Sunday, May 7, 2017

Busting A Bernie-Or-Bust Buster, Buster

Cruising through Medium, I came across an item called "Bernie Or Bust People: Wake Up, You Were Conned." As so often happens, my reply to it ran a little long, so I decided to log it here:


It's still a minor marvel to me that so many Clintonites, who so often associate themselves with the reality-based community, feel no compunction against indulging in the same sort of ludicrous political fantasies as the absolute worst rightists. Some are, in this regard, so far gone there doesn’t even feel like much of a point in even trying to set the record straight.

Oh, well. Once more unto the breach...

No, Sanders supporters weren't "duped" nor "conned." They're not crazed cultists mindlessly following some messiah figure. They're not useful idiots who believed and acted on nonsense allegedly spawned by some foreign dictator. They represent a genuine political disagreement with the corrupt, rightist way of doing business of the Clintonites who dominate the party apparatus. And no matter how many of these fantasies you weave while entirely refusing to address it, you no more have the power to change that carved-in-stone, nowhere-to-run-or-hide fact than you have the power to make gravity reverse itself.

It should always go without saying (but usually ends up having to be said anyway) that any political movement--any political movement--attracts a certain percentage of kooks. The progressive left, which coalesced behind Sanders, is no different. I'd always cringe when I'd see some internet Berniecrat repeating the fiction that Hillary Clinton had smeared women who had been involved with her husband (in the more lurid versions, Bill is said to have sexually assaulted the women in question). They've always just been a small fringe though, certainly much smaller in number than the nutbar contingent that attached itself to Clinton (and is so generously represented here on Medium). We don't have any polling on the subject but we can say with confidence that the number of Sanders supporters who believed Clinton had ordered hundreds of people killed would be microscopic. Not even worth mentioning, unless the point is merely to come up with some way to try to smear Sanders’ supporters by an unsupportable inference.

Into that same category falls the efforts to blame such tales on Russian interference. There's no need to go looking to foreign lands; the American right has spun them for decades. Fairy tales are not why any significant number of people were supporting Sanders and opposing Clinton.

Fairy tales do, however, play a not-insignificant part in your own "analysis." You see fit here, for example, to repeat your claim from a previous article that "Bernie Sanders was never vetted by the media," which will, of course, be instantly received as a very poor-man's Brothers Grimm by anyone who paid any more than minimal attention to last year's campaign. Your examples of this alleged failure to vet are some vile ad hominems drawn from a bunch of anti-Sanders oppo-research the Clintonites dumped in the press during the campaign. Adam Johnson of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting covered how press Clintonites used this material to produce a seemingly endless array of anti-Sanders hit-pieces throughout the primary season. No matter how often they published it, though, Sanders' popularity continued to rise. The "information" has been a matter of public record since early 2016 and Sanders is, today, the most popular politician in the U.S..[1]

You cite a graphic which you assert tried to "separate truth from what was now a BernieOrBust created fiction" and source it to Politifact but you provide no link and reproduce the image so small, it's difficult to read most of it. Politifact isn't generally in the business of generating such graphics. It does, however, consider the claims made in graphics produced by others. Searches via Google, Bing and Politifact's own search engine turn up multiple examples of the org fact-checking various graphics from the Democratic primary season (or what passes for fact-checking from Politifact) but no stories in which that particular graphic appears. General internet searches for the graphic itself based on its legible wording also turn up nothing.

Of the Clintonite oppo-research and "Politifact" chart, you assert, "This, along with many other variables may be just one of other reasons why Bernie Sanders seemed to only attract a mostly white younger crowd of followers," but nothing you'd written makes any case for any of that material being particularly appealing to young white people, unless, of course, one assumes that young white folks are, as you'd just described Sanders supporters, particularly prone to being ignorant dumbasses blindly following a messiah-like cult-leader. I suppose it wouldn't be a Clintonite tract unless it had the standard race-baiting in there but if you can't bottle the ends, wouldn't it be better to simply leave that on the cutting-room floor for once? It isn't as if that particular breed of weaponized faux-"identity politics" isn't already generously represented in practically every Clintonite attack on Sanders these days. I doubt they'd have revoked your credentials in the club for failing to work it in somewhere.

You approvingly quote Clintonite smear-artist Steve Stoft:

"Sander's Vermont strategy was always to run as a spoiler, knowing that even if he couldn't win, he might throw the race to the Republicans."

That is, of course, a strictly tendentious characterization of Sanders' political activities over the years, with essentially nothing to support it. It's very clear that Sanders does have problems with both the major parties and has, throughout his political career, attempted to stand as a choice for views not represented by them and thus locked out of the system. More to the point, Sanders made it very clear throughout the course of his presidential campaign--starting, in fact, long before it even launched--that he wouldn’t act as a spoiler in that race.

"[T]hough he’s an independent, he has implied he wouldn’t run as a third-party candidate so as not to play spoiler."
--The Atlantic, 13 Nov., 2014

"I won’t play the spoiler."
--Sanders, New York magazine, 28 Dec., 2014

"Sanders rejected the idea of running for president as an independent. 'No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler,' Sanders said. 'I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.'"
--In These Times, 26 Jan., 2015

"[Sanders] emphasized that he would never run as a spoiler if it could lead to the election of a Republican president."
--Vox, 30 April, 2015

And on into infinity. And, indeed, once the primaries had played out, Sanders endorsed Clinton and spent the rest of the campaign working to elect her.

Contrary to the characterization of Sanders supporters as a cult, they didn’t go along with this. Throughout the 2016 race, Sanders had hosted the largest political rallies of any candidate of either party but when he started appearing on Clinton’s behalf, this dried up to the same nearly-nothing that had always greeted Clinton’s rallies. A lot of people loved him but they weren't cultist robots and weren't interested in simply doing what he told them. The movement wasn't about him. In the end, over 80% of them ended up voting for Clinton but they'd been telling pollsters they'd do that all along, and followed through on this even as Clinton went out of her way at every opportunity to aggressively alienate liberals/progressives while devoting her energies to courting Republican voters. You make the bold claim that
"In the meantime, the statistical information is in and those that made the choice to vote third party, sit out or even write Sanders name in, were the cause of the loss to Trump."
…which is the same farcical misrepresentation of the campaign one always gets from Clintonites. It's a fact that in the critical Rust Belt states, significant numbers of formerly Democratic voters either voted third-party or, much more often, simply stayed home, another smaller contingent of them voted for Trump and Trump won those states. Contrary to your assertion, there's no relevant data on people writing in Sanders' name (total write-ins nationwide accounted for only 0.56% of the vote in 2016), nor is there any relevant data on how many of those taking any of these other options being Sanders supporters. It's reasonable to assume that some unquantifiable percentage of Jill Stein's voters were former Sanders backers but only in Michigan and Wisconsin did her total vote exceed Trump's margin of victory. Absent the assumption that Clinton was somehow entitled to the votes of people who didn't want to give it to her, this is a non-issue.

More importantly, the entire suggestion that this is "the cause of the loss to Trump" in the way you make it is a comical atomization of the campaign. We have no real numbers for how many people participated in the Democratic primary/caucus process. The count on which Clintonites depend when making their oft-repeated (and bogus) claims of a "popular vote" victory in that process credits 15.8 million total participants but this excludes 8 contests entirely and has no real numbers for several others. Even if we had some way to theoretically fill in those blanks, the resulting number, less than half of which would be Sanders "voters," would still be utterly dwarfed by the total number who participated in the general election: 136.67 million people. Enough to swallow the total number of Sanders voters whole several times over. Clinton drew 65.85 million votes. The only reason one can pretend as if micro-factors like Jill Stein even mattered in the general is that Clinton, running against the most unpopular major-party candidate in the history of polling, couldn’t manage any significant lead over him, at which point it's necessary to point out that Clinton was the second-most-unpopular major-party candidate. That's what happens when you nominate such an unappealing, weak, loser candidate that most people hate.[2]

Moreover, Sanders was an energizing candidate, meaning he brought into the process large numbers of people who otherwise wouldn’t have participated in it. The fact that more than 80% of his supporters went for Clinton means that even her losing vote-totals are padded with an unquantifiable number of people Sanders delivered whom she would not have ordinarily received.

Now tell me I lack critical thinking skills and am a cultist, rather than a thoughtful, rational observer like you.

--j.

