Slate (Hat tip, Jaclyn Reiss in the Globe):
Isaac Chotiner: What do you make of Bernie Sanders’ success thus far, even if he is likely to come up short in terms of delegates?
Barney Frank: Remember he’s way behind not just in delegates but in votes.
Yeah I know, but still—
It’s ironic that we complain about voter suppression and shortened voting times and then we have so many caucuses. The caucuses are the least democratic political operation in America. They cater to the people who have a lot of time on their hands, and what’s interesting is Sanders is the nominee of the caucuses and Hillary is the nominee of the primaries.
I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.
So it seems like you’re saying Bernie’s voters have a slightly unrealistic sense about the political process. And that this is driven—
I didn’t say slightly.
OK.
Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that’s because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that’s the same with the Tea Party. It’s “I voted for these Republicans, we have a Republican Congress, we voted for them, they took over Congress, they didn’t accomplish anything.” You gotta win at least two elections in a row.
Tough love.
Like this is unexpected.
In the eyes of voters Barney Frank is the establishment that Hillary is part of. And in a way he is. Same cocktail party circuit. Same cliques.
Of course he would help out his friend Hillary. They have a relationship. Bernie caucuses by himself.
So, point being, This is not tough love. In fact it’s benign and predictable.
Like you speak for anybody, behind a fake name.
In what way? He started in Kevin White’s office wit George Regan.
He’s an old Democrat. The is a whole new attitude out there.
And all I did was humbly point it out and in return I am attacked. Then Bob gives a passive aggressive up-rating for this attack.
Barney Frank got his partner a job a Freddy Mae or Freddy Mac, insitutions he oversaw as chairman of the finance committee.
That may have been okay ten years ago but the new majority calls that the establishment. IMHO
… every last thing you said was, prior to you saying it, 100% gospel truth the very fact that you say it increases the supply of salt in the world
That’s the kind of dishonest, rage-filled and cowardly punk that you are: even when you speak something that might be superficially true you only increase doubt. I bet that makes Mom real proud.
Everyone knows I am not a fakernie fan, but this comment is the epitome of an ad-hominem attack. Petr implies that anything fakernie says is inherently questionable, without any refutation of his claims at all. The comment’s entire content is an attack on fakernie’s character, and adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Should be deleted for violating the guidelines.
And leave Mrs. Boch out of it….she has enough problems with EB3 for a kid
If EBIII, behind his more-than-anonymous, wants to be the comic relief around he’s apparently welcome to the job. Such a role, however, constrains his ability to speak authoritatively on any subject or on behalf of anyone else.
If he wishes to speak with authority or on behalf of anyone else he needs to unmask and stand up.
I did not attack EBIII’s character. I attacked his caricature.
Good line.
while simultaneously having a non-identifiable username and not including your full identifying info in your bio… is a bit hypocritical.
This site benefits from having members who are anonymous or semi-anonymous, and depend on nothing more or less than the content of their posts.
Go back an read what I wrote paying particular attention to the conditionals.
You really do need to bone up on your reading comprehension. That’s neither dig nor smear: I’m honestly, straight-up, telling you that you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t fully comprehend what you read. And then you shoot from the hip aiming at what you think you read. You did this when the topic was the Olympics. You did this when the topic is GE. You’ve done it to marked degree. You’re doing it now. I know it’s difficult to believe, but I am trying to help you. Humble down and accept the help.
I’m not going to go back and read an insulting post written by an insulting person. My time has more value than that.
Have a great day.
… if you don’t learn to read better, it doesn’t. Your time will have no value whatsoever if you continue to shoot from the hip without understanding what you’re shooting at and why.
I’m not telling you this because I think I’m better than you. I’m telling you this because I’ve been in your position.
I really don’t care what you think about me or what assumptions you’d like to make even as you know jack about me. If you weren’t such an insufferable dick, I may have even given a mea culpa on that GE comment I made where I was wrong on a key point, but you leap to conclusions in the most demeaning of ways and have continually and quite personally harassed me ever since.
I am done with you. Leave me alone.
I don’t believe the EB3 moniker has ever done anything with humility.
as does everyone else on this blog. That is the problem with the supporters of HC. They cover their ears and stomp their feet when someone tries to point out the fragility of Clinton’s candidacy. Forcing the more popular candidate to drop out so that the nomination may be handed to Hillary is not the wise or proper course. Like it or not, many people feel that she has been force fed down their throats. How about making her earn it? Is that so bad? I think it will make her stronger.
.. because he used the very words “In the eyes of voters ” which — unless there was a huge shift in language nobody told me about — is exactly and precisely a statement made on behalf of others. Derp.
That’s even funnier, since I am not an HC supporter
This is the problem with Sanders supporters: they think every criticism of their candidate is an opportunity to accuse HC, or her supporters, of mendacious advantage-seeking> That they never once considering the possibility of a truth fueling the criticism is telling. Where would that kind of thinking come from…? I wonder…
…and nobody is suggesting anyone drop out, though the vote totals do not bear out that he is more popular than she is (and a halftime national poll means squat). She of all people wants to earn it and remembers she was the one playing catchup at this time in 2008.
Horrific.
If only Congressman Frank was in a position to improve the system while we voters kept screwing it up.
I understand what he’s doing (I think), but blaming the voters won’t help.
… like Frank is calling out people who A) didn’t vote in the 2010 and 2014 midterms and 2) complain that things didn’t turn out like they (theoretically) would have voted. I agree with him.
I think there is a distinction between the nominative instance, that of the voters as a group of people with the ability to vote, versus the instance of voter action, that is to say people who committed an actual vote.
Since he was too close to Wall Street and got the same contributors that brought about Chris Dodd’s early retirement. His promotion of Fannie and Freddie prior to the crisis probably helped exacerbate it, not nearly as much as Republicans say it did, but enough. It’s also unfortunate since he took many lonely stands in his career for gay rights when Bernie was one of the few willing to stand by his side. Certainly more steadfastly than either Clinton.
Don’t insult Bernie voters or accuse them of not turning out, they certainly won’t in the fall if you blame them for past losses and belittle their idealism. Last time I checked it wasn’t the activists of my generation telling the Mark Udalls and Kay Hagans of the world to run away from the president and the progressive elements of his record, or nominating a loser like Coakley.
I love the man and his entire career, his point about caucuses is entirely
correct and we should get rid of all of them. That said, it’s sad to see him take down someone who’s been an ally on most of his issues in this petty and vindictive fashion. Barney’s book has great pointers on how he and others worked successfully to make a progressive house on Beacon Hill and it required ceaselessly challenging the establishment at every turn. Such leadership is needed today more than ever, locally as well as nationally.
I’d like some simple demographics about voters supporting Bernie Sanders today:
1. How many of them were 18 or over in 2010 (and 2012, and 2014)?
2. How many of them describe themselves as “first-time voters” today?
I don’t know if it’s an “insult” or not, but it is ENTIRELY legitimate to observe that people who were fully eligible to register and vote and who chose not to have VERY LITTLE basis on which to complain about the results of their choice.
When someone is too apathetic to participate in a process, they have no grounds at all to complain about the results of that process.
I’m not talking about Massachusetts supporters of Bernie Sanders, either, because we already have about the most progressive congressional delegation in the nation. Full participation by today’s Sanders supporters would not have changed the Massachusetts delegation much if at all.
Nationwide, Mr. Frank’s comments about this group of people is right on, even if uncomfortable.
So what if they weren’t there in 2010 or 2014? They are here now and excited about a cause, not a person, and the Hillary folks have to learn how to harness that passion and excitement for their campaign instead of belittling first time participants in politics. The record number of college kids who stood out in the cold and caucused, caucused!, which is a massive pain in the ass and a far greater commitment than just voting is a testament to this narrative.
Blaming the under 30 vote and telling it to suck it up, grow up, or shut up is a great way to elect a Republican. Which was exactly the message that failed to motivate them in 2010 and 2014. Oh yeah, Martha real excited about her. My friends in VA were really excited about Mark Warner, who nearly dropped a safe seat since he ran such an uninspiring effort.
All these politicians ran away from Obama and progressive values and got their asses kicked. Let’s not blame the voters for shitty DC picked candidates with shitty DC consultants selling the same shitty DC message. That liberals have to be the ones to compromise, that liberals have to be the ones to suck it up, and that liberals have to vote for people that openly disdain them.
Let me stay with the metaphor of welcoming new potential members to a church. It’s great that they come on Easter Sunday. A healthy parish welcomes them. It’s even better if they become regular Sunday attendees.
If the church or parish is struggling and needs a new direction, then those potential new members must also:
– Pledge (provide financial support)
– Participate beyond Sundays (vote in off-year elections)
– Become evangelists themselves
I’m totally with you about welcoming new voters, and I think Mr. Frank is as well. I don’t think he’s blaming anybody. I think he’s instead saying that the anger isn’t helpful.
I think he’s also saying that it’s only if those new voters CONTINUE to vote — year in and year out, whether our candidates win or lose — that they will make a difference.
That’s not “blame”, it’s reality.
