Jamelle Bouie wrong to reject unique parts of #FeelTheBern

I like Bouie in general, at least for younger people in his position, as political writers at establishmentarian online mags.

That said, Bouie is partially wrong to say that there is no movement that's unique to Bernie Sanders' candidacy.

Note that I said partially wrong. Not entirely wrong.

He is right that Sanders follows in a trajectory from George McGovern to today.

However, not all candidates were the same in that trajectory.

Brown and Dean both had various degrees of neoliberal in them. Bradley showed more of this outside of the campaign with post-political work. Jerry Brown in his second gubernatorial stint has his picture in the dictionary next to the definition of "tech-neoliberalism," while Dean has his picture next to ... I could say various things. Yes, he opposed the Iraq War. And that was about it. Vermont's support for same-sex civic unions wasn't led by him, although he took it as what he saw as the best political alternative. And, shades of Sanders, he was actually endorsed, multiple times, by the NRA.

That said, Bradley only broke 45 percent in one primary, and struggled to break 30 percent in many cases. Yes, he was running against the standing Veep, but Gore had vulnerabilities.

It's interesting that Bouie omits two names.

One is Gary Hart, who launched a clearly neoliberalism-based challenge to Walter Mondale in 1984. He doesn't at all fit the normal insurgent profile, of course. (Some reporters have actually done that, though.)

The other, though?

Ted Kennedy, 1980.

Ted was no neoliberal, overall. And, unlike many of the other insurgents, through his family history, he had connections to black voters.

So, Bouie's wrong for trying to inflict a simplistic narrative on us. Not all Democratic insurgencies are alike.

As for the degree of Sanders' support coming from white liberals?

Erm ... while African-Americans, due to the legacy of slavery (setting aside the slavery of American Indians), always have a special claim on the ethnical (sic, my word for getting away from "racial") legacy of America in general, and post-1960, of the Democratic Party on political issues, that legacay is fading in a sense.

Hispanic Americans (of any "race," per the Census Bureau) have surpassed African-Americans for a number of years. And, beyond that, as various Americans look forward (and probably not enough years forward) with either joy, lamentation, or other emotions, to the time when the United States becomes a majority-minority nation, growth in Hispanic population, along with East Asian and South Asian immigration, will be drivers of that more than African-American growth. And, today's new wave of African immigration will also be a part, albeit a small part.

First, per the Census Bureau, in this PDF about future population trends, "Hispanic whites" (by subtracting "non-Hispanic whites" from "whites") are at 15 percent of population, compared to African-Americans at 13.2 percent. By 2060, that's expected to be 25 percent Hispanic vs. 14.3 percent black.

Even if that's too high, and I think it is, in 2060 with an estimated non-Hispanic white population at still over 50 percent, we could have a Hispanic population of 21 percent or so, or half again the size of the African-American population.

But, this still all ignores the Asian-American population. It was at 5.4 percent in 2014, but is projected at 9.3 percent by 2060, which I don't think is an underestimate.

In other words, by 2060, Asians will have moved from being a little over 40 percent of black population today to being about two-thirds of black population.

In this, Bouie, and others, are overlooking this broadening of diversity.

Bouie notes:

Black voters aren’t just palette-swapped white ones; they have interests and concerns that are specific to themselves and their communities.

This will be true of other ethnoi as well. 

And, this wasn't Bouie's primary focus in his piece, but he is nonetheless the one who's brought it kind of to the forefront of my mind. I'll be doing more about it in a separate piece.

Back to his piece.

Previous insurgents differed in other ways. Ted Kennedy went back to the Senate, never making peace with Jimmy Carter. He didn't have to, though, because he was a Kennedy. Gary Hart self-destructed, and was probably as unpopular with many Dems as Carter had been before him. Jesse Jackson got shakedown money to go to Operation Push and other organizations before having a later combination of self-destruction and irrelevance. Bradley went off into the nonprofit world, neoliberal division. Howard Dean took his mask back off and went to run the DNC.

Bernie is likely to do none of those. Bouie's half-right about him being a Senate gadfly, though not totally right. So, he won't be a Ted Kennedy. He won't self-destruct like Hart or Jackson, or sell out in the way Dean did.

But, could he sell out to some degree? Well, sure. (This all assumes Clinton is the nominee, which I think likely, but am not assuming it's so in the bag as Bouie does.)

He could continue to fight outside the convention for issues that he gets negotiated at the convention. Especially if Clinton pulls a Jimmy Carter, he couldn't be ignored between now and 2020.

Bernie Sanders and Vermont political affiliation: #hypocrisy?

Bernie Sanders

Given that Bernie Sanders staff has come out and said "Yes, he's really a Democrat," is it fair to ask if the "Independent" political label he gives himself as a senator is at least in part a façade? Or more than just that?