---

[1] More generally, the corporate press was a virtual monolith in forthright opposition to Sanders. After initially trying to ignore him to death--the usual treatment afforded any liberal or left candidate--it switched to attack mode and anti-Sanders editorials, both those clearly labeled and those presented as "news" articles, became a daily offering. In 16 hours leading up to the ever-important Michigan primary, the Washington Post ran 16 anti-Sanders stories. After Sanders trashed Clinton in Wisconsin, Clinton launched a new campaign to present Sanders as unqualified to be president but when Sanders responded, the entire press corps went nuts (at the behest of the Clinton campaign) and presented it as if he had gone negative and said she was unqualified to be president. When they realized a positive story about Sanders' legislative record somehow made it onto the New York Times website, Times editors took it down, rewrote it in order to turn it into an anti-Sanders hit-piece then republished it, without ever indicating they'd made any changes at all. In a great indication of how far this went, the Post ran a hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism wherein Philip Bump asserted that Sanders was lying when he was forever saying the average donation to his campaign is $27. Bump crunched the numbers and discovered that the actual average contribution was--wait for it--$29.14. In June, as the campaign was winding down and Sanders took some questions in California, a New York Times reporter actually asked if Sanders was "sexist" for running against Clinton, thus perhaps getting in the way of her becoming the first woman elected president. If the primary season had run another month, they would have been accusing him of being a sexist for merely existing. That Johnson piece at FAIR charts the course of this with many more examples. The claim that Sanders was never vetted is a standard one in Clintonite literature and it's just as false as the just-as-standard claim that Clinton's popular-vote victory over Trump was the largest in U.S. history.

[2] Priorities USA, the Clintonite super PAC, has conducted a bit of an autopsy of the 2016 loss, studying both former Obama voters who cast their ballot for Trump and the much larger group of drop-off voters who previously voted for Obama but declined to vote in the 2016 general. The org tries to fudge parts of the results, perhaps to soften the blow, but it shines through the numbers loud and clear. The drop-off voters have very negative general feelings about the Republican party and very positive general feelings about the Democratic party. They overwhelming believe the policies of Trump and of congressional Republicans will favor the wealthy over everyone else. Their values are forthrightly progressive on issue after issue. Overwhelming majorities of both the drop-offs and the Obama-Trump voters say their income is either falling behind the cost of living or just keeping pace with it. Asked about their priorities for the president and congress, here's a chart showing how Obama-Trump voters replied:


There are a handful of noxious Trumpite items among them, to be sure, but nearly all of these are progressive priorities (the circles were added by Priorities USA, not me; the "strongly support" and "mixed feelings" columns refer to respondents' view of Trump). Priorities USA concludes from this that "Clinton and Democrats' economic message did not break through to drop-off or Obama-Trump voters," but the problem here definitely isn't one of messaging; it's of the messenger with which Democrats had been saddled. Priorities USA gets squishy when it comes to to make an accounting of why the drop-off voters said they didn't vote, declining to provide a detailed breakdown, but disgust with the choices offered plays prominently in their accounting of it.

Monday, May 1, 2017

Another Anti-Bernie Sanders Hit Piece Considered

Another Medium-inspired rant; this time, I came across another anti-Bernie Sanders hit-piece. My response (which ends up here because, though not really a proper article in itself, it ran a bit long)...

Oh, look, another anti-Bernie Sander hit-piece. Just what the world needed. And as with almost every other article of this genre, it's mostly built on misrepresentations, fictions and horrendous and ill-informed value judgments. Let's see...
"While claiming politics was very important to him at an early age, he has also admitted to not voting until nearly 40 years old."
And then you quote Sanders very noticeably NOT admitting to having not voted until nearly 40. "I think probably, I won't swear to it, that the first time I voted was in the state of Vermont, probably for myself." Sanders’ first political campaign was for governor of Vermont; he launched it in 1971 when he was 30. In a five-year period, he ran four campaigns, twice for governor, twice for the senate, and even at the end of all that, still five years away from 40.

You offer a lot of tendentious talk about participation in electoral politics. "Even protesting has its limits in creating social change if the protesters are unwilling to back up their beliefs at the polls." Radicals typically aren't given a hell of a lot of options at the polls, which a big part of why so many left activists are indifferent to electoral politics--there's rarely anyone for whom to vote, the system is complete bullshit and they don’t feel like putting a stamp of approval on something they abhor. Sanders seems to have ultimately concluded that if the system isn’t producing what you want, do it yourself. He’s been doing the same for 46 years now.
"Only a wide-eyed idealist could say these things and not think they conflict with one another. If you believe elections are important because one gave rise to Hitler and therefore the Holocaust, why don’t you believe in them enough to vote in your own state’s or country’s until you're the one on the ballot?"
Oh, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that in those years in which he didn’t vote, Hitler was never on the ballot? Ya’ think?
"Perhaps that’s why in approximately 25 years in the House and Senate, Sanders doesn’t have a ton he can point to as an example of change he has championed and seen accomplished."
Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats but he’s an independent; he doesn’t have a party organization with 40 allies instantly behind him on a word. Despite these limitations, his legislative record is actually pretty impressive.

But to know that, you’d actually have to look into it instead of simply assessing his entire career via a pair of quotes from people who were supporting his political opponent at the time they offered the remarks in question (Barney Frank was particularly virulent in his hatred of the entire Sanders campaign).
“However, he conveniently leaves out votes against the Brady Bill, which mandated a waiting period when purchasing a firearm, and in favor of the now-infamous Clinton Crime Bill of 1994, among others.
“He was all too happy, however, to attack Hillary Clinton on such past issues while ignoring his own. This is the impulse of Bernie Sanders: everyone must past the purity test.
“Except Bernie Sanders, of course.”
Sanders never attacked Clinton on the Brady Bill (she attacked him on that one) or the 1994 crime bill. Sanders’ vote for the latter is probably the blackest mark on his legislative record. He voted for it because he strongly supported the Violence Against Women Act, which was attached to it, but that was a compromise he never should have made. He'd spent years denouncing the provisions of that crime bill and pretty much every bad thing he said about it ultimately came to pass. He was right on it but he cast the wrong vote. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, wasn't just an enthusiastic backer of the crime bill, she spent years parroting the same awful right-wing "tough on crime" demagoguery that had generated it. She was singing the same tune right through the 2008 election, attacking Obama as soft on crime. Sanders never criticized her support for it. He did correctly note that the "superpredator" comment Clinton deployed at the time was a term loaded with racist connotations.

Your version of the "purity test" attack on Sanders is that he 1) has a purity test and 2) exempts himself from it, which is, of course, a self-annihilating contradiction. One can be true or neither can be true but both can't be true. After invoking the dread "Purity Test" words against Sanders, you immediately deploy one against him, offering a long section devoted to questioning Sanders' credentials as a Democrat. You lead with a false claim:
"After years of presenting himself as a maverick totally independent of the two parties--to the point of even refusing to caucus with Democrats while he was in the House because they couldn’t pass his purity test”
Upon his election to the House, Sanders, in fact, lobbied for inclusion in the Democratic Caucus. This was repeatedly refused over the years--he didn’t meet their purity test. He’s always caucused with the Democrats though, and been treated as de facto family, getting committee assignments and support from the party in his reelection efforts. He and four other Demos founded the Progressive Caucus as sort of an off-shoot/collaborator with the Black Caucus. He's endorsed all of the Democratic presidential candidates. Later, you trash Sanders for some changing statements on whether he'll continue to call himself a Democrat or an independent, something, like the rest of this topic, is, for non-purists, of absolutely no consequence (20% of Democrats presently call themselves "independents," 28% call themselves "Democrats"), and if it ever occurs to you that perhaps Sanders had second thoughts about this as the primaries went along in response to the very shabby treatment afforded him by the DNC--the suggestions by Sanders' supporters of a rigged primary were, in fact, true--you remain silent on the matter.
“The debates with Clinton, civil at first, got nasty and more personal the longer the primary went. The more states Sanders won, the more savage he became.
“Sanders attacked Clinton for her past voting record, though it largely holds up to his own. He even at one point called the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State unqualified for the presidency. Then he began to claim the DNC had rigged the election against him.”
That’s a creative reimagining of the 2016 primary season. In the real world, of course, Sanders ran an issue campaign, describing Clinton from the outset as a friendly acquaintance and refusing to personally attack her, though she never hesitated to slanderously attack him at every opportunity. He held to this throughout the campaign, to his own significant disadvantage (and to the consternation of some of his supporters). After Sanders flattened Clinton in Wisconsin, Clinton launched a new campaign, the assertion that Sanders was unqualified to be president. When Sanders responded, he used this attack "as a rhetorical device to criticize her policy record." Robin Andersen, writing for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, provides a timeline of these events and describes the pathetic spectacle that followed, as Clinton campaign operatives exploded with mock self-righteous outage and got the entire national press corps to claim that Sanders had finally gone negative and had called her unqualified.

Having learned that you've been so grossly misled by the Clintonites--basically turned into a useful idiot a year after you could be of any real use to Clinton herself--I'm sure you're just as offended by Clinton's tactics as everyone else of good conscience. Right?
"We all know how the story of the primary ended: Clinton wound up building an insurmountable lead that included a raw vote advantage of approximately 4 million and more delegates than Sanders could have hoped to gain with the few states remaining."
There is no meaningful popular vote count in a primary/caucus process. What's presented as the "popular vote" and that you're referencing (repeating a false Clintonite claim, actually) was 3.7 million but that was the total after all contests had finished, not, as you presented it, as they were ongoing, and that number excludes and/or severely shortchanges numerous massive Sanders wins (I just covered all of this in a pretty long article of my own). Clinton only ever had an "insurmountable lead" because of the superdelegates, which, being a good Democrat, I'm sure you'll agree are an anti-democratic abomination that shouldn't have existed anyway. And you're bashing Sanders for declining to drop out while there were still states in play and beyond the point it was statistically likely he could win, exactly the same thing Clinton did in 2008. Maybe you thought poorly of Clinton for this then too--if  you're going to employ false Clintonite claims to attack Sanders, maybe you should say so.

"Since Trump’s inauguration in January, Sanders has consistently attacked Democrats and undercut them from the inside. Even knowing the Democrats face an uphill battle in fighting anything Trump and a GOP-controlled congress wants to do, Sanders can’t seem to quit stroking his own ego."
The usual Clintonite slander; it's all about Sanders' "ego" and not any sort of legitimate disagreement. In reality, Sanders is probably the least egotistical politician in government. Here's what Sanders has actually been doing since the new congress came into session. He and Sen. Amy Klobuchar put together an amendment that would have resulted in the Senate taking up the question of legally allowing importation of much cheaper prescription drugs from abroad. Sanders managed to convince 13 Republicans to support the amendment, and if you've paid any more than minimal attention to how things work in congress, you'll already understand how utterly extraordinary that is. But then Sen. Cory Booker ("D"-NJ) led a dozen other Democrats to vote against the measure, sending it down in flames. Booker and his dirty dozen are financed by Big Pharma. Seems a pretty good example of the sort of bribery-and-donor-service system Sanders has condemned for decades, eh? More to the point, these Democrats, not Sanders, were the ones undercutting most of their colleagues. Sanders has teamed with Sherrod Brown and Al Franken to introduce legislation to, among other things, allow drug importation, prevent Big Pharma from monopolizing the results of publicly-financed research, cut the government-granted monopoly period and allow generics to come to market sooner and allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices--basically everything Big Pharma opposes. He's introduced his newest free college tuition plan. He's introduced a bill raising the minimum wage to $15/hour. He's teamed with Jeff Merkley and Edward Markey to introduce legislation to "to build a 100 percent renewable energy economy by 2050." And he's working on introducing a new iteration on Medicare-for-all healthcare. While Clintonites sit on their asses writing poisonous articles like your own (calling Sanders things like a "saboteur from the inside"), he's been working his ass off on behalf of progressive legislation.

You assert that the DNC "has done everything they can think of to appease [Sanders] and his supporters" and use as your example new DNC chief Tom Perez magnanimously supporting the creation of a new position at the DNC for Keith Ellison, Sanders' choice to lead that org, after defeating Ellison for the top slot. In reality, the party bigwigs, upon realizing that a Sanders-backed liberal was about to become head of the DNC, recruited Tom Perez late in the game for no other reason than to take out Ellison. They dumped a bunch of anti-Ellison oppo research in the press to sabotage Ellison's campaign. Perez had no real platform; the Democrats made him the chairman at the same meeting at which, over the Sandersites' fierce objections, they declined to reinstate Barack Obama's ban on the DNC taking money from lobbyists and PACs. More dirty money in which to wallow. Presenting this as an example of the DNC trying to appease Sanders and his supporters requires ignoring pretty much everything that happened.

You turn to the special election in Kansas, where Berniecrat James Thompson, running in an overwhelmingly red district, still managed to come within a few points of his Republican opponent:
"Sanders did not support Thompson in person, vocally, or in writing. He ignored the campaign almost completely, yet saw fit to lecture Democrats on doing the exact same thing he did."
From the very Politico article to which you linked (but apparently didn't read): "Democrat James Thompson, a veteran and civil rights attorney who Sanders endorsed..." The Wichita Eagle: "Sanders, who came to national prominence last year with a surprisingly strong grassroots campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, had endorsed Thompson." The Associated Press: "Sanders did endorse and campaign for 46-year-old Democrat James Thompson, a civil rights lawyer, ahead of his closer-than-expected, losing effort in a special U.S. House election in Kansas last week."Sanders came to Topeka at the end of February, the only national figure to do so. The Berniecrat Our Revolution endorsed Thompson and provided modest support, only $900 (or that's all that's been reported so far). The comparable figure from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, whose dedicated job is to support Democratic candidates, is $0.

"Speaking of which, Sanders also remained conspicuously silent regarding Jon Ossoff and his campaign to take Georgia’s 6th District, vacated by current HHS Secretary Tom Price."
Ossoff had the support of the entire Democratic Establishment, which wasted enough money on him to have won a Senate seat, for no other purpose than to be able to go on television if he won and say "the Trump agenda is being rejected!" It was a bullshit show-election. Your conclusion that Sanders' failure to comment on that race illustrates "his unwillingness to simply help the Democrats in resisting the Trump agenda" is ludicrous.
"Sanders decided it would be a great idea to come out and attack the entire foundation of the party... Again, the sentiment isn't necessarily wrong. However, in a time when Democrats are doing all they can to resist a budding facist, it appears as though the effort to resist Trump really only counts if it's his idea."
Sanders said the Democrats' model is failing. The fact that Republicans now control 32 state legislatures, 33 governorships, the presidency, both houses of congress and the Supreme Court speaks for itself. Just as "clearly," argued Sanders, "the Democratic Party has got to change." There isn't even any conceivable argument against that, so you just try to present his case in favor of strengthening the party as one that undermines it, his argument that it must be a grassroots party as "an attack on the entire foundation of the party." The grassroots are the foundation of the party. You're clearly sympathetic to Sanders' views but you're tying yourself in knots for no other reason than to try to come up with some excuse to attack him, while, again, he's the guy pushing for every issue every progressive holds dear.

"Even if that idea means supporting a candidate who opposes abortion, despite the Democratic party’s official stance to the contrary.

"Again, that’s the purity politics of Bernie Sanders."
That's the "purity test" analysis of his nuttier critics--he stands perpetually condemned for both allegedly having a purity test then, in that case, for allegedly not having a stringent enough one. You can't have it both ways; that's just not possible. Heath Mello, the candidate in question, has an anti-abortion past but appears to be otherwise progressive. He's sworn he won't legally interfere with abortion rights. Take that for what it's worth but he's running for mayor, which means he won't be in any position to affect them anyway. His Republican opponent, on the other hand, is a conservative and strictly anti-abortion. One of them will be mayor.

Of what Sanders is preaching, you conclude, "The message itself is great, but the delivery is horrendous. Attacking the only party attempting to fight for the middle class, the environment, health care, and many of Sanders' other pet projects defies reason." To note what should be obvious, no party can do that if it's out of power and at present, the Democratic party is, in that regard, at one of the lowest points in its history--prostrate, decimated and entirely incapable of offering any resistance to Trump. Unless Trump suddenly decides to start talking to Democrats, Republicans will, for at least the next two years, decide the fate of the American government without any Democratic input at all. Sanders, the most popular pol in the U.S., is making the case for rebuilding the party. He's already shown the way with his small-donor-financed presidential campaign. As I've already covered, he's been working with other Democrats in the Senate to advance a progressive agenda, one on which that born-again party could be built. Those in the bribery-and-donor-service "neoliberal" Clintonite wing of it, who have brought it to such ruin, made sure to keep themselves in their cushy jobs in its leadership. The things that set them apart from actual liberals/progressives are incredibly destructive policies that have no popular support within the party. They're going to have to go. And in a sense, they already are. The young are with Sanders. They're the future.

It isn't as simple as that, of course. The Clintonites have massive backing from Big Money interests--they can put up a hell of a fight and will. Someone's going to win though. "This fight is simple," you incorrectly write, "Democrats are attempting to do the right thing for the country." Some are. They're Sanders' supporters and the people working with them--the progressives. They're not undermining the party; they're rebuilding it. If, on the other hand, you're a Democrat and you're sitting around writing utterly pointless slanders aimed at undermining them, you're part of the problem and certainly have no claim on any concern for doing "the right thing for the country."

--j. (who doesn't even believe liberal democracy is "the right thing for the country" but can see this)

Friday, April 28, 2017

Clean-Up On Aisle 2016

On Medium, the cycle of articles by seriously unhinged Clintonites offering fantastical reimaginings of the 2016 election has continued, though it has slowed considerably from last week. I've tackled several of them here in the last few days. They aren't getting any better but I can't deny I find them morbidly fascinating, Democrats adopting the same angry fantasy approach to looking at politics--or not looking at it--as those rightists most deeply under the spell of the right-wing Rage Machine. I find myself wondering how deep this particular malady may go. Many of these revisionist articles have become quite popular, with hundreds of "recommends" and dozens of favorable comments.[1] Cranks will crank, it seems, but a lot of the raw material for these crunkfests is misleading or false claims, often made during the campaign itself, that have continued to float around through the internet or in commentary on the election until they've taken on a life of their own. "There's a spill of toxic, smelly, sentient claims! Clean-up on Aisle 2016."




That "Popular Vote" Business

During the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton began making claims about how more of the "popular vote" she'd been getting than Bernie Sanders. Her minions picked up this talking-point and ran with it; more than a year after she first floated it, the Clintonites are still running. Some use the figure of 3.7 million, which is slightly rounded off, others "over 3 million." These days, whenever a Clintonite wants to rub everyone's nose in Clinton's glorious win over the evil Sanders, they throw out this factoid.

It's just propaganda though. There's no meaningful "popular vote" in such a process. The system is a patchwork. Every state has different rules. Some conduct primaries, some caucuses. Primaries may be open, partially open, partially closed, open to unaffiliated voters or closed to only registered party members. Party caucuses present those same variants. The rules for when one must be registered to vote, registered as a party member and so on are all over the board as well. Caucuses, by design, produce much lower participation than primaries of any kind. Some of them, in fact, don't even present any sort of "popular vote" count at all. The 14 states that held caucuses in 2016 were disproportionately Sanders states--he won nearly all of them. What all of this means is that in any pretended "popular vote" accounting of the primary/caucus season, a lot of Sanders' wins--even overwhelming wins--are made to look like next-to-nothing or literally nothing. When the Clintonites are claiming that 3.7 million "popular vote" victory over Sanders, here's the count they're citing. In the Alaska caucus, Sanders won by nearly 80%. This is a state in which over 100,000 people voted Democratic in the general but the number of votes Sanders is credited with receiving there is zero.[2] In the Washington caucus, Sanders won 72.7% in a state in which 1.7 million people voted Democratic in the general but again, he's credited with 0 votes. Sanders took Maine by over 64%; with 350,000 people voting Democratic in the Fall, Sanders gets nothing for that state. In Wyoming, which Sanders took by 55.7%, he's credited with only 156 votes! The number of county delegates that resulted. And so on. Sanders nearly tied Clinton in Iowa but isn't credited with any votes. Clinton isn't credited with any votes there either, or in Nevada, where she ultimately got a "win" by some very shady means but it's Sanders who is shortchanged by this count over and over again. Sanders was also disadvantaged in closed primary states, in that he was very strong with independent voters, who are, of course, locked out by those rules. The claim of a meaningful popular vote is premised on the idea of a process with uniform rules producing comparable results. Nothing like that exists here. It's time to lay that "popular vote" fiction to rest.


A Rigged Process?

Clintonites very forcefully reject the notion frequently advanced by Sanders supporters that the primary/caucus contests were "rigged" against Sanders--sometimes forcefully deny it while simultaneously trying to rationalize it--but this is just another case of howling at the moon.

The Democratic primary/caucus process is certainly strongly rigged in favor of Establishment candidates. This sort of rigging is unrelated to Sanders himself but it consistently operated to his disadvantage. The electoral calendar this season heavily front-loaded Southern states, which are more conservative and thus pro-Establishment. Though most are red states that don't contribute a single electoral vote to Democrats in the general, stacking them in this manner lets the Establishment candidate dominate the early phase of the race week after week, racking up major press coverage for the wins and huge electoral numbers early on, lending said candidate an air of invincibility. The Democrats' "superdelegates" are a much-discussed abomination--party bosses and insiders granted the equivalent delegate-power of, collectively, millions of voters but who aren't elected delegates by anyone and who are free to vote for whomever they please, regardless of who the voters in their states choose. A corrupt Good Ol' Boys Club practice meant to confer advantage upon Establishment pols. In an exceedingly rare moment of candor, Democratic National Committee chief Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, appearing on CNN in the midst of the campaign, admitted the superdelegates "exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists." Early on, the bulk of the superdelegates declared their intention to vote for Clinton at the convention and though they wouldn't vote until then and could theoretically change their minds at any time, the corporate press--as a virtual monolith pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders--used the superdelegates throughout the process to distort the standing of the race and present Hillary Clinton as unbeatable.[3] The supers are an affront to the very title "Democratic party."

And yes, despite the Clintonite objects, this last cycle also saw a great deal of additional effort expended by the party to specifically harm Sanders' candidacy and boost Clinton's.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was a Clintonite, the former co-chair of Clinton 2008 presidential campaign, a conflict of interest that should never have been allowed and that proved a constant problem.[4] She personally provided anti-Sanders propaganda at several points in the campaign. In Dec. 2015, a security hole appeared in a computer voter file system shared by the Democratic candidates, apparently the latest of many such problems. A Sanders IT staffer, who said he was investigating the extent of the problem, improperly accessed some apparently inconsequential Clinton data. Sanders fired the staffer, who had been recommended by the DNC in the first place.[5] Instead of quietly dealing with the security problem, DWS, in violation of the DNC's contract with Sanders over use of this system (which required a 10-day period to resolve any such disputes), immediately blocked Sanders' access to his own campaign data on the verge of the first political contests and ran to the press with the "story," resulting in days of negative coverage. To regain access, Sanders had to file a federal lawsuit, at which point the DNC backed down. When the Nevada Democratic party began putting its fingers on the scales in order to favor Clinton, it led to a raucous convention and DWS again went on television to accuse Sanders' supporters of chair-throwing violence at the event, a claim that had absolutely no basis in reality but was credulously parroted across the corporate press[6] at  the behest of the DNC itself (in a leaked email, DNC officials discussed passing around this false story "without attribution" to the DNC). When Sanders issued a response, which unequivocally condemned any violence, DWS ran to the press again, asserting that Sanders' statement just "added more fuel to the fire."

The DNC disgracefully manipulated the candidate debate schedule to favor Clinton. In the 2008 cycle, there had been 26 debates starting in April 2017 and continuing through the primary process the next year but debates are a good way for lesser-known candidates to put themselves in the public eye and that's something the DNC and the Clinton campaign wanted to avoid at all costs. In 2015, Hillary Clinton requested only four debates. Sanders and longshot contender Martin O'Malley persistently requested more; they wanted to get started early and get in many.[7] The DNC announced there would be six. If that wasn't comically one-sided enough, it also changed the rules to prevent candidates from participating in any unsanctioned debates, so there would be only six. And those wacky DNC Clintonites weren't finished yet. They dragged their feet about announcing dates for the events until August, then declared the debates wouldn't start until mid-October, 2 1/2 months after the Republicans started debating, and as reported by the Washington Post:

"It was at that point that outrage really began to build, because the dates themselves created a situation that began to be seen as problematic...  The problem is that of the four debates that are actually scheduled, three come on weekends (as opposed to during weeknight prime time), one of them on the weekend between the end of Hanukkah and Christmas."

Two of these were scheduled on Saturday, the lowest-rated night of the week on television. The Iowa caucus is the kick-off to the political season but the Iowa Democratic debate was scheduled an hour after the kick-off of the Iowa/Minnesota game, the latest chapter in a college football rivalry that dates back to the 1890s. Four of the debates would occur before any voting had taken place. The two remaining weren't to occur on the major networks but rather on Univision and PBS at undetermined dates in the future, the last one some time in March (while voting would continue, week after week, until 14 June).[8]

The hacked Democratic emails released by Wikileaks last year revealed that this awful debate schedule was crafted in collaboration with the Clinton campaign. In April 2015, two weeks after Clinton had officially entered the race, Charlie Baker, the campaign's chief administrative officer, wrote three other top Clinton officials outlining discussions with the DNC over the campaign's wishes to, among other things, "limit the number of debates," to "start the debates as late as possible," to "create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over" and to "ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate."[9] The DNC gave the Clinton campaign almost everything it wanted; the wishes of the other campaigns were simply ignored.

Once the debate schedule was publicly announced, DWS dug in her heels and rejected every request to change it, leading to a rift inside the DNC itself. In September, DNC Vice Chairs Tulsi Gabbard and R.T. Ryback went public with the disagreement, revealing that, contrary to DWS's public assertions, the officers and vice chairs of the party hadn't been consulted when she'd cooked up with the appalling debate schedule.[10] This led to a skirmish that played out in public. Gabbard was disinvited from the first Democratic debate. DWS gave an interview to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell in which she danced around these issues in her usual slippery and unconvincing way. Ryback called DWS a liar.[11] Gabbard eventually resigned from the DNC altogether.

The DNC and the Clinton campaign established the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising venture in partnership with several state Democratic parties allegedly aimed at raising funds for state-level Democratic candidates. These sorts of "victory fund" projects aren't an innovation but they're usually only done after the candidate has secured the nomination. The Hillary Victory Fund, by contrast, launched in 2015, months before the primary/caucus process had even started. Controlled by Clinton, the Fund was, in practice, treated as a Clinton campaign slush-fund and money-laundering operation, a way to circumvent campaign finance laws and accept donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars. A single donor to the Fund, giving in both 2015 and 2016, could contribute $700,000, whereas the legal limit for an individual donation to the campaign itself is only $2,700. In February--in the midst of the primary campaign in which Sanders' small-donor-funded campaign was proving a major obstacle to Clinton--the DNC quietly rescinded a rule that had been put in place by then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that barred it from accepting donations from federal lobbyists and PACs. As is her habit, Clinton hungrily dove in--within a few weeks, she'd set up a fundraiser for the Victory Fund featuring a Who's Who of big-shot lobbyists for regulated industry. In May, Politico revealed that

"less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort [the Victory Find] has stayed in the state parties' coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings... The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found. By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads... The fund represents by far the most ambitious use to date of a joint fundraising committee--and arguably one of the most ambitious hard-dollar fundraising efforts in modern presidential politics."[12]



The Wikileaks emails revealed that while DWS so self-righteously denounced Sanders for that apparently inconsequential data breach, the DNC itself had spies inside the Sanders camp passing them "intel"--the actual word used. DNC officials, who are, by the DNC's Charter, supposed to be neutral when it comes to the primary/caucus process, describe Sanders in dismissive, sometimes hostile terms, even discussing strategies that could be employed against him. During the primary season, the Clintonites significantly cut back on the usually much more vigorous voter registration drives the party typically conducts, apparently on the theory that registering young people amounted to registering Sanders voters. I'm not even going to get into allegations of actual fraud in some state contests. Doug Johnson Hatlem has tackled some of that material over on Counterpunch, for those who are interested. I've lived through enough campaigns to know there are always allegations of that nature and as a rule, I'm very skeptical of them. There are always errors that can be made to look sinister and there are always things that legitimately smell funny. There's a lot of stuff about various contests within the 2016 primary/caucus process that has that smell but I counsel extreme caution in considering them. What I've covered here are just some of the ways the system is rigged against anti-Establishment candidates and some of the ways in which the DNC, in collaboration with Clinton's campaign, was specifically working to rig the primary in Clinton's favor. After the Wikileaks revelations, DWS was forced to resign her DNC post in disgrace. And speaking of disgrace, Hillary Clinton, the very next day, made DWS "honorary chair" of one of her campaign initiatives. The Clintonites who, at this late date and in the face of this publicly-available information, so forcefully reject the notion that there were any efforts to tip the scales aren't just as nutty as climate-change deniers, they set themselves against the entire liberal tradition of demanding reforms of such abuses. Call 'em whatever, they ain't liberals/progressives.

Hold that thought.


Progressives = a Tea Party?!

A common theme among Clintonites is that the progressives who have coalesced behind Bernie Sanders are the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party. "What we have," writes a particularly charming one on Medium, "is an extremist fringe faction, just like the other side has." Both the Republican and the Democratic party are, at present, marked by interesting internal conflicts. The nature of the conflicts within each is, however, fundamentally different.

First and foremost, the "Tea Party" was an astroturf project, an effort by very powerful and well-heeled right-wing interests to project the illusion of a grassroots movement. These days, there are still people around who call themselves "Tea Partiers," but once Fox News stopped promoting it, the "movement" pretty much ceased to exist in any real form. It in effect never existed.[13] The greatest success of that project was to get nearly everyone who talks politics to use "Tea Party" as a new catch-all label for disaffected reactionaries. That's the sense in which Clintonites are using it when they make their comparisons. The Berniecrats, by contrast, are a genuine grassroots concern. Sanders funded his presidential campaign almost entirely via small-dollar donations from supporters and with the entirety of the corporate press dead-set against him, was able to challenge and often even outraise one of the most powerful political machines in the U.S. When it comes to the Republicans, the disaffected reactionaries are real; it's just silly to refer to them as the "Tea Party," because they aren't any sort of movement in the way that implies.

When the Tea Party was all the rage, its major accomplishment was a string of embarrassing electoral defeats wherein Tea Party groups backed extreme-right candidates over conservative Republicans. While the latter could have won, the former went down in flames over and over again. The reactionaries, who are now becoming increasingly protofascist, have gained significant power within the GOP as the right-wing Rage Machine has worked for years to mainstream them but they don't speak for most Republicans. The biggest part of the crisis in the Republican party is that while the party and its elected officials are already to the right of their own voting base, the reactionaries have tried to move it even more to the right, not just walking away from the public but increasingly walking away from their own voters.

This is exactly the opposite of what's causing all the fuss in the Democratic party. As with the Republicans, the party and its elected officials have moved significantly to the right of the voter base under, in this case, the influence of the Clintonites, but the Democratic voting base is progressive. Sanders' views on his headline items aren't representative of some fringe; they're the policies favored, in most cases, by the overwhelming majority of Democrats and of the general public as well. They represent the broad political center in the U.S. I've covered this at some length in the past. The matters that set the Clintonites apart, on the other hand, are right-wing economic issues and foreign policy warhawkism, things which have no significant support within the Democratic base. The former, in particular, is just bribery and donor service. Whereas the reactionaries are trying to get the Republicans to go so far right they're walking away from their own voters, the progressives are trying to get their party and elected officials to move in such a way that they actually represent Democratic voters.


"Those durn white men!"

Clintonites have weaponized "identity politics" in a way that's absolutely shameful, taking genuine issues and concerns of women and minorities and using them for crude race-baiting and sexist-baiting.

"Vote for me because I'm a woman" was a major theme of both of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns. Sanders suggests she's too Establishment, she responds, "how could that be? I'm a girl!" Sanders says she's too close to Wall Street, she fires back "most of my donors are women!"[14] This sort of nonsense led to an entire genre of Clintonite propaganda built on "reasoning" as bad as that of the worst professional Christian apologist literature. Several of the crackpot Medium Clintonites to whom I've been replying in recent days have continued in this dismal tradition, positing Clinton and her campaign as having ultimately fallen victim to sexist men, particularly Bernie Sanders, who just couldn't stand to see a woman succeed. The "Bernie Bros" label, thrown around by Clintonites last year to smear Sanders supporters as a cult of misogynistic frat-boys "mansplaining" the world to women, is ubiquitous. This notion was decisively dismantled during the campaign and was, in fact, just a rehash of a cynical Clintonite smear from 2008, when exactly the same narrative was deployed against Obama supporters, sometimes by exactly the same Clintonite writers (the Obama fans were called "Obama Boys").

Sanders' recent endorsement of Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha with an anti-abortion past, has resulted in a new round of demagogic Clintonite "identity" attacks in which Sanders stands accused of treating women's rights as negotiable, a side-issue. Mello has said he won't use his position to interfere with abortion rights. Take that for what it's worth but in any case, a local mayor isn't going to be setting abortion policy and while Mello seems to be otherwise progressive, there's no bulletproof pro-choice candidate in the race; his Republican opponent is unequivocally anti-abortion and one of the two is going to win. Sanders is ubiquitously slammed in Clintonite broadsides for applying a "purity test" for progressives, an accusation that his views mirror that of reactionaries in the Republican party. In the matter of the Omaha race, the Clintonites are also slamming him for not applying a strong enough purity test. If the reader gets the idea from all of this that the point is merely to slam Sanders whatever he does, not to have any real or consistent reason for doing so, the reader is paying attention. In that regard, it's also worth noting that this criticism is coming from those who championed--and champion--Clinton, who has expressed a willingness to support restrictions on abortion and who chose as her running-mate--the man who would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States if she'd won--Tim Kaine, a pol with an anti-abortion history whom Sanders strongly opposed as a v.p. choice.[15]

One subspecies of these attacks slams Sanders for referring to abortion, gay rights, etc. as "social issues," as opposed to "economic issues," and Clintonites, as if reading from the same script, angrily insist social and economic issues "ARE THE SAME THING," are "indivisible," and so on. In this narrative, it's said Sanders doesn't consider those "social issues" as of the highest importance and regards them as things that take a back seat to his "economic issues," which is, of course, a farcical misrepresentation; Sanders, in these comments, is talking about areas in which progressives can find agreement with people who don't necessarily share 100% of their values. It's one of his regular themes. It's politicking, not an assessment of the relative merits of these policies.

These sexist-baiting attacks are often accompanied by race-baiting attacks, which, in turn, also exist as their own genre. Sanders' socialistic calls for working-class solidarity and a working-class politics are rhetorically transformed by hostile Clintonite commentators into something aimed only at the "white working class."[15] Anna March calls it "Sanders' white-male dog-whistle rhetoric." Thursday, a Medium Clintonite offered these fairly representative remarks:

"In order to properly talk about the disconnect between people of color and the far left, we have to talk a bit about why Sanders lost in the primary. His message primarily targeted the white working class and focused on 'economic' issues versus 'racial' ones. He rejected identity politics and had virtually no political capital with minorities even after decades in Congress."

Sanders insistence on raising the minimum wage, it would seem, would only help white men. No black folks need jobs, so the many that would be created by, say, Sanders' proposed massive infrastructure spending wouldn't help them a bit. Likewise, the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Sanders opposes, would only destroy the jobs and drive down the wages of white people, so why should black folks be concerned about it? I suppose black folks never get an education, so making public universities tuition-free wouldn't do one thing to help them. Communities of color are immune from damage to the environment. Brown people never need healthcare either. They never get sick--that's all white-guy stuff. No one of color is ever poor, is ever sent off in disproportionate numbers to prison or to fight wars abroad or requires Social Security in old age. Sanders' opposition to nationwide Republican efforts to disenfranchise minorities only helps... well, I'm sure there's some way in which it only helps white folks. The benefits of Sanders' path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would accrue to blue-eyed blondes from Scandinavia. The law enforcement and drug-war reform favored by Sanders echo the goals of the special All-Caucasian faction of Black Lives Matter. These, you see, are all just "economic" issues, not "racial" ones.

How about we cut the bullshit, eh? When Bernie Sanders was a teenager in the 1950s, he ran for class president of his high-school on a platform of creating scholarships for Korean orphans.[16] He's been fighting for the rights of minorities and women for a lot longer than most of the people reading my words today have been alive and certainly has a far better record than Clinton, whose terminal political opportunism and lack of principle have led her down some very ugly roads with these issues, as with so many others. In every congress for more than two decades, Sanders has earned a score of 90% or higher from the NAACP. The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda gives him a perfect 100% rating. For all the current Clintonite carping about Sanders and abortion, Sanders holds a 100% lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League. When asked about the issue during last year's debates, Clinton hemmed-and-hawed around about late-term abortions. Sanders was short and to-the-point: he would agree to no legal restrictions at all. There's no more pro-choice politician in national politics than Bernie Sanders. "Rogue journalist" Caitlin Johnstone wrote a good, short piece on Tuesday about the phoniness of Clintonites who pretend to be "feminists" while running down the actual feminist agenda supported by Sanders.

The Clintonites' weaponization of a bogus "identity politics" against Sanders is disgraceful--crude race-baiting and sexist-baiting deployed against progressives who are, in reality, much better on race- and gender-related issues than the heroine lionized by those doing this shit-talking.[17] Directly mirroring what conservative Republicans have done for decades, it's a cynical ploy of using social issues as divisive wedges to try to put natural allies at odds, almost inevitably in the service of promoting or electing one of those Clintonite pols whose real agenda is too rightist to be sold if it were plainly stated.[18] People don't need ridiculous, made-up reasons not to talk to one another.



"You elected Trump!"

An unhinged Clintonite ranting at a Sanders supporter: "Thanks for giving us Trump... Republicans are ready to destroy everything we worked for over the last 70 years. Congrats! You did that!"

This is boilerplate Clintonite sentiment, almost as common as the "Bernie Bros" slur, the idea that Clinton would have won if only Sanders hadn't fought a primary battle against her. Baked into that is a sense of entitlement that is as sweeping as it is sickening, Clintonites wholly rejecting the notion that the party nominee should be decided via a vigorously contested democratic process and asserting, instead, the view that their candidate was entitled to a coronation, free of serious challenge. Question her right to the crown, you're responsible if she loses; if you'd have just fallen in line, she would have won. This for an appropriately imperious candidate who, according to the recently-released book "Shattered," had no real reason for running for president beyond personal ambition. The Clintonites going this route necessarily dismiss the idea that a candidate should have to earn people's votes. The attitude is right there in the campaign slogan, "I'm With Her," whereas a voter sizing up a candidate, who doesn't know he's just supposed to rubber-stamp Hillary Clinton, wants to know if she's with him.

The more hysterical Clintonites are positively ferocious in their fantasy reauthorings of  2016. Here, for example, we're informed that Sanders "did everything he could to harm Clinton." In the real world, of course, Sanders ran an issues campaign. He emphasized over and over again that Clinton was a friend of his and refused to personally attack her, to--it's worth noting--his own significant disadvantage (because she certainly didn't exercise such forbearance when it came to him). He wasn't really running against her; he was running against the system she represented. When you feel as entitled as the Clintonites though, any challenge is just considered beyond the pale. Take (please) Kevin Drum, for example:

"I reserve most of my frustration for Bernie Sanders. He's the one who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street. She gave a speech to Goldman Sachs! He's the one who convinced them she was a tool of wealthy elites. She's raising money from rich people! He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill. She supported the TPP! "

The orgy of fundraising in which Clinton engaged, the fact that Wall Street owned the single biggest piece of her and her history with the TPP and similar multinational "free trade" agreements probably had a lot more to do with that than anything Sanders did but no matter; when reading really rabid Clintonites, one must remember that reason plays little part in the proceedings and Clinton is never held to be responsible for anything. It's an attitude bred into them over the years by Clinton herself.

Putting aside that ridiculous sense of entitlement and the goblins that flow from it, the larger idea that Sanders and his followers are responsible for Trump has several other rather unavoidable problems.

A major one is that Sanders probably would have beaten Trump. One can never make such an assertion with complete certainty but we do have a great deal of relevant data on the 2016 contest and all of it points to that conclusion--not just a Sanders win but a one-sided massacre. As I've already written about that at length, I'll just leave a link to my earlier piece. That article also covers the fact that Clinton was always a weak, loser candidate, with the facts and figures to document it. Sanders was always much stronger. As I've said in the past, if the idea was to defeat a Republican, it was never responsible to support Clinton in the first place.