Bernie is Martin Luther and Hillary is pointing to St Peters Basilica saying “look at the great stuff indulgences have bought us, why don’t you get that this is how the game is played?”
And the new flock he has brought in his more committed to the message of evangelism and converting the unconverted than the mitred and clocked old guard insisting that this is the way things have to be because that is how they always have been.
Odd analogy for this papist, but one that makes sense. Look at any Catholic Church parish committee or any DTC and count the members under 30. That structure is antiquated, and Bernie may be the stone the builders have rejected but he is the new cornerstone for a new movement. One that will last after this campaign and one Hillary will have to adapt to, not the other way around, assuming we all agree that she wants to be President.
Maybe Mr. Sander’s is Martin Luther. Maybe not. A lot of men and women have claimed to be the next Martin Luther. There is a reason why the phrase “false prophet” has been with us so long.
There are a LOT of enormous, new, and growing churches — especially in the south. Few, if any, of them are Catholic or even recognizable as any offshoot of the tradition created by Martin Luther. I’m not sure that any of them have any more reverence for Martin Luther than any other figure. I think what I’m saying is that for every one of these churches that succeed, there are a great many that do not.
What I think Mr. Frank is saying is that it is only when this “New Flock” comes week after week, pays pledges year after year, spends countless evenings and Saturday’s doing committee meetings, organizing building campaigns, coaching the church baseball team, organizing the church buses that bring seniors from nearby complexes, and so on, that we know.
I’m saying that it takes more than standing on a street corner and saying “We are the new way” to be an effective political force. Lots and lots of people were passionate and outspoken during the “Occupy” movement. The movement generated LOTS of headlines and attention. It utterly failed to become an effective political force. Utterly.
The first part of Mr. Frank’s criticism is worth paying attention to. The places where Mr. Sander’s has done best are the places where his “votes” are furthest removed from “the people” he claims to represent. The places where Ms. Clinton has done best are the places where her votes come from real people turning in real ballots. And this is just ONE primary season.
Oh, and just to stick with the analogy (I think!), the GOP candidates — led by Mr. Trump — are the ones who want dissolve the church altogether, turn the sanctuary and rectory into condos, and walk away with the proceeds.
We want ALL voters from all demographics. The profound changes we seek require enormous political capital, and we will not create that political capital in one election season. We need to build an organization that VOTES, election after election, year in and year out.
That takes more than a declaration of “we’re the new guard”.
And that is what the Democratic establishment, including Mr. Frank and Sec. Clinton have failed to do cycle after cycle. Those lost midterm happened under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not Bernie Sanders who actually is the only candidate in the primary who has beaten a Republican incumbent in a competitive election, and the only candidate consistently beating Trump by double digits.
Look, I’ll agree with anyone who says he’s pie in the sky and can’t govern, but we don’t win elections by telling the new recruits to put up and shut up since they will just stay home instead. Let’s fight on our principles and win on them. Hillary should do that like she did in her 2000 Senate race and be a fighter and welcome Bernie and his supporters to help her rather than belittle them and their movement.
I don’t see Mr. Frank saying anything about “put and shut up”, or anything else in this interview. I don’t think Mr. Frank even said that Mr. Sanders is “pie in the sky can’t govern”. I think he said that the SUPPORTERS of Mr. Sanders are being politically unrealistic.
As far as I can tell, Ms. Clinton is eager to welcome Mr. Sanders and his supporter to help her. She’s not even IN the interview we’re talking about.
Or when he blames them for not showing up in 2010 or 2014. This is not the year to be talking down to voters, anyone should realize that at this point.
I really just don’t see the insult. If it’s there, it’s certainly more nuanced than your language (“put up and shut up”) suggests — Barney Frank is not known for nuance.
In any case, it still seems that your reaction is to more than this interview.
My reaction is to stupidity of both campaigns. Hillary is the nominee, Bernie supporters do have to recognize that and get on board to defeat Trump. But can’t Hillary supporters and surrogates be gracious in victory and court these passionate people rather than belittle their idealism as lacking in substance? Few people under 30 know who Barney Frank is, he’s a hero of mine but I’ve been a lifelong political and history junkie. I loved his most recent book and it’s incredibly instructive for the next generation to pick up the torch.
And what Barney has to recognize is that the next Frank is out there and just worked his or her ass off for Bernie Sanders this primary, which was their first time participating in politics because they believe in the impossible. Idealism is good, that’s what used to inspire liberalism in America. And it just pains me to see people I respect dump on it because liberalism has had to be defended for an entire generation from an ascendency on the right. Well, the party of Lincoln will openly be the party of David Duke this year and frankly I think it will die.
It’s time to move on from the old arguments and begin pushing the envelope of acceptable political rhetoric and possible policies past the narrow prism people of Frank and Hillary’s generation scarred by McGovern and so many other defeats have been living in. George McGovern won the presidency, it just took 44 years to count the votes. We have a coalition ready to be lead in a far more progressive direction, Hillary and her supporters should lead this new movement now instead of fighting against the tide.
That’s pretty optimistic. If it were really a cause not a person, there’d be more me-too candidates running.
Just as Gary Hart, Barney Frank and the Clintons worked on the McGovern campaign-many, many future leaders will emerge from this campaign. Will they will be more pragmatic than Sanders? Sure, but it’s the idealism of this campaign that got them in the doorway. They should be embraced and welcomed as the future of the movement.
Possibly that’s true. However, Goldwater inspired a certain candidate for President, too, to become politically active, but she hasn’t exactly been thinking, in her heart, that he was right.
If we were to take Mr. Frank’s suggestion literally, Democrats could run campaigns of the form
Don’t be a lazy f#ck!
Hate what’s going on in DC? Well, buddy look at yourself in the mirror. You’re the one to blame. If you can’t even get yourself to pull a little lever once every two years, you can shut the f#ck up! Maybe if you cared about things, you’d get off your god-damned a$$.
HE has little to show, whereas I have screwed up an entire economy with a signature bill that bears my name!
And THAT’S just the beginning of my accomplishment!!@!
And I make sweeping comments without proof all time! It’s how I enjoy myself! 🙂
Given the choice of two Democrats who, according the polls, either one can beat the Republican nominee, would you choose the one for major reform on Wall Street and health care, or the one looking for little change in either with substantial financial ties to banks & corporations?
Given the choice of two Democrats who, according the polls, either one can beat the Republican nominee, would you choose the one for major reform on Wall Street and health care, or the one riding on unicorns and throwing gumdrops and attacks those that want to work to improve out country? — there I fixed it for you.
I know … you don’t have to say it …..
You’re welcome.
… is not “riding on unicorns and throwing gumdrops” The opposite of anger is acceptance. I don’t know where HRC falls on that spectrum, but it increasingly looks more and more to me like Sen Sanders is exploiting peoples anger for his own political ambition.
It is not possible to overstate how ridiculous Donald Trump is, as a politician and as a human being, and yet the amount of votes he’s getting suggests people love their anger more than they value their own sanity. Bernie Sanders and his supporters (I’m looking at you, Susan Sarandon) are doing their level best (sic) to fit themselves into that mold.
I’m not sure why you would think that Bernie Sanders is in the race due to political ambitions. If being president had been a goal of his, he never would have declared himself as a socialist. He probably would have also spent more time pandering to the center for the past several decades instead of sticking with his beliefs regardless of how popular they were.
Bernie Sanders is campaigning on issues that he has worked on for his whole life.. He didn’t take up these issues after they became popular. That is exactly the opposite of “exploiting people’s anger for his own political ambitions”.
Clinton could certainly be accused of exploiting people’s anger for her own political ambitions. It has been clear that she wanted to be president since Bush was elected (probably even earlier). She has only taken up the progressive issues because of how popular Bernie Sanders is. She’s having problems because she thought being a centrist was the way to become president, and now that isn’t working as well.
… the sequence of:
Somebody who is not HRC says something unflattering about Sen Sanders;
Sen. Sanders or his supporters respond with something unflattering about HRC.
That’s not a logical progression of reason and cogitation: that’s deflecting criticism upon Him by attacking somebody in His way.
one riding on unicorns
throwing gumdrops
Need more? there’s plenty where this came from. It’s called the Internet.
Now you know the rest of the story, eh?
I do like the second link. He’s the author of the horoscope column on Huffington post. For example, his predictive ability extends to one’s love life: Are you going to meet a lover or loser? I’m sure he has other sources that we don’t have about the Goldman-Sachs speeches.
for not keeping up with a new source, as per John T May’s 1:29 comment, namely the horoscope column of Huffington Post. I’ll endeavor to do better and read it more consistently.
Thanks for the link, John!
….ride the unicorns onto Boaty McBoat? ???
I ask this to every Hillary supporter, your candidate is going to win and all of us will vote for her, this has been true since the start of the campaign. But the Bernie movement is healthy for the party, healthy for democracy, and will inspire the next generation to move to places old timers like Frank living under Reagan’s paradigm wouldn’t have dreamed of moving to.
So I ask that you stop belittling passionate people getting involved for the first time and stop being dicks, especially you johnk, to those who felt inspired be it. Proudest vote I ever took and I knew from day 1 it was not for the nominee.
