The Completely Inappropriate American Election of 2016 — A Timeline of Assumptions
This is a brief outline of what happened in the United States during a global election cycle that was driven by a pent-up demand for profound political change.
Bernie Sanders did not have a complete plan when he announced his run for the Presidency in 2015. Along the way, he set in motion many disparate things that were already struggling to take form. As they coalesced, the election gameboard changed. Thus, the strategies changed, and for Bernie, the goals changed, as well.
As an arms-length observer, I've collected the narratives, beliefs, deductions, and assumptions held by the people and pundits — both spoken and unspoken — during the Democratic election cycle. These are arranged into an election timeline.
Given the unexpected outcome, it is only natural that the principles involved will certainly strive to explain and revise the history leading up to the unfortunate election. What the people actually knew or assumed at the times they were compelled to vote may differ significantly.
1. There was an discussion between Bernie and the Democrats before he entered the race. It is more likely that Bernie was initially approached by Democrats, proposing that he run for president on the Democratic ticket to help them win a third term in the White House. Bernie was a senator much admired by the Left. If he ran for president with his populist message for ordinary Americans, he could gather and consolidate the disaffected Left. As Hillary reached her inevitable win in the Primaries, Bernie could ask his supporters to join him in supporting Hillary. The Democratic Party would again appear united in a show of strength and solidarity as Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee for the first female President. "Unity" would become the theme of the historic Democratic National Convention. The conditions were settled, a switch was thrown, and Bernie was no longer an Independent. He was a Democratic senator who was a Presidential contender.
2. Bernie's own motive for entering the Presidential campaign adventure was to deliver his message, based on an enduring vision he had for the country. He delivered the same message, in many parts, during his long tenure in the US Senate. His expectations were the same as always: To influence the thinking and the outcome. To help set the course for the future.
3. On the Internet, Hillary's presence was solid "rock." Promotional monuments were erected atop well-traveled venues, acting as both landmarks for travelers and broadcast towers to viralize messages on the fly. Bernie's Internet presence was "water." It flowed around the rocks, filling every crevice and building up in the hollows, overflowing and eroding, making waves for travelers to ride.
4. Hillary's ground game was the official Democratic Party. It was Ubiquitous. Bernie's ground game was strangely self-organized for someone who had never been a national candidate and was clearly an "also ran." It seemed to rise up spontaneously, with large numbers and extraordinary efficiency. It looked odd to a public long prepared for a coronation of the "one." But that "oddness" signaled that there might be a "choice" and acted as a powerful magnet.
5. Bernie lost the innocence of his expectations fairly early in the process. As part of the agreed upon strategy, Bernie avoided the early Southern primary states, where Hillary swept the board. These wins allowed her to demonstrate the support of her featured demographic. Even with his later start, Bernie's performance in the next primary wave that included New Hampshire was an unexpected surprise to everyone involved, including Bernie. He had momentum, but his empowering message of social justice reflected their dreams of his supporters. But the message struck a disruptive note to the neoliberal philosophy of the Party Elite. The size of Bernie's rallies grew ever larger as people flocked to hear him. They were transformed by his message, and Bernie could finally see its power.
6. There was an identifiable tipping point or watershed moment that occurred during the campaign when the gameboard abruptly transformed. The Democratic campaign strategy Bernie was participating in was a scripted construct that would unite his supporters under Hillary when he stepped out of the race. No one expected this "narrative" to gain sentience and change the game. But it did. The implied covenant between Bernie and the supporters funding him gave rise to a sense of obligation toward them. [A common hazard in privately funded elections.] His audience was now exponentially larger than any he ever had. He was their leader and they were committed stakeholders in a future that would be based on his words and actions in the present. This trusting and amazed audience, most of them new to politics, re-defined who Bernie Sanders was.
7. Subtle at first, the tone of the debates changed abruptly changed, kicked off by Chelsea Clinton. She gave a speech about Bernie Sanders campaign message using disinformation, propaganda, and deliberate ignorance to smear his intent. She was a potent, untouchable medium for such a message, and it left Bernie's supporters reeling and breathless from a betrayal based on lies rather than opposing opinion or facts. It was war. Bernie's deference to Hillary soon ebbed. Both candidates went off script, introducing novel issues, petty accusations, and preemptive arguments.
