Cassiodorus's note: This is a diary by RedDan, originally posted over at Orange. When I invited RedDan to crosspost here, RedDan offered me permission to do so, and then argued:

I do not have the time to maintain any kind of presence on more than one blog, and for as long as possible, I am going to stay on Kos for reasons of comfort, loyalty, familiarity, and history.

If you like what you see here, you may wish to seek out RedDan over at Orange and ask for a reconsideration of the merits of this position.

Approximately 40% of Democratic Party is quite happily and vocally “down” with leftwing progressive populism ...

That 40% has an interesting demographic makeup, comprising a large number of

college educated liberals, mostly white,
white progressives and labor activists,
leftwingers of all colors and genders, and
under-25’s of all colors and genders.

Notably absent from this base of support are (in terms of overall percentages):

communities of color,
women over 35, and
the broad middle to upper middle class professional bloc.

The reasons for this skew in demographics are multi-fold: 1) Failures on the part of Sanders and his campaign; 2) Successes on the part of Clinton and her campaign; 3) The structure and character of entrenched networks of alliance, patronage, and communication within the Democratic Party; and 4) complicated issues of history, political identity, self-interest, political preference, and “comfort zone”.
It is what it is… for now.

This diary is not intended to address the complicated, difficult and very interesting details surrounding the above factors. I intend to do that later, when more comprehensive and nationwide data is available… and tempers are less frayed.
The Sanders campaign has plenty of cash, is raising more, and retains its support base. The chance at the nomination is not mathematically eliminated.

That is all that needs to be said. The gnashing of teeth, statistical gymnastics, and inside-baseball musings about super delegates, pledged delegates and all the other nonsense needs to be dropped. Just say the above, and move on.
The message and the platform are more important than ever, and are the means to maximizing the potential for a positive outcome at any number of levels.

Gaining ground in those sectors of the Democratic and Liberal Base that are still wary of Sanders is important, on any number of absolutely critical levels:

In terms of the immediate campaign: gaining a larger share of the vote means increasing the possibilities for pulling out an improbable win. Sure it’s a long shot, but you can’t win if you don’t play.

In terms of the larger short-term picture: gaining more delegates and bringing those delegates to the convention means gaining more leverage in determining the Party Platform and expressed Democratic Party ideological/political commitments to specific programs and broader principles.

In terms of changing the political landscape: activating and energizing an explicitly progressive activist voter base, and participating in primary, special election, and down-ticket wins on these ballots during these primaries means conditioning the political environment for stronger future success. Kim Foxx is important. Donna Edwards is important. There is a very long list of candidates on the primary ballots that are very, very important. Using the power of the Sanders activist base to push them into the limelight and get them into contention for local, state, and federal office is extremely important for the immediate future.

In terms of gaining confidence, building experience, learning from mistakes, and building a movement that can last longer than these primaries: the more we do, the more people we reach in a positive, progressive, effective, joyous, and mutually empowering way, the better the long-term and lasting impression we leave, and the stronger this movement can become. Can we be strong enough to survive after the primary, like DFA was? Can we be strong enough to survive past the general election, like OFA was sort of not? Can we rebuild, re-energize, and grow a truly progressive core bloc in the Democratic Party that meshes Labor, Class, Race, Gender, and Choice issues in an explicit and truly “multi-bloc” way that has not been done before? We should certainly try.

Below I will illustrate only one of a vast array of specific, data-intensive, and straightforward arguments that I think work much, much better at emphasizing the relevancy and importance of Sanders’ program, and how it can be used to directly appeal to many different constituencies in very direct, logical, simple and non-confrontational ways that have NOTHING TO DO WITH CRITICIZING HILLARY CLINTON…
Boldly Ambitious Infrastructure Spending is economically viable, desperately needed, and will benefit social and economic “out groups” more than anyone else.

The United States has an estimated 3.6 trillion dollar infrastructure deficit if we consider only that portion of the infrastructure that requires attention over the next 4 years (i.e. must be fixed by 2020). That number grows immensely the longer out we project. Roads, Schools, Rail, Water Delivery and Treatment, Sewers, Electrical Grid and Generation, Dams, Bridges… you name it.

Infrastructure Spending boosts both long and short term economic activity

Infrastructure spending dollars multiply and cascade (PDF): Short term multipliers are estimated at about 2 dollars generated per 1 dollar spent, and long term multipliers are estimated at 3.3 dollars generated per 1 dollar spent. This takes place both directly (jobs and activity in the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure in question) and indirectly (easing and enhancing transport, making manufacturing more efficient, enhancing demand as people make more money in higher-paying jobs).

Government subsidized and funded infrastructure spending enhances private-sector economic growth (PDF) — Better roads, trains, water, electrical, sewer and etc. make all business more profitable. Better schools, housing, and standards of living make business more productive and more profitable.

Comprehensive analyses of similar plans in other countries (canada, PDF) come to the same conclusion based on both modeling and on analysis of previously enacted infrastructure spending programs.

(The above constitute the main reasons why a Sanders’-style economic program will pay for itself and more… short version:

infrastructure spending produces between 1.5 and 3.8 dollars per dollar invested,
that multiplier starts lower and increases over at least 8 years, and
initial dollars invested are recouped at a rate of between .55 and .75 dollars per dollar invested depending on the taxes and fees associated with usage over the lifetime of the built infrastructure.

… Just sayin’)
The United States can, in fact, experience growth rates similar to that of “emerging industrial economies” because we have at least 3.6 trillion dollars worth of “re-industrialization” to do.

The character of that re-industrialization need not be (and won’t be) “replacement only” — given that much of what we will be fixing and replacing is more than 50 years old. Green industrialization is absolutely possible, incredibly profitable, and helps gain leverage on other problems (climate change!).

Any argument that a Multi-Trillion-Dollar government infrastructure spending program will not immediately and directly benefit both the nation in general, and under-represented and under-served communities in particular, in direct and dramatic ways is … wrong.

The 30-year trend toward re-concentration of poverty in decaying urban centers, the growth of ever-more-stressed suburban enclaves surrounding those urban centers, the continuing growth in the gap between the wealthy and everyone else, and the newly re-invigorated growth in the wage gap between men and women all indicate that there is a very significant and substantial amount of progress that can and must be made via Federal Spending on Massive Infrastructure Rebuilding.

Just a short list of cities that need this kind of spending desperately: Detroit, Flint, Buffalo, Worcester, Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Gary, Chicago, Binghamton, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kansas City, Durham, Raleigh, Charlotte, Charlottesville, Fredricksburg, Memphis… and many, many more large and small cities and their surroundings across the entire nation… to say nothing of intercity infrastructure potential (rail! electrical grid! power generation! water distribution!)

Because of the character of Federal Contracting laws and Wage Equality laws and Civil Rights enforcement in hiring, wages, and contracting that are directly enforced during the contracting process, people of color, communities of color, and women stand to gain the most from such a program.