions.

Under the new paradigm, the Democrats do not have to get into bed with corporations at every level to compete and thrive. That is what the rank and file of the party wants and they want it now. By bucking this trend, and opportunity, and sticking with the old way of conflicts of interest, the Democrats are making a terrible mistake that will not be fixed anytime soon.

Unless they make a new choice.