8. Hillary's unchallenged sweep of the Southern state primaries had consolidated the returns on her demographic investment. It was also, as planned, the opening move in the Primary end game. This was the offramp that Bernie would use to gracefully exit from the race. But Bernie seemed to gain popularity in each new wave; he seemed in striking distance. The media began adding the presumed SuperDelegate numbers to Hillary's score in their news reports, confusing the public.
9. Coming into the next wave of primaries, his already sparse coverage by Broadcast media was edited out. This blackout would continue for the duration of the Party Primaries. When primary results were periodically televised, many viewers never fully understood why there were so many votes for Bernie Sanders, a candidate they had never seen or heard.
10. At the end of the Primaries, as if driven by a different and demanding god, Bernie focused solely on a speaking and rally schedule that was superhuman in effort. The ground campaign now centered on his speaking appearances and massive audiences, which were covered by citizen journalists. It was his primary interface to speak to the Real World. This would continue across the nation until the last Primary vote was cast, as he had promised his supporters he would early on.
11. Between the end of the Primaries and the start of the Democratic National Convention, the battle for the nation's future, and for the hearts and minds of Americans, moved to the Internet. The Internet is an arena so vast that only parts of it could be viewed at once. It was there and then that the Democratic Party was shattered forever into separate parts. Democrats who were denizens of the real world, exclusively, would never understand what had happened to foment their loss in the Presidential election. All indicators up until election day signaled that they were the certain winners.
::
There is a concurrent timeline for the GOP. The Republican Party was also shattered, although earlier in the race. This led to a final assumption:
12. Across the United States, public displays of campaign preferences went underground. For the first time in recent US history, there were no bumper stickers in traffic or yard signs in American neighborhoods. The unspoken truth is that the people feared they would become victims of persecution or violence at the hands of fellow citizens. In an unorganized show of defiance, individuals who answered calls from pollsters deliberately lied to them about the candidates and policies they supported. This turned the art of polling upside down for many years to come. Concurrently, the Democrats had used blacks as unwitting pawns in both the Primary and General election, igniting and unleashing a seething racism into the political process. Donald Trump, like the loud crowing Macaw he is, mimicked it in the General election. He handily swooped down and snatched the Presidency out of the ensuing chaos.
::
The damage done by the Clinton family to the American people, and particularly to people of color, is incalculable and unprecedented in recent American history.
Full permission for reuse granted by the author.
Comments
Please feel free to add your assumptions
…or correct mine. I'll incorporate them where I am able to.
Swing away.
Yr friend,
Pluto
Good read.
I do have one little suggested correction:
I guess I'd consider the first wave of primaries/caucuses to be Iowa, NH, NV. A lot of Bernie supporters, myself included, were hoping that winning all three would probably knock Clinton out of the race. Then Biden would have to come in. But even winning 2 of 3, before the onslaught of Super Confederate Day, would have given Bernie a decent shot.
With the help of Harry Reid and the casino owners, it was limited to 1 out of 3.
I'll try to clarify
Giving up the Southern states was the strategy that Bernie agreed to in advance. It provided security for Hillary and allowed her to publicly demonstrate her featured demographic support. The second wave, which was his first focus, included New Hampshire, and your assessment was exactly what what disclosed by his campaign.
How do you know that?
It does make sense, but what are you basing it on?
There is no "proof"
That it is true Bernie ran in accordance to requests and demands of the DNC Leadership.
But the theory does explain why immediately after becoming the most dynamic statesman and leader since the Kennedys, he threw that all away and let himself end up looking the way Princess Leia looked when chained to Jabba The Hutt.
Believing in the improbable can make your life a miracle.