I say yes, it's at least fair to ask.

Per the link, Vermont, like many states, does not require political registration to vote. So that's how Sanders claims to be an Independent, even though he's repeatedly also run in Democratic primaries, just to scare off independent Democratic challengers, pun very intended.

That pun is very intended. Per the link, yes, Sanders has a cordial, or more than cordial, link with the state's Democratic party.

Per previous blogging by me, in exchange for such cordiality, the Vermont Democratic Party has regularly quashed would-be challengers to Sanders. That would include him running in Democratic primaries as needed, as explicitly noted by Vermont's alt-weekly. (The paper is a good, straightforward, and skeptical when needed eye on Sanders, for people interested in him, but like me, always bringing a skeptical eye to politics. Bookmark its Bernie Beat.)

So, it is a façade. Next question is, how big, and how hypocritical?

My answer? At least moderately big, if not more, and mildly to moderately hypocritical. Sanders is to the left of most national Democrats, but by no means all. California Sen. Barbara Boxer, I would put to the left of Sanders, for example. She's not been as outspoken on Wall Street as him, but, she's not a semi-gun nut nor a semi-war hawk.

As for 2016 and my plans? If Sanders is still in the race by the time the Democratic primaries get here to Tejas, I'll certainly vote for him. But, should he somehow get the nomination, which I doubt, I'll still vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, if she's nominated again, or any other reasonable Green Party nominee.

Friend PDiddie posted on Twitter that Hillary Clinton has already sewed up, or nearly so, some 500 Democratic superdelegates. Sanders is no babe in the woods; he knew this was likely before he ran. (It's also why Joe Biden made his candidatus interruptus permanent.)

But, that's also why I say he semi-castrated himself when he said he wouldn't run as an independent (I presume that includes rejecting a Green Party run) if not nominated as a Democrat. It didn't surprise me much then and it surprises me even less now. The announcement doesn't surprise me at all; the lack of thinking about political leverage surprises me somewhat, but also makes me wonder just how much of a strategic political thinker Sanders is, or is not.

As for the labels? Per Vermont law, and per the reasoning and claims of Sanders' staff, he could slap all sorts of labels on himself besides "Independent." He could be the "Brooklynite" senator from Vermont, or the "Mormonism" senator from Vermont or whatever.

Of course, "Independent" plays to stereotypical rock-ribbed New England values. Right, Howard Dean?

Barack Obama writes his "Dear Latina" letter

People who aren't Gnu Atheists, or opponents of social justice warrior martyrdom probably won't get the reference to Elevatorgate, but here goes.

On MSNBC's "Weekends with Alex Witt," former DNC Chairman Howard Dean promises Democrats aren't taking African-American votes for granted.

Of course, in "discussing" issues with Kay Bailey Cheerleader, a kinder, gentler John Cornyn, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel, right?

And, of course, KBH is wrong; to the degree there is voter fraud, it's old white folks committing (or having committed in their name) vote fraud on absentee ballots by mail.

Indeed, a Shrub Bush special commission said so. Here's all the ways that vote fraud with absentee mail ballots can be done. And, those old white folks, and their enablers, ain't pulling the D lever.

That said, let's go to the header. At just past the six-minute mark on this video, Howard Dean says that Democrats, while not taking African-American votes for granted, may have done that to some degree with Latino/Latina votes on immigration reform:

At least Dean mildly called out Obama on the issue.

But, speaking of things, back to that header, and the Elevatorgate link. Richard Dawkins, for the unfamiliar, gave Rebecca Watson this response:

Dear Muslima 

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. 

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . . 

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. 

Richard

It drew immediate howls, and an eventual apology of sorts from Dawkins.

So, back to Howard Dean, and the man he mildly chastized:

Dear Latina: 

I know you're on an elevator, and it's late at night, and you barely know me, and it's been a long day at this conference. 

But, I really need ... 

Some money. 

Please, just five minutes with your checkbook, and I'll be "satisfied." 

I promise, those emails are true, too. 

You actually do have a chance to see me in person. 

If you contribute enough money, and contribute it now. 

Only your money can help me pass that comprehensive immigration reform that I want to pass. Only your money can stop me from having to pander to Republicans and swing voters. 

So, please? Five minutes? A quickie? 

Sincerely yours,
Barack Obama

Sadly Dear Latina never did get to see Dear Leader.

Dean pulls rug out from under Obamacare

Remember that McKinsey study this summer that said Obamacare had a number of "Issues"? Remember how the White House and national DEeocratis pooh-poohed this?

Well, Howard Dean says the study's the real poop. He says a lot of smaller businesses will likely drop private health plans when Obamacare fully goes into effect and the cost could be trillions of dollars.