If you want us to work for Hillary and not just vote for her than bring Bernie and his movement to the table. If Hillary will beat any Republican than she has the room and the responsibility to be bold. I haven’t seen that from her yet and it’s disconcerting. She has a unique moment to unite a bigger majority against Trump and behind her and she needs to be bold. Be bold not bland, blands a loser in 2016.
go again…
This epitomizes why I love this guy.
Sorry folks, but he’s nailed it. Particularly this bit:
That is precisely what is happening. No matter how much spin anybody puts on it, a HUGE number of people who agitate so loudly for Bernie Sanders today are people who were eligible to vote in every election since 2010 and didn’t.
Efforts to divert discussion to straw-men like “Establishment” and “Wall Street” simply obscure this basic fact. I’m happy that Mr. Frank states this reality so simply, eloquently, and — yes — humorously.
Is that actually true? I’d love to see the evidence.
For months, we’ve been hearing about the generation gap. A frequently-repeated assertion is that the “younger generation” historically hasn’t voted, especially in mid-term elections.
It seems to me that this assertion lies at the heart of the “political revolution” Mr. Sanders is attempting to lead.
I think that Mr. Frank is saying that it takes more than applauding a candidate during a primary season.
The reality is that to be a political force, participants MUST VOTE. Period.
You made a specific claim that you consider a fact. This doesn’t answer it.
Some polling about HUGE numbers of Sanders supporters having been politically inactive yet eligible would prove your point, general observations about voting trends does not.
I agree with the general statements and I don’t necessarily disagree with your specific claim, but I haven’t seen evidence to support it.
I don’t have time to find statistical support for every assertion made on a discussion forum. If the claim is false, then a bunch of participants here at BMG have some crow to eat.
Whether actually true or not, the political narrative has been that Mr. Sanders is appealing to first-time voters who are angry at “the way things are”. Whether that narrative is true or not, that’s what I’ve heard from the Sanders campaign and that’s what I’ve heard here at BMG.
Here’s a less strident version of the same claim: Until the supporters of Mr. Sanders demonstrate that they VOTE in multiple elections, including mid-term elections, they will NOT be a political force. Simple anger is not enough.
Having been to a Sanders rally in Milton a few weeks ago, I can tell you that while there were a few young “first time” voters, I saw more people who looked like me, 60 year old and showing the scars of the past 40 years of winner take all politics that both parties have embraced.
But the media is corporate and the corporate heads want their guy or gal in the White House. Frankly, they don’t give a rat’s ass about party so long as that party is connected at the wallet with Goldman Sachs and their ilk.
So the media tells you that Bernie’s base is just a bunch of idealist kids who want free things.
It is not just “the media” talking about the influence of “younger voters” (emphasis mine):
I know this is a fruitless exchange, and I’m not sure why I’m bothering to take it this far.
I’ll tell you what the media care about. They care about money — advertising revenue and therefore ratings. I agree that they don’t give a rat’s ass about party. I suggest that they have similar contempt for Goldman Sachs and their “ilk” (whomever that might be), unless the parties in question are standing with open wallet/checkbook and about to buy advertising.
The media tells us whatever they think will increase their audience. Fact, truth, rationality, party, and — yes — corporate affiliation have nothing to do with it.
It’s always and forever true for instances of the differential between voter turnout in ‘successive’ elections exceeding 20% or 30% because the differential in eligible voters between ‘successive’ elections never really exceeds 10% (and that’s being generous, population growth in America has long been in the low single digits).
non-voting is not an issue specific to Sen Sanders…. nor is Barney Frank saying it is specific to Sen Sanders… What Frank is saying is that the anger at the present state of politics, and the belief that Sen Sanders is the answer to the present state of politics, is not justified precisely because the present state of politics is as a result of non-voting patterns. Things would have been materially different now had the Democrats not had to cede the House and Senate in 2010. Things would be materially different now if, having had to cede the House and Senate in 2010 Democrats could have regained it in either 2012 or 2014. And Bernie can’t possibly be the solution because, as Frank says, you “have to win two in a row,” if Bernie Sanders wins it all in 2016 he can’t possibly be on the ballot in 2018.
Really, i don’t know how they get through the day. Nothing is ever their fault.
I guess it was voters who, after claiming for decades that they dreamed of universal healthcare, spent months and months delaying a popular president’s plan. During that time, an abortion question became a political football for like a week.
It was voters, I guess, who rushed to bail out the auto industry and the banks, but did almost nothing about foreclosures, which, lest we forget, were putting real people (perhaps even voters) out of their houses.
When the president backed off his pledge to close Gitmo, facing pressure from Republicans, it was voters (not Congressional Democrats) who failed to back him up or for that matter pressure him to close it.
I guess it was voters who failed to stand up to Republican obstructionism, declining to do things on party votes and force the issue. Voters for voted for change decided the status quo was what the really wanted (a Republican status quo).
And I guess it was voters who, at the exact same moment that they learned the government couldn’t build a healthcare website, also learned the NSA was collecting absolutely everything about their lives. Voters failed to rein in the security state, leaving one to wonder what the exact difference between Republicans and Democrats is.
Pesky voters. They ruin everything.
Thank God we have Congressman Frank to explain that to us.
…I think it’s safe to assume that Frank is not talking to or about you. We know that midterm turnout drops off dramatically compared to presidential years and it does make a difference. I think it’s long been true that Republicans get elected by Democrats and their sympathizers who fail to show up.
Republicans vote more reliably.
Then ask why.
I know he’s not talking about me. But I have the same objection I raised to Thomas Frank yesterday. What’s with the blame genre? If we did our job better, if we connected to voters better, we’d win more elections.
I’ve always struggled with these conversations because as a citizen of a democratic republic I vote because my calendar tells me it’s Election Day. I don’t need more reason than that.
Recognize that not everyone has your priorities.
It’s part of the obligation of citizenship in a body politic such as ours. I firmly believe that it is just as much one’s job as a citizen to vote as it is those we vote for to show up and do theirs. Politics isn’t a sport, or a taste in food, or a hobby. It’s more serious. We don’t all have to be activists, but there is no reason short of an emergency not to vote.
(Actually, there’s no “maybe” about it!)
Could you please list the circumstances that you will accept as emergencies, so that people who have more complex lives than you do can stay on the side of righteousness? I’m afraid you’re setting up a sort of “purity test” with this.
I’m basically talking health emergencies or other traumatic events, but yes, I am pretty insistent (“pure” if you will), about the obligation of citizens to vote. I’m all for making early/absentee voting easier.
If you make of yourself the emblematic example in some sort of controversy, then the only option you give your interlocutors is to discuss your person. You did this elsewhere in the discussion of racism where you replaced an actual understanding of how racism works (read, say, Nicholas Kristhof’s fairly recent serious) with a marvelous bit of self-praise about your pristine unbiased nature.
This kind of stuff — look at me! I’m a marvelous of example of what I’m asserting — means that we have to answer you by arguing that your weird, or not marvelous, or misjudging yourself. Better instead to point to non-personal evidence.
.
I’m not claiming to be extraordinary. In fact I’m precisely saying that I see myself as rather normal person and there’s no need for the bar to be lower for others. Yes, I use the first person as a rhetorical devise, but I do it because I think it is possible for me to representative rather than the outlier.
as I think you are in both cases.
Do you really want me to set about proving that you’re weird in the current case and deluded in the previous?
A shorter version of your response could be: “Well, if I’m right, then there’s no problem.”
But we’re discussing precisely those things where we could be wrong.
…a shorter version of my response could be, “If I can do this, so can others.” I suppose it’s “weird” that I take voting as seriously as I do, but that shouldn’t be the case. You can’t prove I’m deluded about my own biases, though I have unfortunately been disabused of my delusions in recent years about the biases that still exist in society.
because they’re angrier? There’s some research in various “affective” (scientific term) theories of voting behavior. Certainly Republicans have been fighting off traitors, condescending elitists, welfare cheaters, and appeasers for decades. They’d still be fighting communist infiltration of the State Department if anyone would listen.
that all the people who aren’t voting in off-years are Bernie supporters, and that a great many of them aren’t Hillary voters.
(Among a great other many delusions.)
…but your parenthetical was uncalled for.
There has been much discussion here about “millennials”, and specifically about why that generation doesn’t vote. There has been much talk here about the “new” and “fresh” voters that Bernie Sanders is attracting. There has been much talk about a generation gap between baby boomers and the “younger generation”.
I think it’s great to welcome new voters. I think it’s a mistake to pay very much attention to their anger about dysfunctional government when their own apathy has made a HUGE contribution to that dysfunction.
Yes, the response here does seem a wee bit odd. Are we being enjoined only to say that Sanders is bringing in new voters provided we cushion that statement with positive connotation?
That being said, it’s no mistake to pay attention to their anger. That doesn’t mean elevating the millennial demographic into some sort Truth Oracle but certainly would be useful to get them voting and active. Paying attention is likely the first step.
There is a difference between paying attention and pandering. Paying attention is necessary and not sufficient. It is a step I think Mr. Frank has made.