Joe South (1969) covered a few points well I think.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znh58WITU8]
You lost me right out the gate
with assumption no. 1. There was no one offering a challenge to Hillary's selection, so what's to unify? (There was the other guy, but so lightweight most don't remember his name.) In the normal course, sans Bernie, Hilary has the nomination as soon as mathematically possible when you just add up the first 14 or 20 or whatever primary states. There's no opposition with which to reconcile. So where did the notion Bernie was approached by the Party come from? Evidence of that is needed to buy the first asumption, ney?
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Indeed, the other guy was so lightweight ...
... that he was two guys, and few people remembers either of their names.
I don't think the Democratic establishment ~ that is, the leadership of the "Whig" wing of the Corporate party which has the responsibility to look over the Democratic political party ~ approached Bernie to run.
Their early behavior couldn't be distinguished from asking him to run, because they didn't take him seriously, because he did not fit any of their theories about how you become President. It was when they started to realize that their theories might not be correct that they turned from being "impartial umpires in Hillary's inevitable victory" to being deployed as a unified establishment in support of Hillary's victory.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
However, it's true there was some kind of "agreement"
that Mook was upset at Bernie for supposedly breaking (that part was stated in public) and there was some "leverage" they had over Bernie (that part was stated in private, in a 2015 email to Podesta.)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The leverage is committee chairmanship ...
... which is kind of gone now.
it would be astounding if there weren't words exchanged and commitments given when Bernie started to make moves to run ... but going from Bernie breaking what Mook understood to be a commitment that Bernie gave all the way to Bernie running as a plant by the DLC wing of the party is a mighty long leap of logic.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Heh.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Agree 100%
Without a foundation the entire premise flutters like leaves in the wind.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Actually, you're right.
Hmmph.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
...so what's to unify? [Edited]
A large and growing segment of the Democratic Party was disunited by the very existence of Hillary Clinton on the ballot. Remember, it is the year of the Political Outsider around the world, Brexit being the common example. "More of the same" was (and still is) behind the eight ball. Everything that Hillary stood for and what she had done as SoS was utterly rejected by a large segment of the people who, then, identified as Democrats.
The Party's only hope was to reel them in somehow, and show that the Party was a "Unified" movement. Bernie Sanders was uniquely suited for sheep-dogging the Left back into the fold. He certainly didn't appear to be a serious contender in the presidential race. And that's just what Bernie did at the end when he told his supporters to vote for Hillary.
Of course, reeling in the Left was fundamentally impossible, because it meant that people would have to downgrade their moral compasses. Too many were unwilling. But, the Left instantly adhered to Bernie when they heard his vision expressed, and they wouldn't let go. New voters around the country crawled out of the woodwork and joined them. They contributed so much money that it rivaled Hillary's fund raising.
The internal defection in the Party was firm and resolute (primarily from the Left and FDR Dems, who remembered the original vision that created the middle class). The Democratic revolt generated enough chaos to drive away the Millennials, the worker classes, and the independents. It also led to a rise in third party interest.
In the end, the people had to choose between a loud-mouthed Outsider who came off like a racist and a deeply insincere Establishment machine politician with too much baggage. The global trend toward "no more of the same" made the choice an easy one.
Hillary's eventual defeat could be seen clearly from a long way off.
Seems to me, one would have to be locked in an echo chamber to miss that.
[Edit]
The first Assumption was made the moment that Sanders abruptly became a Democrat and smoothly entered the race. It made all narratives possible to assume that there was a discussion beforehand between Sanders and the Party. Without that, one must conclude he was dropped into the race by a UFO, since a presidential run has never been on his radar. The question of who approached whom evolved over the cycle, however. In the end, it was clear that the Party needed Sanders to sheepdog for them far more than Sanders needed the Party to leash him at the Convention and put him in a cage.
Ergo, Assumption #1.
SO it all began as a guess that Sanders could sheepdog
the Slow leak of disaffected Dems-to-Indies and pick up the Fully disaffected Millennials, until the Sanders campaign took on an unanticipated life of its own including money input from regular people? I guess that's as good (and slightly soiled, therefore credible) an hypothesis as any other possibilities. Made more credible by the ham-handed handling of the Sanders delegates at the Convention.