The other big one was documented in the Wikileaks releases: while Clinton and the DNC were, as covered earlier, working to undermine the Sanders campaign, they were also working to build up the far-right Republican candidates Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. Eventually, just Trump. In the emails, the Clintonites discuss making these nutter candidates representative of the "mainstream" of the Republican party and urging the press to take them seriously. Though this looks awful in hindsight and actually was awful when one considers the obvious weakness of Clinton as a candidate, this wasn't, in the abstract, a bad idea. The strategy was to elevate the most out-of-the-mainstream opponents as a way of getting the Republicans to embrace increasingly extreme views that would hurt them in the general. No one wants to face a tough general-election opponent if a weak one can be substituted. If one is to play this game, Trump was the obvious choice; Clinton certainly couldn't have beaten any of the other major Republicans (even Jeb Bush was beating her in the head-to-heads by the time he withdrew from the GOP race). "Clinton, at least, got the opponent her aides wanted, and a strategy to stick to," wrote Gabriel Debenedetti on election day. So while the Clintonites want to blame Sanders and progressives for electing Trump, it was, in fact, the Clinton campaign that was elevating Trump while weakening the fellow who would have probably beaten him.


Clinton won the popular vote by the biggest... something...

Multiple Medium Clintonites have thrown at me various claims about Clinton's popular-vote win being historically large. One claimed Clinton had gotten more voters than any candidate in history. Another asserted that Clinton won the popular vote by "the widest margin in history." These are false claims but they don't originate with these Clintonites. Instead, this was a mistake made by the International Business Times, which ran with a headline, "Hillary Clinton Gets More Votes Than Any Candidate Ever." This ended up on Yahoo news and Facebook and apparently spread pretty far before it was corrected. As often happens, the correction hasn't yet caught up to the eyes of everyone who saw the original story. The tale of the flap is here. Clinton’s "victory" wasn’t even close to the largest in U.S. history. Failing to win even a majority of the vote--she finished with only 48.2% of the total--Clinton outscored Trump in the popular vote by a margin of 2.1%. If she’d taken the electoral college, vote-count unchanged, she would have edged out Jimmy Carter’s 1976 defeat of Gerald Ford to finish in 39th place in the rankings--closer to the bottom of the pile.

A somewhat modified version of this that has also turned up is the claim that Clinton "won more votes than any white man ever, which is incredible when you think of the hundreds' years history of this country." It isn't so incredible when one thinks of elementary-school math. The "white man" thing is thrown in as a modifier to knock Obama out of the running, since Obama drew far more raw votes than Clinton. Once Obama is gone, though, one must go all the way back to 2004--12 years of millions of people getting old enough to vote and registering, far more than are dying off in that time. There were over 200 million registered voters in 2016--the largest number ever--vs. only 142 million in 2004. Unless there's some catastrophic collapse in turnout in 2020, the winner of that election will get more raw votes than did Hillary Clinton, and the winner in 2024 will get even more than that--that's how population-growth works. This is a soundly pathetic effort to try to credit Clinton with something historic.


"Y'mean those polls that predicted a huge Hillary win?"

When I've noted to the fact that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the U.S. or pointed to Clinton's wretched and declining poll numbers around the time she entered the presidential race, I'm immediately met with snarky comments suggesting polls got the election very wrong and are thus entirely unreliable. There's a persistent notion that scientific polls are just like some kind of magic-show trick. While a lot of oddsmakers got the election wrong and a lot of oddsmakers are pollsters and a lot of people, when they have some personal interest in the outcome, make a big show of not understanding the difference between a poll and odds, oddsmakers work from a system of which polls are merely a part. Here are the final national polls from the RealClearPolitics database, along with their margins of error, in the column marked "MoE."


Knock out the YouGov poll that doesn't contain the error info. Clinton won the race by a 2.1% margin. Taking the MoE into account, every one of these polls accurately called that outcome within a fraction of 1%. You can't ask for much better accuracy than that.


Anyone But Clinton

In trying to explain the outcome of the 2016 race, Clintonites almost without exception rattle off a list of excuses for for Clinton's loss. It was Bernie! It was the Russians! It was James Comey!

As already covered, Sanders can only be considered responsible if one assumes Clinton was entitled to the Democratic votes she failed to earn. That's a non-starter. Russian strongman Vladimir Putin may very well have intervened in the election. The responsible government agencies insist this is so, though they haven't really offered solid evidence of it. But the significant interference the Russians are alleged to have carried out is the hacking and release of all those internal Democratic emails, and 100% of the damage done by those was a consequence of the horrendous behavior of the Clintonites, as revealed by them. James Comey's grandstanding in the final days of the campaign was outrageous, probably a violation of his bureau's rules and should have resulted in his being fired but again, the only reason he could damage Clinton was because Clinton was, in fact, under federal investigation. If the Democrats had gone with a candidate who wasn't, that wouldn't have been possible. If the Democrats hadn't gone with such a bad candidate, the race against Trump--the most unpopular major-party presidential candidate in the history of polling--wouldn't have been close enough for a stunt like that to have had enough impact to even matter.

No matter how you look at it, the problem is still the same. She was always a weak, loser candidate, an inveterate liar who compounded that sin by being a really bad one, an utterly unprincipled, triangulating opportunist whose instincts were conservative, who absolutely oozed insincerity and whose "views" were dictated by the momentary direction of the political wind and the self-concerned desires of the Big Money interests to whom she aggressively prostituted her future administration--literally the future of the United States. Clintonites can scream, thrash, lie, slander, write all the ugly polemics they like, wallow in all the puerile fantasies they can conjure but when all is said and done, the major reason Hillary Clinton lost is still Hillary Clinton.


"Clintonites": A Proposal

The most recent article by one of the persistent Medium Clintonites is called "Tough Luck Destroyers of Hillary Clinton: You Won the Battle, You Won't Win the War." The 2016 election is over. Hillary Clinton will never run for office again. Bernie Sanders will probably stay in the Senate for many years to come. His supporters will be around for much longer. They're the young. The future. In continuing this incredibly ugly campaign against them, this Clintonite and the 666 who have currently recommended her article--and no, I'm not making up that number, that's what it is as I sit here--are lining themselves up behind the political equivalent of a dead woman and making war against the future of their own party on behalf of the corpse.

I've gotten a lot of comments about my use of the word "Clintonite." I've used it for some time now. It's just a not-particularly-innovative word I made up, one anyone could make up. Some of the Clintonites really dislike it. It seems to me that it would be a very useful word to solve some of the problems of vocabulary that have cropped up in dealing with these subjects. Hillary Clinton is of a particular breed of Democrat that combines 1) liberal/progressive views on various social issues, adopted (in her case, opportunistically) as a means of drawing votes, 2) conservative views on an array of economic issues, adopted as a means of drawing campaign contributions from Big Money interests, and 3) a right-wing, hawkish foreign policy. In the 1990s, such politicians were called "New Democrats." The word most commonly applied to them today is "neoliberal," but that's problematic for a number of reasons. "Neoliberal" already has other established meanings and no iteration has anything to do with a warhawk foreign policy. The word itself--"new liberal"--makes it sound as if it's not only a legitimate evolution of liberal but some new-and-improved version and the Clintons of the world certainly doesn't deserve that connotation. "Corporate Democrats," another common phrase for these pols, is more to the point on the donor corruption but has a similar problem with the foreign policy. These pols are rightists on most of the big issues but calling them that or "conservatives" or something similar is also strange, as that's not the voting populace to which they try to appeal. At the same time, the rightists policies, as mentioned earlier, have no real support within the Democratic voting base.

Why not just call them "Clintonites," as I've been doing?

It's as good a word for them and for their followers as any. You say "Clintonites," it conjures up all the right associations. Clinton is history now and, in fact, was already history when she ran in this last election, the representative of a tired, corrupt old way of doing business that voters thought they'd already rejected years earlier. Instead of the new-and-improved implied by "neoliberal", "Clintonite" sounds appropriately anachronistic, a dinosaur from the past still causing problems in the present, because while Clinton is gone, the Clintonite leadership of the party is still alive and kicking and after bringing their party to virtual ruin--this may be the lowest point for the Democratic party in its history--they made sure they kept their own cushy jobs in the leadership. They have a big donor base behind them and they're still very much an ongoing problem. As this stream of recent articles demonstrates, their followers are still out there as well, many of them seriously disconnected from reality. The Clintonite presence in the press is strong.

At present, major segments of the Clintonite press is absolutely obsessed with the Russia/election interference "story" and is devoting obscene amounts of space to chasing the mostly ludicrous notion of Trump team collaboration on same while ignoring or giving short shrift to important aspects of the horror-show in the White House. Russia is being used by the Clintonites everywhere to avoid addressing what actually happened last year. The idea that Trump was conspiring with the Russians is also a version of Benghazi, an effort to manufacture a faux-scandal and milk it for political advantage, yet another way in which the Clintonites are a mirror of the rightists.[19] As I've covered here and in my previous articles over the last few days, they're anti-democratic, they're anti-progressive (while they pay lip-service to the principles, they lined up as a monolith to take down the progressive candidate last year and too many continue to despise and slander him), they turn a blind-eye to abuses rather than calling for reform, they refuse to address the question of corrupt money at a time when their favored pols are wallowing in the same Big Money graft as the Republicans, they cynically manufacture the same sort of wedge-issues as the right and they're as lost in their political fantasies as the most clueless Trumpanzees. And on and on. Definitely not liberals/progressives. I call them Clintonites. If that sounds about right to you, dear reader, maybe we can make it a trend.

--j.

---

 [1] Less than favorable appraisals of them by myself and others have drawn some attention as well but rarely as much.

 [2] I'm including the number of Democratic voters in the general to give an idea of the voter-pool available in these states who were, in effect, being represented by those caucus outcomes. It isn't to suggest that if those states had held primaries, that many people would have shown up--there are always way more voters in a presidential general--or that Sanders would have won theoretical primaries there by the same margins.

 [3] Maybe the only good thing I'd ever say about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is that she did go on Rachel Maddow's show during these elections and note that the press was misrepresenting the state of the race by using the supers in this way.

 [4] Though only the most prominent of a whole host of conflicts of interest that haunted this campaign.

 [5] NGP VAN, the company that ran the system and with whom the DNC contracted--and that was responsible for the security problems--was co-founded by Nathaniel Pearlman, who had been chief tech officer to Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. Stuart Trevelyan, the company's President and CEO, had a history with the Clintons that went all the way back to Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992 (he'd also worked in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs during the Clinton administration). The company's vice president of creative marketing was Aharon Wasserman. Familiar name, eh? He's the nephew of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. At the time, some conspiracists--mercifully few--had a field day with all these conflicts

 [6] Bradley Schrager, the Nevada Democratic party general counsel, took a particularly deep dive into demagoguery when he wrote in a publicly-released letter to the co-chairs of the DNC Rules and By-laws committee, "The explosive situation [at the Nevada convention] arose in large part because a portion of the community of Sanders delegates arrived at the Nevada Democratic State Convention believing itself to be a vanguard intent upon sparking a street-fight rather than attending an orderly political party process... We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sanders campaign's penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior--indeed, actual violence--in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats."

 [7] Sanders requested a very ambitious schedule, a wide-ranging series of debates that would start early, in the Summer of 2015, and take place across the U.S., including in places that are traditionally neglected by Democrats. He even wanted to try to arrange for a few events wherein the Democratic candidates could debate the Republican candidates.

 [8] As it played out, Sanders destroyed Clinton in the first debate, starting a chain of events that put her candidacy in trouble and she was eventually forced to yield and grant a few more debates, a decision the DNC immediately rubber-stamped.

 [9] The campaign wanted to limit Clinton's exposure as much as possible. Displaying Clinton's usual lack of transparency--a cardinal sin for any candidate for high office--Clinton also refused to hold any press conference during the whole of the active primary season right on through to a month-and-a-half after the Democratic convention--between 5 Dec. 2015 and 5 Sept. 2016, not a single one. Baker, later in the debate email, writes:

"One remaining issue is the criteria for participation: we believe it is important to the extent possible to keep the debates 'multicandidate' and to eliminate the possibility of one on one debates; the most likely standard that would achieve this result is to allow any announced candidate who is: 1) a Democrat and, 2) who meets some threshold of viability (1 percent) in either a national or state specific (e.g. Iowa, NH) to participate."

The more candidates that can be packed into an event, the less time can be spent on each. The initial Democratic debate on 13 October included longshots Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb, candidates who barely even registered in the polling at the time. Chafee and Webb were gone after the first; O'Malley stuck around for three more.

[10] Journalist John Heilemann confirmed this account: "...the manner in which Wasserman Schultz crafted the scheme all but guaranteed an eventual blowup. According to several people with front-row seats for the hatching of the plan, the chairwoman made her decision unilaterally, without consulting or even telling the rest of the committee's high command, including her vice chairs, in advance.

"'She presented this to us as a fait accompli as she was about to go out and announce it to the whole committee,' Rybak told me. 'I said to her, "Well, at least there's some way you can explain why you came to that decision." She didn't even do that. She gaveled people out of order without any explanation.'"

[11] The flap got top Democrats talking to the press: "Of two dozen Democratic insiders with whom I spoke this week, including several DNC vice chairs, not one defended Wasserman Schultz’s treatment of Gabbard. Most called it ridiculous, outrageous, or worse. Many argued, further, that the debate plan enacted by the chairwoman is badly flawed—an assessment shared by many party activists, left-bent supporters of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and those candidates themselves, all of whom see it as a naked effort to aid and comfort Hillary Clinton."

[12] The leaked Democratic emails made available by Wikileaks later revealed that the DNC was working to obscure and conceal details of the Victory Fund as journalists were looking into it.

[13] Way back in 2010, when the "Tea Party" was at its height, the Washington Post conducted a canvas of every such group it could find. Most of them, unsurprisingly, were connected to the big astroturf orgs (or the Republican party), most of them had fewer than 50 members and the median cash on hand for the groups was only $500.

[14] If it needs to be said, whimsical paraphrases there, not direct quotes.

[15] The tendency to treat "working class" and "white working class" as interchangeable is, it should be said, an unfortunate habit that extends far beyond Clintonites. It has become a bit of a minor plague on mainstream political commentary.

[16] By contrast, Clinton, when she was a teenager, was a "Goldwater Girl," in support of the segregationist campaign of Barry Goldwater.

[17] It's hard to overstate that "disgraceful" too. One of the lowest points of the entire Democratic primary happened when civil rights legend John L. Lewis, a Clinton backer, Swift-Boated Bernie Sanders on Sanders' involvement in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, hinting that Sanders hadn't been involved in such activities and even that Bill and Hillary Clinton had--an entirely fictional account. The astonishment I sometimes derive from observing politics usually comes from seeing people do incredibly stupid things and not understanding why they'd do it. It's virtually never from some innovation in political atrocity--when it comes to that, I've pretty much seen it all. Lewis's stunt was one of those rare times I genuinely couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. The context was a group of black Clinton-supporting legislators, including Lewis, trying to sell Clinton to the large black Democratic population in South Carolina. The Clintonites went out of their way to burn every bridge in order to ram Clinton down everyone's throat but this was still a huge shock Right up to the second he did it, I never would have believed Lewis capable of such a thing. I don't think I'd put him on too much of a pedestal--civil rights hero or not, he's a politician and I know better--but he definitely cracked some image I had of him and I'll certainly never look at him the same way again. Maybe just in disbelief, I predicted he wouldn't be able to let it stand. Less than 24 hours later, I was proven right. He "clarified" his comments; he walked back all of it.

[18] Getting to the true nature of these race-baiting and sexist-baiting attacks usually requires little more than what I've done above and what Johnstone did in her piece. Note the complete lack of substantive policy discussion every time this line of attack is rolled out. What was Clinton doing on these race- and gender-related matters that was so great and that Sanders wasn’t doing? Discussion of such questions is always either directly avoided or a fantasy policy discussion is advanced in place of the real thing (Sanders is anti-abortion!). And that's because any serious discussion lays bare the shallow sham of the entire attack.

[19] Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director for Clinton's campaign, is hitting this Russia rot hard, writing in the Washington Post that "Democrats should push for this relentlessly and above all else. They should talk about it in every interview. They should invoke the "big gray cloud" that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said hangs over the Trump administration--so often that anchors sigh and roll their eyes when they say it."  She'd peddling the fantasy that "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they’ll be with us."