I think the next step is to observe that if someone is invited to participate in a communal decision, and for whatever reasons doesn’t even show up, then it is appropriate for the community to focus less energy on that person in future decisions. A group of people imperfectly attempting to keep a community healthy and strong are, I think, justified in focusing their energy on those who participate in their imperfect processes for doing so.
The mere fact that those non-participants are angry does not in itself add anything to their impact as a political force. Someone who was eligible to vote and chose not to is particularly unlikely to have much effect on future elections.
is getting more people to vote for Democrats. That means either convincing Republicans and Republican leaners to mend their ways, or it means getting new folks to the polls. The first is twice as effective but more than twice as hard; the second is generally easier. Certainly Mr Trump has been excellent for us by recruiting through fear. But each younger voter brought in from the wilderness of ignoring communal decisions also counts. The Democratic Party is not a party in the sense that we serve punch, provide music, and offer up entertainment and so we have the luxury of pouting about spurned invitations.
Or maybe you’re saying that there are other, larger constituencies more readily recruited?
I agree.
Perhaps we can take your analysis a bit further. In your two groups, perhaps the first is not only twice as effective and more than twice as hard — perhaps it also lasts far more than one election. The second, while easier, perhaps lasts only for one election cycle.
I’m suggesting that I think we want both groups that you mention. I think our primary interest in the latter is to move them from the “new voter” to the “reliable Democratic voter” group.
I think that anger might get those new voters to listen to us. I also think we need to go beyond that anger to move them into the “life long Democratic voter” group.
I think a part of Mr. Frank’s objection is that the people we’re talking about were NOT voters while those things you mention were happening.
I’m glad Mr. Sanders has attracted new first-time voters. Will they actually VOTE? They apparently didn’t vote before now — if Mr. Sanders loses (or even if he wins) will they vote after this election?
Republican obstructionism happened because Republicans were in congress. That was, in turn, largely because the group we’re talking about didn’t vote — and could have.
This great disparity you speak of — that all these ‘bad voters’ are for Bernie, and apparently Hillary’s voters are all the ‘good ones.’
And maybe we should be placing less blame on voters and a great deal more blame on politicians? Had the Democratic Party got more stuff done when they had a clear majority in both houses between 2008 and 2010, perhaps — just perhaps — 2010 wouldn’t have been a bloodbath, and perhaps we may have even retained the house.
doesn’t that count as ‘getting stuff done’ according to your characterization ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
in which all the best things that it did wouldn’t go into effect for years.
Not a good idea.
And they let that one issue go on for months and months, consuming a year’s worth of energy, ending with the whole thing getting out of hand, formenting the GOP opposition that took over the House.
The whole thing was bungled. We could have passed dozens of big, important … and radically popular…. issues, without one, giant omnibus bill that was deeply unpopular, bungled and rolled out in a way that caused maximum political cost for the minimum policy gain.
I don’t want to relive that issue and there’s no real need to discuss it further… other than to say we had 2 years of Democratic control of government and instead of passing bills to make it easier to organize, or to help the DREAMers, and some smaller, but popular and quick-to-roll out bills on health care, the remaining 6 years of Obama’s presidency probably would have played out much differently.
They could also have made structural changes to the economy and/or rolled out a multi-year infrastructure plan. Instead we got HCA and a flawed stimulus plan.
They didn’t “pass healthcare;” they passed insurance care. A law written by, and insuring the continued financial health of, insurance companies. Those companies do not provide health care. Doctors do that.
Here’s a CNN NH Primary exit poll from 9-Feb.
I need to get these into a spreadsheet to crunch the numbers, perhaps the data for NH is here, though. There must be similar numbers for the other states.
The “ever voted before” section tells us that 16% are first-time voters. That’s 355 respondents. Of those, 78% are Sanders supporters. That’s 277 respondents.
In this poll, 78% of the first-time voters are Sanders supporters.
I used the first “gender” section (because it’s the smallest) to get to the totals.
Men: 1000, 320 Clinton, 670 Sanders
Women: 1222, 538 Clinton,672 Sanders
Clinton: 858 (320+538)
Sanders: 1342 (670 + 672)
It looks to me as though in this exit poll about 20% of Sander’s support was from first-time voters (277 of 1342 is 20%).
Teasing out the age differences takes more time.
I don’t have similar polling numbers for the 2010 elections (perhaps the professional campaign consultants do). It seems to me that 20% is a reasonably significant share, though.
If we can perhaps treat Mr. Frank’s rhetoric as what I think it’s intended to be — provocative commentary intended to spur debate — then we might make progress.
Mr. Sanders is bringing new voters into the Democratic primary. Those new voters will ONLY be a political force if they vote in this general election and then continue to vote in future elections.
While we can debate what we have to do, as a party, to make that happen, the fact remains that these new Democratic primary voters — let’s call it 20% — will be a political force ONLY if they stay active.
A “political revolution” takes at least two wins (as Mr. Frank says elsewhere in the same interview).
That seems like the absolute maximum, not the likely amount.
A few more calculations and clarifications:
20% of Sanders’ support are from first-time Democratic Primary voters, not necessarily first-time voters. That is a critical distinction. Although skipping primaries in the mid-terms would not be great, the real problem was not showing up for the generals. These NH numbers don’t provide numbers on first-time voters generally, just first time primary voters. You’ve assumed that these 20% have skipped the mid-terms.
10% of Sanders’ supporters are aged 18-24 and couldn’t have voted in 2008 – and obviously would not have voted in a Democratic primary in 2012. 25-year-olds also wouldn’t have voted in the 2008 primary. Again, no numbers if these people sat out the mid-terms.
48% of Sanders’ supporters are Independents. There aren’t more crosstabs, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that a decent share of these Independents are also first-time Democratic primary voters. Skipping the mid-terms? Who knows.
Barney commented about people sitting out the midterms and now complaining, and you said it was a fact that a HUGE percentage of Sanders supporters are lazy, unengaged voters except for right now. It’s nice to have these numbers, because a fair examination of the numbers doesn’t demonstrate that. I would concede this issue with more evidence. These NH numbers don’t add anything to your position. Maybe the other states do.
When I get a chance, I’ll try and track down exit polling for the NH Republican primary. I agree that the numbers make much more sense when those are included.
I don’t think it’s rash to assume that “first time” voters haven’t voted before — they self-identified as such. As I said, teasing out the age factor takes more time. It doesn’t matter whether they’re “independent” or not — the respondents said they were first-time voters and I think the data doesn’t get much stronger than that.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I invite you to show me where I used the terms “lazy” and “unengaged”. I’ll do what I can to extend this data to the Republican side in New Hampshire.
I think the analysis I’m doing is fair. I think the extensions you’ve suggested are fair. I’m already persuaded. You’re not. I’ll do what I can to elaborate the analysis.
I’d like to request, as graciously as I can, that you respond to what I write rather than to, well, anything else. If I meant to write that “Sanders supporters are lazy, unengaged voters except for right now”, then that’s what I would write. I’m not known here as someone reluctant to share what I think.
My position is that we need to accomplish the progressive changes that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and a whole lot more of us have been saying we need to accomplish. My position is that we ought to pursue strategies and tactics that maximize the likelihood of that taking place.
Voting in general elections is a lot more common than voting in primaries. These voters identified as first-time primary voters, not as first-time voters. It does matter if they are independent because independents would be less likely to vote in a party primary, thus voting in one, they are more likely to be first-time DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY voters. Again, whether they have voted before is not reflected in any of these numbers, but you assume that all of them have not voted before (including 100% of the 18-24 year old voters).
What you said:
That strikes me as calling them out as lazy and unengaged.
I agree. Attacking a group of voters and making accusations about their behavior that’s not backed up by the evidence doesn’t help in those efforts one flippin iota.
The words “lazy” and “unengaged” are yours, not mine. You’re building strawmen. What I said is, I think, neutral. More specifically, it is measurable (I guess depending on our definition of “huge”). I explicitly did NOT characterize those voters, that’s your spin.
“Attacking”? “Accusations”? These people either were or were not eligible and they either did or did not vote. Those are statements of facts, and are neither attacks nor accusations.
It is Bernie Sanders who has staked his campaign on his assertion that the “grassroots political revolution” that he is promoting will provide the political capital needed to change anything. Like it or not, that assertion is meaningful ONLY if the participants of that revolution not only VOTE, but are perceived by politicians as being people who vote.
Thus, evidence of the ACTUAL and MEASURED voting behavior of that group matters a great deal.
This is silly. You were endorsing Barney’s statement, which was a clearly negative take on the voting habits of a particular group. Saying it was merely neutral and not a criticism of those voters is too hard to swallow.
And the fact of that matter is that if they were sitting out elections and are now complaining, then, yes, they are lazy and unengaged.
I agree that they need to vote, and if they don’t, then the “revolution” is largely meaningless.
But you made a claim that a HUGE number of Sanders supporters are non-voters. I’m still willing to admit that may be the case, but just because Barney said it and you repeated doesn’t make it true, and the numbers from NH don’t add much support to that position.
Perhaps it’s silly to you. Another participant here has loudly objected to making disparaging comments about people who haven’t been voting. I’m emphasizing that characterizations like “lazy” and “unengaged” are yours, not mine.
I wish I had more data to support my contention about the 2010 and 2014 general elections. I make the perhaps rash assumption that Mr. Frank has more access to such data than me (or you). In my view, the numbers from NH support his observation more than they weaken it. You apparently disagree.
Until we have more data, neither of us knows. What I do know, however, is that I did NOT characterize those voters, and I do reject your assertion that my objection to that characterization is “silly”.
Here is the CNN NH Republican Primary exit poll.
I’ll try the same analysis.
I agree, on re-reading these polls, that these are first time PRIMARY voters, and perhaps that may change these results. It’s the best data I’ve got, so I’m still going use it.
The “ever voted before” section tells us that 15% are first-time voters. That’s 305 respondents. Of those, 38% are Trump supporters. That’s 116 respondents.
Men: 1059, 402 Trump
Women: 977, 322 Trump
Trump: 724 (402 + 322)
It looks to me as though in this exit poll about 16% of Trump’s support was from first-time voters (116 of 724 is 16%).
It seems to me that we can say that Mr. Sanders is more dependent on first-time Democratic primary voters than Mr. Trump (20% versus 16%), but the sample is small and it’s always risky to compare small portions of small samples.
I would love to see similar exit polls from some of the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms. I agree that we can learn much from examination of the general results than from the primaries.
those crosstabs don’t tell us much of anything because they look at primary voters, not general election voters.
There’s a huge, huge difference between a first-time primary voter and a first-time voter.
Many of Bernie’s supporters are independents, some even former republicans. They’re the kinds of people who’ve been voting regularly… but not in Democratic primaries.
(As an aside… instead of attacking Bernie for bringing new people to our party… we should be widely applauding him. We should think long and hard before we continue to attack them as a way to prop up Hillary, or letting the Barney Franks of the world attack them. For Frank to speak of McCarthyism while attacking people Bernie supporters as somehow the people who ‘never show up’ is almost beyond belief. Congressman Frank is the disciple of McCarthy here, not Sanders. We can’t build the party and get the party unified for the general when the party establishment and thousands of long time party loyalists all across the country are pissing on the candidacy and supporters of the person they oppose.)
According to the polls above, “independents” account for the following:
Democrats: 40% (889 respondents), 25% Clinton (222), 75% Sanders (649)
Republicans: 42% (855 respondents), 36% Trump (308)
So, across BOTH parties (1744 respondents), we see:
Clinton: 12.7%
Trump: 17.6%
Sanders: 37.2%
Others/no answer: 32.2%
It looks to me as though Mr. Sanders drew more independent votes (37.2%) than the next runner-up, Mr. Trump (at 17.6%). Great. We don’t have data (yet) about how regularly these independents vote. We won’t have data until at least another election cycle about whether those 649 Sanders supports will stay active after this election — especially if Sanders loses.
I’m not sure how go about NOT “letting the Barney Franks of the world” do whatever they do. Are you proposing that Mr. Frank be somehow silenced?
Is Barney Frank, of all people, now a bad guy because he supports Ms. Clinton?
If you or anybody else wants to find and publish links to exit polls or other data regarding the 2010 or 2014 general elections, I think that would be enormously constructive.
A huge contingent of Bernie’s supporters are independents, who are much less likely to vote in primaries. In many states, they are excluded from voting in primaries altogether, and in the states where they can vote — they have their choice. But they’re voters nonetheless.
I’d start by acknowledging that this point he made was deeply flawed and that everything he’s said about this primary is deeply colored by who he wants to win. The same can be applied to other members of the upper echelons of the democratic establishment who have acted as surrogates for Hillary, attacking Bernie by bending the truth or committing logical fallacies, or even attacking Bernie for things they’ve supported for their entire career up to that point — as Nancy Pelosi did when she attacked Bernie for supporting Medicare for All.
Our party’s establishment has not had its finest moments during this election cycle, and they seem to forget that we need to ensure Bernie’s voters turn out for Hillary in the likely event that she wins the nomination.
We could say it either way. Those guys didn’t show up because they were lazy layabouts unable to set aside their petty affairs for the greater good. Or we could say that Democrats or liberals have been unable to provide a compelling reason to go vote.
I retired, somewhat frustrated politician might prefer the first perspective: he’s not on the field of battle.
even when it hurts !
Senator Elizabeth Warren said it well in praising his autobiography, FRANK : ” Barney Frank will be remembered as one of the hardest-working, quickest-thinking, most effective — and most quotable — congressmen in our nation’s history. Frank tells his story with characteristic candor, from coming out of the closet and working for LGBT rights to fighting for sensible financial reforms. Frank’s belief that government can improve people’s lives has given passion and energy to every part of his remarkable career in public service.”
Barney — hearing you speak out and champion our candidate, Hillary Clinton, makes me so proud to call you friend all these many years.
Please don’t ever stop fighting the good fight !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Bay State Stonewall Democrats
Board of Directors
This is worthy of April 1st, but also true.
I once played Trivial Pursuit against Barney Frank.
He was in a sleek, toned phase at the time….tanned. slim, contact lenses – almost unrecognizable. One of my dearest friends worked at ABCD, and it was a fundraising event, also featuring Shirley Chisholm as a speaker.
We played in teams, against Frank and his partner. A fine time was had by all, and I will not reveal any scores.
Just saying, based on the several (verging on many) interactions, discussions, and exchanges I’ve had with him.
I like Barney Frank, and was glad to have him as my Congressman. He has a great pugnacious, unvarnished style. His sessions chairing the House were marvelous television.
However, just because he is unvarnished, doesn’t make him an outsider. While I appreciate Frank’s (Trump-like) recognition that the cost of protecting our wealthy allies drags our economy down, I would never mistake him for someone ready to sign on the campaign of an ambitious outsider. Just because he talks baldly doesn’t make him an authority on challenging the elite.
When he “came out of the room” as Tip O’Neil put it, his only concern was that “pooh Bahney won’t be the fihst Jewish Speakah”. That demonstrates how much of an inside operator he has always been, and he describes in great detail how his pragmatism has advanced the progressive agenda in his fantastic autobiography. Particularly the early chapters from his days in the statehouse.
But, and this is a key but, McCarthy may have lost but he forced LBJ out and forced the party to confront Vietnam. Dean may have lost, but he paved the way for Barack Obama. And Sanders will lose this nomination, but one of these children that Frank has spit on will try and change our world. And I am glad they are immune to his consultations.
Barney Frank didn’t spit on anybody. Come on.
Come on
Sorry, I missed the Bowie reference.
On the fantastic Hunky Dory which might be my favorite Bowie album
Bernie vs. Hillary conversations bring out the stupid at BMG.
The biggest problem is the constant confusion of our assumptions and generalities with reality. Here are some of them:
Elite: A tightly-knit club with a clear agenda.
Bernie voters: not an individual among them.
The past: the same as the present just earlier
Hillary Clinton: the same as she was 20 years go.
Wall Street: no “softness” in a candidate’s record is tolerable
Ideological purity: True belief is the same effective politics.
I know resistance is probably futile, but I’ve yet to see a good discussion on the primary that didn’t devolve into abject stupidity. Yeah, I’ve take part, but I’ve also tried to raise the level above this crap.
How many people on this thread have taken a serious look at their own assumptions and then considered their opponents actually think? It’s bullshit. Utter bullshit.
is that if enough people here hold the same assumptions and generalities it becomes the reality. Not unlike when people gather on the other side.
And Bob gleefully reposting Barney Frank’s stupid comments doesn’t help advance that discussion. Look, Bernie isn’t going to win, these guys from Frank to Debbie to Hillary are only contributing to his supporters martyr complex by trying to rig the process, dodge debates, and attack his supporters as Johnny come latelys to Democratic politics.
How about she and Bernie agree to joint appearances where they can disagree agreeably and move on to the general. Bernie supporters thinking he can win are living in a fantasy. Hillary supporters insisting he goes away have the political wisdom of the folks who bugged the Watergate. They were gonna win by 49 states anyway! No need to bug the DNC other than hubris. Hillary and her supporters are showing hubris and arrogance when they should be showing deference to this movement that brought new people into the process and needs to be courted not condescended to. He ain’t gonna win, but he can deliver his base and make sure it turns out in November. She can’t on her own.
…how you and I see two such different Hillarys. I think she has been VERY respectful of Sanders and his supporters and is invigorated by this race. She knows and has publicly acknowledged that she was the one playing catchup in 2008. Some say she has moved left as a result of Sanders’ candidacy.
Hardly respectful. Look, I attacked his supporters first since they were bringing up discredited Relublican attacks and claiming she’s just as awful as the GOP. She’s not, but your side has to quit pretending she is uniting our party behind her, she’s not.
Someone at NY Magazins suggested that John Podesta sit down with Bernie after the next two primaries and give him whatever he wants. Input on Veep, Labor and Treasury along with putting the $15 living wage (which you support) into the platform along with preserving the commitment to single layer, social security and Medicare. And he gets the keynote where he formally endorsed at the convention. A fine idea that makes more sense than his fighting to the last delegate Bushido commitment or her insistence that his candidacy be delegitimized by the likes of Barney Frank.
Let me first say that I like and agree with your suggested actions by Mr. Podesta.
I think “dodging debates” is overly caustic, and verging on incorrect. New York is Ms. Clinton’s home state. She currently enjoys about a two to one margin in New York. She correctly wants to shift the focus to Donald Trump.
It’s hardly “dodging” for Ms. Clinton to focus on Donald Trump. It appears to me that Sander’s campaign is doing everything in its power, including increasingly provocative bluster, to simply keep Mr. Sanders in the news cycle. Mr. Sanders is not going win New York. He might move the margin from 66/34 to 60/40 — so what?
It is time to focus on winning the general election. Your suggestion about how Mr. Podesta can bring Mr. Sanders on board helps that. A continued food-fight, along with overly caustic hyperbole about Ms. Clinton, does not.
…regarding the relative contributions of the fossil fuel industry, which is what specifically prompted the accusation of lying. Contrary to narrative, Politifact has ruled Clinton statements true 72% of the time and Sanders 70% of the time. This isn’t to knock Sanders over a difference of two percentage points, but just to point out the meme of Clinton as untrustworthy not having a lot of merit. I like the second paragraph, but I think she is and will do just fine uniting the party, at least to the extent she can control. My party unity concern is Sanders supporters becoming PUMAs.
…because I think this one might be more permanent.
And I agree with you that’s it’s technically untrue on the merits and technically misleading since it was individuals and not the businesses themselves, and hypocritical as team Clinton pointed out since Sanders has had some as well. That said, I think this isn’t the year, especially with the Clintons, to haggle over technical definitions. We should call on them both to return the contributions and move on. It’s an industry of the past that relies far too much on preferential treatment form the government.
Honestly I roll my eyes at most of this. For me as long as the transactions were legal and the cash itself isn’t counterfeit I say more power to whomever figures out how to fund such an expensive enterprise, until such time as we actually change the laws, and as seems to be required, the Constitution. Why CAN’T the Clintons haggle over technical definitions? Then again, I may be the only person who understands that it really did matter what “sexual relations” and even “is” meant when Bill used those terms in 1998.
Their reputation as benders of the truth is problematic with a broader electorate, impatient this year with bullshit generally and the lawyerly equivocations that is their trademark.
The reputation of Bill and Hillary Clinton as “benders of the truth” is the result of an ENORMOUS investment by the right-wing in lies and disinformation.
What you call “bullshit generally” and “lawyerly equivocations” some call “innocent” and “due process”. There have always been segments of the population that believe that certain people were guilty of certain crimes even after being exonerated in the courtroom. I don’t want to live in society that rewards such attitudes by pandering to them.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton was exonerated of ALL charges, even after being relentlessly dragged through countless partisan and groundless prosecutions.
Hillary Clinton did not kill Vince Foster. Her participation in Whitewater was not criminal. She has steadfastly and successfully defended herself against those scurrilous charges.
I’m disappointed that we give so much credence here to these right-wing lies. I hope it stops, here, after the primary season. I expect such behavior from today’s GOP partisans. I do not expect it from fellow Democrats.
Defending yourself against a false, groundless, and partisan attack is a fundamental right and a triumph of the American legal system. In my view, we need to LOUDLY remind ourselves of that.
…were not examples of Bill Clinton bending the truth, but the polar opposite. He was being EXTREMELY PRECISE about the truth.
I’m a bit confused by this whole fight.
Where did it start? Did the Sanders campaign release a specific statement or speech on this – other than the usual “Clinton takes lots of money from Wall St/pharma/fossil fuels/defense/etc.”?
The first thing I saw was Clinton replying to a Greenpeace activist who asked if she would return money from the industry. Clinton replied with saying that she’s sick of the Sanders campaign lying about her. Greenpeace has issued a report about Clinton’s fundraising and have their own campaign on the issue, and that is clearly separate from the Sanders campaign. Was Sanders pushing this criticism much in advance of this? Maybe they have, but I haven’t seen it. If they have it’s dumb because there are much stronger attacks to make on Clinton.
I agree, James, it’s not the year to argue about technical definitions, nor to try to use the SuperPAC fiction as a defense. I think that Clinton’s contributions from those in (and paid to lobby for) various industries is deeply, deeply troubling, but the fossil fuel industry is one of the less concerning. They are a 95%+ R industry. Wall Street and pharma and others are different.
…that SuperPACs are and must be legally separate from campaigns? This is put up or shut up for me. In other words, unless you have evidence to back up an accusation of illegal coordination this is a completely disingenuous line or argument. Most of the time I absolve Sanders of the sins of his supporters, but in this case he could do better about not implying a connection. Everytime he says, “I don’t have a SuperPAC,” I want to say, congratulations – nobody else “has” a SuperPAC either. There are SuperPACs which have as their mission to support candidates, but they are self-created and separately funded. I have very little patience for the notion that something “looks” bad. Prove to me that it actually IS bad!
Because it’s pretty much bullshit. Direct coordination is prohibited but these PACs can and do coordinate in other ways. Here’s a few examples.
I guess that’s why you never see political corruption without a specific conviction when a plain look at the political landscape reveals a clearly corrupt system.
…which I understand is what many of us want to do, but until it’s done stop acting as though somebody who adheres to the rules is the bad guy. Plus, we HAVE seen convictions from time to time of politicians and associates who really do break the law.
Of course I want to change the system, but I understand what the current system really is – a complete fiction. If a candidate has a SuperPAC dedicated specifically to their candidacy, that is a serious problem for the system. Just because it is legal does not make it right, and certainly does not make it good.
There have been very few SuperPAC investigations and fewer convictions. The first conviction was last year for a SuperPAC related to a VA state race. It seems that lying to investigators and funneling $138,000 to a fake company controlled by his mother may have been a bit more important to prosecutors than the campaign coordination issues.
The problem is that we only see very few political convictions of any sort despite a system that is corrupt to the core.
You’re acting as if money in politics is not a problem. In reality, it is THE problem.
…I never have seen money to be as much of a problem as some do, but it’s not great either. We need to judge candidates by actual records, whether money motivates them or not.
That Politifact thing is hilarious. First, it barely touches any of the issues of consequence with regard to the candidates’ respective honesty (seriously, look at the list of things they analyze). Second, Politifact, as it always does, makes judgments calls that are very suspect.
Here’s a good one as an example. This one is included in their tally twice – for the 2015 statement and the 2009 statement.
Sanders said: “We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country.”
Politifact said that that is FALSE – in other words, 100% untrue (or a lie, perhaps). Not mostly false, not half true, not mostly true. 100% False.
In their analysis, they completely overlook the word “almost” that Sanders used and conclude “Had Sanders fine-tuned his talking point by claiming that the United States spends twice as much per capita as the average developed country, his statement would been accurate.”
Considering the statement “We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country” as the full polar opposite of the statement “We spend twice [actually 2.49X] as much per capita as the average developed country” seems completely unreasonable.
And they counted it twice! That’s Politifact for you.
I have my issues with Politifact as well, but this is certainly enough to give lie to the belief some seem to have that you can tell Hillary is lying because her lips are moving.
They are trenchant, in my opinion. I particularly like his first line: “Remember he’s way behind not just in delegates but in votes.” Sanders has run a fine campaign, and been enormously helpful to the Democratic race, but Clinton has been the more popular politician to date and I expect will be through the end of the Convention and, after that, into the general election.
No one here is disputing that she will be the nominee, least of all me. I’ve been saying since August of last year I will vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general and have been fairly consistent with that.
There was a phase of this primary between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday when Bernie supporters on this site and in the broader progressive blogosphere/twitterverse were insufferably negative towards Clinton repeating right wing talking points, discredited conspiracy theories, and exaggerating her conservativism.
There is now this new phase where her actual campaign and it’s surrogates like Frank, you, and many other Hillary supporters on this site and in the broader media are essentially arguing Bernie is a loser and it’s time for him to go home and get the hell out of the race. I strongly disagree with that.
I strongly disagree with the notion that Bernie and his supporters are the tea party of the left shitting on governance and demanding purity, which is what Frank argued in his comments above or that Bernie impeded progress in his career. It’s been a fine and surprisingly effective career and campaign considering who he is and how infrequently self described socialists have been allowed to participate politically in this country. He’s won more votes to date than Eugene Debs and has had a longer and more pragmatic record than the sewer socialists who ran Milwaukee. For an American socialist he has been awfully effective, compared to Clinton a traditional and more transactional Democrat he has not been, which is why she’s the nominee and he isn’t.
So let’s adopt his energy and passion and the new base of voters he brought into the Democratic primary and harness them for the general. It will be required to bear a formidable foe like Trump, who too many here dismiss as the next Goldwater. We will not unite by continuing to insult each other and dismiss one another’s supporters, least of all the candidates and their surrogates who are becoming increasing strident. I respect Frank, I respect Susan Sarandon, but they are not helping either of their candidates out or the progressive movement with these comments.
… this did not start out as a “Bernie v Hillary” conversation. This conversation started out as Barney Frank said something critical of Bernie Sanders and quickly devolved into Sen Sanders’ supporters piling on HRC and pointing out how ‘establishment’ and venal Barney Frank really is. To be brutally honest, at least with respect to this thread, the stupid is going in one direction only.
Bob Neer was right when he labelled Franks statements ‘tough love.’ That’s exactly what they are. We’re talking about a guy who spent 40 years in the lions den, the bulk of which was actually spent with his head in the lions mouth, who energetically moved from defeat to setback, intermittently mixed with marginal victories, to more defeats. And he did this with an unflagging devotion to the cause.
Simply put, Barney Frank is smarter and more experienced than the bulk of BMG combined. He is battle tested and has suffered loss of more than his sense of entitlement. If Barney Franks says that politics is too hard for part time effort and anger and cynicism are too easy then you have no choice but to accept that. I’m not saying you’re required to like it, but I am saying that you are absolutely required to respect him. There are a few living Democrats who have honestly earned it and he is one of them.
But Sanders career has also shown a longer arc of the possible. We need folks like Frank who have progressive ideals and pragmatic implementation and folks like Sanders who say consistent in their beliefs and push their views from the fringe into the mainstream. It is simply inaccurate to say he has done nothing in Congress or compare his supporters to the tea party by arguing they are uninterested in compromise or governance.
He has worked across party lines and compromised many times, not to mention he is an open socialist who won a Senate seat. He went from getting 1% of the vote in the 70s to becoming the biggest vote getter in Vermont. Hillary’s path to power is just as important and legitimate, especially with the glass ceilings she has broken. Let’s not underestimate that either.
Here’s the simple truth. Hillary will be the nominee, but she will be leading Bernie’s and Warren’s party, not her husbands which effectively died with the DLC. His supporters have to recognize his campaign doesn’t end at the White House and her’s must recognize she won’t be living their either without his blessing.
… with what Barney Frank is saying. “consistent with their beliefs’ can’t happen only every four years. It has to happen every two. Else it’s neither consistent nor victory, whatever happens.
A couple of people have made the point that Barney Frank fought the good fight for a long time and must be listened to.
I couldn’t agree more. I yield to no one in my respect for this man, and all he did over the years.
But that’s EXACTLY WHY these comments are so disappointing.
It would be one thing to say, “We did all we could, but the country elected a Republican Congress.” That would be recognition of reality.
THIS is different. THIS is casting blame where it doesn’t belong.
It’s the party’s job to win elections. Voting is a right, privilege, and honor, but it is not mandatory. I always choose to vote. Not everyone does; not everyone sees the difference between the two parties, or feels it in their daily lives.
Also, as noted by me and others, casting blame now doesn’t help for the future.
…but I have long been among those to say if you don’t vote, don’t complain.
I don’t get the criticism. It comes across as profoundly conservative. If you can’t vote for what you want in the primaries, when can you?
We should be welcoming first-time and young voters, helping them to locate themselves in the political ecosystem and to buckle down for the long haul. This is not so straightforward, and failure would be our failure as much as theirs.
I’m responding at least as much to in-thread discussion as to Barnie’s comments. There is an appetite for profound fundamental change at the grass roots and the appropriate response is not to sniff about realism. Maybe we can bend what is “realistic.”
I think Frank is saying something profoundly different: citizens can’t abstain from voting in the midterms and then demand sweeping change (revolution?) in the presidential race. Or, put more succinctly, you can’t participate in the handicapping of the Democrats and then demand that the Democrats be punished for being handicapped.
Voters newly eligible are exempted from Frank’s criticism. He specifically is calling out people who could have voted but did not.
Again, Franks central point is that the appetite for “profound fundamental change” MUST extend to efforts on the part of voters in midterm elections. If, in fact, the pattern of four year hysteria with midterm laziness continues whatever change occurs can be neither fundamental nor profound.
Frank is in fact telling people exactly how to implement profound and fundamental change… that is to say he is telling people how to get EXACTLY what it is they say they want. That’s why it is, in fact, tough love.
There is zero legitimate evidence that the former Congressman or anyone on this thread has offered (SomervilleTom gave the good ‘ol college try, but counted apples when we were talking about oranges) to suggest that Bernie’s supporters are substantially more likely to be the ones who haven’t been showing up in the voting booths in off-election years, compared to Hillary’s supporters.
… of actually thinking.
The vast majority of people who voted in any primary in any state this year, regardless of the candidate they voted for, “haven’t been showing up in the voting booths in [mid term elections].”
However, those people who A) didn’t show up for the last two mid term elections and 2) voted for Hillary Clinton are NOT CALLING FOR “REVOLUTION” and demanding the Democratic establishment pay the price for their inaction.
And mid terms are actually elections, child, they are not “off election years”… a phrase that betrays your view of mid term elections and underlines and italicizes Barney Franks point.
is not set out to give the Democratic Party establishment 20 lashings or to put it into the corner for a timeout.
It’s completely aimed at the corrupting influence of money in politics. Bernie says we need to think of the scale of this problem in revolutionary terms, because the problem — and therefore the effort to create workable solutions — is that large. Is there something wrong with that calculus? When it would take drastic changes, up to and perhaps including a change in the constitution to end ‘corporate personhood,’ and/or public financing of campaigns, I don’t think so.
Holy condescending, Batman! For someone like you to decry EB3 so much, you sure do like to engage at his level, don’t ya?
… the corrupting influence of money does not extend to forcing people not to vote.
The long, the short and the tall and the wide is that if the energy spent on shooting from the hip and generating all this heat and light this year alone were, instead of sitting out the midterms (or “off-election years” in your nomenclature), spent on voting…
We. Simply. Would. Not. Be. In. This. Position.
Well, I’m regretting it now because you seem to have, once again, used it as an excuse to come to a full stop and refuse the point. That’s the danger of tough love, as we are seeing in action throughout the entirety of this diary.
insulting.
You’re having trouble with that edge in this diary, both at the macro level on this issue (good luck trying to get people who’ve been inspired by Bernie to be more active than ever before to continue their activism beyond this primary by repeatedly insulting them) and the micro level (by lashing out at others in this diary in very personal ways, and then blaming others — as you’ve done just now — when those arguments don’t work out so well, as if they were the ones with the problem and not you).
Perhaps you should reflect on these issues?
Of course it does. Both indirectly and directly.
Directly: Republicans are heavily invested in making it difficult or impossible for Democrats to vote. They’ve been very successful at doing this over the past few years. Millions have been spent on this effort, and it’s just in its infancy.
Indirectly: Vast sums of money spent on negative ads over decades have greatly contributed toward making most Americans think the problem with American government is government, not the party that has been primarily responsible for most of our government’s problems — and the lack of solutions.
Another example? Large sums of money have been spent by Republican groups on state legislative campaigns or to lobby state legislatures for the purposes of gerrymandering districts across the country, ensuring that for most Democratic voters in those states, their votes aren’t going to count for very much in midterm election years. People tend not to vote when they don’t think their vote is important, but will be much more likely to vote if there’s going to be a close race.
Of course, the more power corporations and big donors have in the political system, the more they’ll be able to directly and/or indirectly alter voter turnout numbers, and the percentage of the population who are legally able to vote. So, unless we do something to fix the system now, these problems will grow worse.
I appreciate the faint praise (“good ‘ol college try”).
I frankly don’t see ANY “counting”, as in actual data, from you at all. I see repetitions of things I’m sure you passionately believe are true, just I’ve offered some things I think are true and are different from your opinion. Whatever it is you’re counting, you haven’t shared anything that lets anybody else do the same.
If you want to find better data than I offered, I welcome it.
It was intended as a compliment for putting a lot of effort into something.
You want the real answer? It’s everyone. Just about every demographic votes considerably less often in midterm elections than in Presidential elections, especially among Democratic constituencies.
Placing all or even most of the blame on one candidate’s group of supporters over the other is asinine and can serve no other purpose than to smear. There’s a pox on all houses for the Democratic Party’s major constituencies on midterm turnout — so if you, Barney Frank, or anyone wants to raise this as an issue… great (our party should be deeply concerned about this issue)… but to cast blame on one candidate’s supporters and not the other is grossly unfair.
This is true. What’s different, and it’s been pointed out to you again and again and again and again, it that the people who are agitating for Sanders seem to want to escape the consequences of their inaction.
That’s the difference. Citizens CAN NOT decide to sit out elections then call for revolution. Democracy doesn’t work this way. Democracy is not fueled by anger or entitlement. Democracy CAN NOT involve sleeping through midterms and demanding a quick fix during a POTUS race. It is absolutely a citizens right to sit out an election but in doing so they forfeit a right to call for revolution. It’s just that simple.
Why are you not getting that?
Even as you admit that the turnout numbers will have been way down in both camps (“This is true”), this quote above implies that Bernie’s “people” want to escape the consequences of “their inaction.” You are implying something that you admit is untrue. Not a good argument, but a great example of cognitive dissonance.
Of those who vote in Presidential years, a majority votes in midterm years. Most of Bernie’s voters aren’t sitting out in midterm election years. Most of them are voting.