Footnote: Now I see on FB that the Hillarybots suspect votes may have been rigged for Trump. Idiots.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Here is my problem
with your scenario, even though it sounds possible on the surface.
If the purpose of Bernie's campaign from the very beginning was to ultimately deliver voters to Clinton, then the Clinton campaign did a piss poor job of trying to keep those voters. The actions of the Clinton campaign belie the scenario that you have laid out. From the very beginning, Clinton dissed Sanders supporters and even after she got the nom, she basically said she did not need them and instead went after Republicans. So it does not make sense to me that the entire purpose of the Sanders campaign was working with the Clinton campaign to deliver voters she did not want or need to her.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Except...
Hillary is notorious for taking a gift of gold and turning it into a pile of shit. She's so arrogant that it's eminently plausible she said "I don't need them, I'm Hillary Clinton" when told of a plan to let Sanders attract Indies and disaffected Dems and deliver them to her.
Amen. In fact, we know that is precisely how she views the Left
because she said so, about environmental voters anyway, in one of the leaked speeches. She said she didn't care if she got their votes. That's how she acted too, throughout the whole campaign. That's why I assumed she was rigging the general.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What if her heinous expected Bernie
to do the heavy lifting, like as to sign seal and deliver the votes for her. She never could do that on her own especially with progressives.
Also could tie in to the theory bubba possibly having asked trump to run so at the minimum make the R's as far right as possible, again helping her heinous to look center left.
i.e. having someone to the left someone to the right, leaving her heinous in the sweet ol center.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Trump outfoxed them by running to her LEFT,
leaving Her stuck on the far right. And by then it was all too obvious that not only was she no leftist, she was not even a centrist.
There is no "center sweet spot", not any longer, and the Clintons are at least as responsible as anyone else for that.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
that's my point also
you just stated it better than I. Bernie to the left, supposedly trump to the right is how her heinous and sycophants tried to frame it.
Her heinous is just empty pantsuit with a cult following.
https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/20/america-called-bullshit-on-saint-...
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
I think things turned ugly half way through
When it became clear that Sander's supporters weren't there because they were loyal Democrats but were there for the stories of social justice that Bernie was spinning. His crowds grew and grew. They were young and enthusiastic and Bernie was starting to believe he might be the one. He might win. He tried to convince the SuperDelegates to change their votes.
He wouldn't take the exit ramp. His people started to attack her when Chelsea gave her hateful speech. So she hated them right back. She had enough votes for the nomination with the Superdelegates. And with Donald Trump on the other side, how could she not win?
Not one of them saw the global revolt against the Neoliberals, which is so strong, it may tear Europe apart. The banks built this.
I'm wondering if it isn't another "pied piper" gone wrong
dreamed up by the incredible morons in her campaign, trying to set her up as the winning moderate between two extremes
Instead of Pied Piper, I would say they were trying to run a Goldilocks campaign - Trump too reactionary, Bernie too liberal, but look, here's Hillary who's "just right". Only who knew that the two people who were supposed to be her foils and set her off to advantage, did exactly the opposite.
Hillary was pecked to death by 2 Black Swans.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
FYI:
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Excellent graph... Do you
Know the source of this information?
Believing in the improbable can make your life a miracle.
Courtesy of Richard Charnin
Richard Charnin's Blog
I should have guessed it was Charnin.
But thank you
Believing in the improbable can make your life a miracle.
Brilliant essay!
Well said!
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
A man I respect, Jesse Ventura made
remarks recently that every single Bernie supporter should consider: being given the invite to the US Presidential debates is an absolute game changer in terms of being able to win the Presidency. Especially for anyone running Third Party.
Currently the US Commission on Presidential debates is jointly sponsored by the Democratic and Republican Parties. Since leadership of both parties is savvy enough to realize that having Third Party candidates in attendance could throw askew their Party's chosen nominee's ability to win the Oval Office, there is no way in hell that a Third Party's candidate will receive an invitation to attend. (When Ralph Nader simply paid for two tickets to the debate, and then attempted to be part of the debate in the year 2000, he was ushered by security out of the building.)
What I would like us all to think about: Ventura points to how his inclusion in the MN gubernatorial debates brought him from the obscurity of a candidate with a ten percent following by some voters to such prominence that he became the state's governor. That is what got him his Third Party victory: debate inclusion. Not millions of dollars, but the exposure that was necessary.
This is an idea that must be embraced by every one of us who hopes to see the paradigm shift in our lifetimes from the "D"s and "R"s to the Greens (or some other third party, non-aligned and willing to topple the Corporatist Death-hold on our culture.) We must find a way to change the way that the Great Debate Stranglehold is maintained, and shatter that Stranglehold so that Democracy can once again be the law of the land.
####
Believing in the improbable can make your life a miracle.
Thanks for the comment. My understanding was
…that there are so many prohibitions inserted into settled law and custom in the US — by interested parties — that the barriers make it impossible for an effective third party to come into existence. The barriers are not well known because they have yet to be triggered.
For example, it was internationally recognized a half a century ago that the US Constitution cannot be amended. The barriers in the modern world are just too high for the Constitution's obsolete standards from the late 1700's. The US Constitution is classified as "entrenched" along with small handful of national constitutions that no longer function for the people. There are no longer attempts to mount an amendment, so the people do not again see the triggered futility.
Yet the Constitution is fawned over, just like the Green Party, as if they were viable. I can only assume they are housebroken and kept on a leash so that people don't get discouraged by reality.
The Commission On Presidential Debates is a gatekeeper for the two-party system. They are people uniquely unable to address the vital issue of generational sovereignty, which is the only political pathway out of oppression for the American people. I've seen references to many higher barriers behind the wall that the Commission erects, that are yet to be triggered. One of my chief concerns about Hillary, should she not be defeated, was that it would give her and the permanent government the opportunity to shore all the walls against third parties into permanent sabotaging barriers.
I like Jesse Ventura's assertiveness and Ralph Nader may be the last man or woman to storm a debate stage and live.
I completely agree with the point you make. You have it honed to the essence of the problem and the solution (assuming you are willing to rely on the vagaries of state-controlled federal voting). And you state it perfectly:
An excellent summary leading to an excellent close.
There have been many very good election timelines and analyses on C99 lately, but yours is the most succinct and ends with the best closing sentence: "The damage done by the Clinton family to the American people, and particularly to people of color, is incalculable and unprecedented in recent American history."
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
It was no doubt baked in already.
Someone held a meeting, and everyone "agreed" through some great act of groupthink, reinforced by the various mafias which run this country, that Hillary Clinton was to be our next President, and that Clinton's friend Donald Trump was to be the backup plan. That part you've got right.
Why the Clintons would feel any great need for a sheepdog is beyond me. Do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party approached Sanders? Sure, one of the Podesta emails refers to an "agreement," but beyond that?
At any rate, the bait-and-switch routine would have appeared inappropriate with Sanders and Clinton, Sanders appearing so much more obviously genuine than Clinton. Wouldn't the Clintons want it to appear as if Hillary was America's only real choice? It must have been obvious from 2008 onward that Hillary was a bad campaigner with a lot of baggage and that everything had to be set just right if she were to win. Certainly the Clinton team could see the disaster coming as soon as Sanders entered the race. It takes a lot of preparation to rig 20+ primaries. So that part of your theory seems counter-intuitive and would need to be backed by a good deal of evidence.
I suppose it's quite possible, though, that Sanders decided to run on his own and that he sold the sheepdog idea to the Clinton team. The whole "speaking and rally schedule" thing appears as Sanders' frustration with not being able to "change the narrative" -- perhaps Sanders, being in his mid-70s and having been a marginalized Congressmember or Senator from Vermont for a hefty portion of his life, was simply tired of his assigned role and wanted a change.
At any rate, it's a little over-the-top to blame the Clintons for having done "incalculable damage" to America in an era of neoliberal consensus. It's not like they engineered the consensus itself when it had already been baked into American politics by 1973. See e.g. Levy and Dumenil's "Capital Resurgent."