Just like most of Hillary’s supporters.
Continuing this attack on Bernie — one you admit is not actually true (!) — is not only insulting and wrong, but it could actually exacerbate the problem that it raises. Not a good idea!
Anger? Tell that to FDR, or any one of our founders. Tell that to the women’s suffrage movement. Tell that to MLK Jr., or Black Lives Matter, or RaiseUP. There is plenty room for anger in a Democracy.
And entitlement? Thinking people who work a full time job should make enough to live on is entitlement? Thinking Wall St should pay its fair share, and shouldn’t be able to spend unlimited sums on elections, is entitlement? Thinking people who get sick should be able to have health care so they don’t have to suffer or die, regardless of their income, is entitlement? Thinking we should expand social security so our seniors aren’t bound by a chained CPI that says we don’t have to account for inflation if seniors can substitute tuna fish for cat food is entitlement?
I of course think everyone should vote, in every election. It’s not as easy as it should be in America, though. Lots of people try to vote and are turned away, or discover it’s too late to register, or don’t have an easy early voting system in their state, or had their RMV exported from their county and imported into a Republican county, and so on and so forth… but, yes, anyone who can find a way to vote in America should, even as we must recognize that Republicans are making that hard for Democrats in states the GOP controls.
But do you want to know the only rule about revolutionaries? No one tells them when it is or isn’t okay to have a revolution. They just have it.
Economic inequality is at a level we haven’t seen since the gilded age. People are suffering under the burdens of an unfair, unjust system, where some are born with unlimited chances and many more are born with few or none. It may just well be that only a revolution can change that, and if it’s the case, no permission will be asked.
Pay attention. This is the last time I’m going to do this with you. If you don’t get this I can’t help you.
— Most of Secretary Clintons voters didn’t vote in the mid-terms. They are not particularly angry about this. They are not calling for revolution. They are not blaming the ‘establishment’ for not giving them what they weren’t disciplined enough to ask for formally. If asked they might even say “yeah, I know I should have voted in the mid terms and that things might be different had I done so.”
— Most of Sen Sanders voters didn’t vote in the mid-terms. They are angry. They say they want fundamental change. They seem to want to punish Democrats for being the Democrats that everybody but they voted for in the mid-terms. They are absolutely requiring, as a consequence of their ‘revolution,’ punishment for Democrats who didn’t provide what they wanted but didn’t vote for.
Total complete and utter bullshit. Under that rule, child, there will be revolutions that occur when it is, in fact, not ok to have a revolution regardless of who says yeah or nay. Revolution for the sake of revolution has an actual name, it’s call anarchy.
Your homework is to read the Declaration of Independence and to grow up.
you are a real piece of work, petr.
… to ignore all of what I said because of one objectionable part of it…
… just like a child would.
after all, why include the exact language I already, previously objected to, if not to invoke a response?
If you want me to actually read your posts from here on out, instead of skimming strictly for your insults, then drop the personal attacks.
… to think your objections are more important than the truth of the world.
That’s fairly childish also.
‘want’ has nothing to do with it. If you read my posts and learn from them, I’m satisfied. If you read my posts and push back with legit argument and valid points, I’m also satisfied.
If, instead, you ‘throw a fucking moody, like a five year old who’s dropped all his sweets’ then expect me to call you out on acting like a five year old. I would expect the same treatment from you. That’s why I’m careful not to throw a fucking moody like a five year old.
You actually do seem to be throwing an adult “moody” in the way you have been responding. I actually agree with most of your points, but not with your decision to mix your argument with insults. For all of your intellectual sophistication, it appears that your narcissistic need to prove yourself intellectually superior ultimately prevents you from getting your point across.
Petr, Petr, Petr, you’re able to dig up some really interesting and valuable insights but this line of attack seems only designed to hurt and not to illuminate.
I am neither in the mood nor the mindset to give up on Ryepower12 for the sake of momentarily salving his bruised ego. In the long run, it’s for the best for him. I’m even willing to risk seeming condescending to help him.
I know, however long it may take (even years from now… and those are years that I don’t have), that he may yet come to appreciate what I say, no matter the hurt or intemperate verbiage or lack of immediate illumination. In fact, the only hope might be the sting I deliver now, to provide impetus and impact for later. Else, there is risk of his loss.
Ryepower12 is young and passionate, and that is his strength. He is naive and lazy in his thinking, and that is his weakness. It is, in fact, the highest compliment I can give him to push mightily against his weakness The choice of how to respond to that, with petulance or with discpiline, or with something else entirely, is entirely his own choice to make…
I suppose there is a certain tough nobility in wanting to help Ryepower12 overcome his weaknesses despite the pain it may cause his ego. Your concern for his education and development is touching in a way, but I don’t think you’re on the road to accomplishing much. It has rather led to a hardening of positions in place of seeking for truth.
A further downside: this exchange has led you to substitute a fair bit of shrillness for the kind of considered writing that is your great strength.
If I am to believe you, such citizens most certainly CAN decide to sit out elections and CAN call for revolution. That may be unreasonable, impolite, foolish, rude, arrogant, or any of the above, but it certainly CAN be done.
Now, it would certainly surprise me if even a quarter of Sanders voters were these proto-revolutionaries to whom you’d administer such stern and deserved correction. Even if they were, they’re at least a constituency one might wish to win over or direct to more productive channels. It’s unlikely that stern, adult admonishment flavored with accusations of stupidity will be the prescription that renders the cure.
I apologize for misreading your comment, and I appreciate your compliment.
I really would like to see exit poll data about the 2010 and 2014 elections. I think we agree that we desperately need progressive voters to actually vote, especially in the mid-terms.
I hope you’ll agree with me that the changes we both want to see will take far longer than one election or even one presidency to accomplish. That’s why I think it’s crucial that we refocus the energy that Mr. Sander’s is generating on to something longer-lasting than the Sanders campaign.
politics! Barney Frank said something largely true, though somewhat abrasive, about some Bernie supporters! That sounds like Barney. Of course, no one would ever do that about Hillary supporters!
We’ve seen the phenomena before with Obama. Anyone who supported Hillary killed and ate small children and couldn’t count without fingers and toes. I’m not accusing anyone here at this point. People who are in Democratic Party politics for the long haul tend to realize the party is a coalition and that politics, while often difficult, has been next to impossible with the GOP in Congress. These folks, and I’m one, tend to think that the problem is not believing the right things, but getting them done. And if they can’t be done, then something better than the status quo.
There are a number of Bernie supporters, who, in my mind, confuse the right belief and the correct statements with getting things done. There are a number of Bernie supporters who don’t see the world this way. I didn’t vote for him, but I believe strongly in his ability to rebuild the Left of the Democratic coalition. I believe he has done that and will continue to do that.
Every time we take a comment personally, rather than respond to the truth of the comment or lack thereof, we make ourselves and these threads stupider. I say that and will not live up to my words, but it’s worth a try.
But blogs do too, right?
I can assure you I did not take his remarks personally. I’m not supporting Sanders.
But his comment did strike a chord with me, because to me it just typifies Democrats since 2002 or so. “Well, they just won’t let us … [X].” It’s always someone else’s fault.
Thar’s not cutting it anymore. It hasn’t cut it, ever.
But politics here or anyone usually has an objective. Shooting down Clinton and taking offense have no objective.
We are gaining power now probably for a few reasons, but one, I believe, is that we now have a medium for organization: the internet. Peter Daou pointed out a long time ago that we lacked a medium for dissemination of info and amplification of our message. We now have that.
Change takes time. It’s taken a while for a critical mass of voters to get pissed at the fact that government doesn’t work for them. We see that right and left.
Another reason for the change is people are now finding their concerns stated by candidates, whether they are successful or not. That’s been happening for a decade or so.
It often is someone else’s fault. And voters always play a role. I’m watching this play out in the town I work in. Their select board is awful. They have one stupid person, one stupid asshole, and an interim town manager who is an asshole. And the town is up in arms about the many stupid things these folks do. Well, the last two people who ran were an idiot and the asshole. In other words, they had no choice. Because no one has been running.
It’s also a matter of representation. I’m not a fan of Chuck Schumer or Bob DeLeo. They probably represent their constituencies well enough because they get elected. If that’s the case, I don’t like the priorities of their constituencies,
but they elect them. Not me. We may belong to the same party, but it’s other Democrats who elect these people, not me.
My state rep, who is now retiring, tried to buck the leadership, she ended up frozen out of doing anything meaningful. Is that her fault? Finneran’s? The Democrats? Why doesn’t change happen? There are material reasons.
Frustration is reasonable, but my point is, we need to understand the causes, not the effects. And people bitching at eat other doesn’t do anything but build walls.
Democratic hearts are all aflutter. It says a lot about the current state of the party.
And this gem:
Bernie was called the amendment king because he had an uncanny ability to pass progressive amendments, even in a Republican-run congress. To say he has “little to show for it” is absurd, and ironic since Barney’s other peers have much less to show.
n/t
I thought Barney Frank’s comments were unfair, and I said so at the time.
But this comment is unfair too, and much more so.