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
No, it's not over the top--
The Clintons were the important mid-game relief pitchers for Lewis Powell, who started; Obama was the closer.
Yes, they've done incalculable damage, both in their Crime Bill/welfare "reform" bill, and also, more importantly, by co-opting movements against racism (and sexism, but that's another story) and turning them into nothing but a credibility generator for Democratic politicians. They had a lot of help from Obama on that, but the ugliness of this last campaign is beyond even Denise Oliver Velez-style crap of the past few years. The movements against racism will never be the same, though they will survive. Feminism, IMO, is dead; if I were fourteen now (the age I was when I became a feminist), there's no way in hell I'd become one. As a matter of fact, I'm considering ceasing to consider myself a feminist and simply calling myself a humanist or maybe a socialist (depending on whether I choose a more idealist or materialist focus).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You're right. The social damage and economic harm
…done by the Clintons domestically can surely be calculated. The human catastrophes in Libya, ongoing, can be monetized, the dead and dislocated counted. It will take some work to add up the bill for a family of sociopaths. And, who knows? They may not turn out to be the worst of the American monsters roaming freely in our midst.
I would isolate neoliberal policy damage, which I did not mention, and divide it into domestic and international. They've done plenty of that. It's measured in lifelong grief, domestically. With the right actuary, we might get a dollar number.
This story is a compendium of common assumptions that underly narratives and news stories written by journalists. The assumptions are made to move the story along and they may not actually be mentioned.
The sheepdog business emerged in the very same week Bernie announced his candidacy. I did not follow his early campaign, but saw it with some frequency at first. Only recently did I see it being used again. It may have started out cynical, but it's evolved into a building block. It serves someone's narrative. I find it more plausible than not.
You'll have to pin the Trump trope on someone else. I've seen it but never found it that it made any sense. It's not in my collection. What made you think it might be plausible?
The "sheepdog business" --
was probably an extrapolation from the careers of Jerry Brown and of Jesse Jackson, both of which were and are charlatans. Whether or not it applies to Bernie Sanders is another matter entirely.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I think the need for a sheepdog was clear when Hillary
…launched her campaign with her listening tour. She chummed the waters but the Left wasn't biting. Nor were the Millennials. The Independents weren't breaking for her, either. In the leaked emails you could see a brainstorming attempt to bait and switch these groups fairly early on.
I found the view of the US race from London very compelling. They had followed a parallel path from 1990 and were reeling from the Brexit vote. Writing in the Guardian Hazem Salem points out that other under-performing group, America's worker class, who were tepid about Hillary, at best. The Dems had betrayed them and then ignored them, just as they did the Left — but they still expected the enthusiastic support of both, as per usual.
But the connection was broken, says Salem. In a capitalist democracy, the party of the left has just one essential reason for existing: to speak for the working class. The party of the right acts in the interest of the capitalist class, ensuring that the risks they took were fairly rewarded.
If anybody could bring them back to the Dems, it was Bernie. They flocked to his rallies. But Hillary couldn't hold them with her insincere flip on the TPP. They melted away when she won the Primary….
Personally, I felt that the rejection of Hillary from these specific groups was apparent years ago. That was still the case when Bernie suddenly entered the race and turned everything upside down. In the end, the Dems were forced to polarize the campaign by portraying themselves as victims of sexual and racial attacks, and scoop up as many identity voters as possible.
They actually thought they had it in the bag on Election Day.
Not an assumption, there is proof that the Democrats
were determined to "crush" Bernie Sanders. He had 22 states and he could not get a nomination?
To thine own self be true.
Agree with pretty much everything except #12.
IMO, everything went underground because the two candidates were hated and people were disgusted with the whole thing. There was a lot less (back then) of the narrative of The Other Citizens Are Dangerous To You, Citizen! and a lot more of Wow, Can You Believe This Crap?
In other words, there were fewer signs because there was a lot less enthusiasm for the candidates being shoved down the American people's...I mean presented to the American people.
Great diary.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver