Vox had an article out about how Ohio is trending Republican. They did this boogity boogity thing where they said that without winning the Senate seat this year, Democrats will lose the state in 2020 because Clinton was defeated by 8 points in 2016 while Obama won by 3 points.
Vox is Wrong
Ohio has been a presidential flipper before. While Obama won both in 2008 and 2012, it went for Bush in 2004 as well as 2000. In all of those results the numbers were fairly close-2008 Obama won by 5 but otherwise it was around 2-3% for the other three times. Why they call it part of the blue wall, I don’t know. Probably due to the fact that Ohio was a fairly heavily union state until the 1990s when it has made the slow decline due to offshoring of industrial jobs.
That hasn’t been the case though since the 1990s. It does have a long history of very masculine work industries from steel manufacturing to cars and still is dominated by those industries despite their declines. That type of workforce has an impact on certain things such as how gender is viewed.
It is a very white state-82% of the state is white although the population is 51% female. Religion isn’t as important as it was as only 44% of the state has people who consider themselves religious. But it has a fairly high married rate at 50% of the population.
Racism in Ohio
Despite the fact that the state vote for Obama twice, it has a racism issue like many predominately white states. Even in 2012 there were out and proud racists happily talking to the media. As recently as 1999 they had continuous KKK rallies including a big one in Cleveland who had a black mayor at the time. And there have been no small issues when it comes to policing and the Black community.
With these problems, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the Obama to Trump voters trend happened in Ohio. While Obama himself was low key for the most part on racism, the very existence of a Black man in the White House caused a lot of white people to have issues that was expressed in 2016. Part of the reason they were so expressive was because Hillary Clinton was one of the few national candidates to say to whites “We need to check our own behavior.” Her private speech calling people who were racists deplorable was another factor because it was pretty obvious she was talking about the racists.
Sexism in Ohio
What is less talked about is the role that sexism played in the 2016 election in the state and elsewhere. While a white woman might consider voting for a Black man because after all she doesn’t want to be seen as racist–voting for a white woman who was telling her that wasn’t good enough was going to make her angry. Add in all of the other ways that women tend to internalize misogyny against one another and you have the 2016 results. Clinton only won 39% of white women in Ohio per the exit polls. (She won 92% of Black women because they know better then to take any risk.)
Those twin factors are not going to occur in 2018 with the Sherrod Brown race. He is a white male and while Dems are definitely trending away from white males as candidates, he’s their incumbent and they won’t vote for any primary challengers. He also isn’t really vocal on the issue with racism. With him, economics will help.
Why Vox is hyperventilating over this I don’t know. Ohio wasn’t viable for the Democrats because we don’t shy from confronting racism and while we still have a major problem confronting the sexism on our own side, we are looking like the sane option more and more as Republicans continue to have the stench of corruption all over them.
That, more than anything, will be why we win in 2018 as well as 2020.
As a Democratic activist and a host of a political podcast, I have keen interest in the current situation of the Democratic Party. Like any active Democrat, it’s been impossible to ignore reports of the constant infighting between the so-called Bernie Wing and the rarely called Clinton wing. But I’m also skeptical of these reports. In the in person meetings I’ve attended in the past, the focus has been on how to better engage with voters to ensure they have what they need to vote. So, when DNC made the decision to hold their quarterly meeting in Las Vegas, I decided to drive up from my home in Phoenix.
This morning, as I write this, the DNC is holding their general session where they, the entire committee of the Democratic National Committee, will vote as a single body on many of the things that have been brought up by the Resolutions Committee. Naturally, the media narrative has already been set. Leading the way is Buzzfeed:
To only read the Buzzfeed article or this one from the Huffington Post , is to believe that the meeting was full of histrionics and people feeling betrayed. That attendees were skulking in corners whispering behind their hands to each other, eyes darting around the room to ensure that the evil mastermind of Tom Perez wasn’t listening of their planned coup attempt. And that Keith Ellison would be sitting all by himself crying into his free drinks because this is Vegas.
Thursday, October 19th
The Native American Council had enough members to become a caucus. This is important as it gives Native Americans a bigger voice in how the Party is run and provides an opening and opportunity to increase fundraising for Native American candidates like Debra Haaland, who is seeking to become the first Native American woman in Congress. I attended the Native American Council caucus in place of a colleague who wasn’t able to attend. There was no drama, even for the election of the chair, but some nice speeches including from Deputy Chair Ellison.
Across the convention area, which looks literally like every other convention area in the US, there were small groups of three to five people huddled talking. While at the time, it didn’t seem exceptional, I later learned that there were elections abrewing and these people chatting was actually focused on hustling votes.
The elections were for positions in the various caucuses that the party has. Democrats have a lot of caucuses. They are the four regional, LGBT, Native American, Hispanic, Black, Women’s, Asian American and Pacific Islander caucuses. And they all had elections.
The second meeting I went to was the Western, which is specific to where I live and vote. I live tweeted it poorly.
There were 9 spots to be elected-the ones I caught were chair, male and female vice chairs, secretary, treasurer, at large committee spots. While I had a preference towards the former executive director of my state Luis Heredia, being elected caucus chair, honestly, both candidates Luis and Jess Durfee were awesome and would do a good job of herding cats. I mean, Democrats, amirite.
So what was the drama? There were some mix-ups with proxies. Two of the proxies that were supposed to have been counted weren’t apparently counted. One of them was Representative Maxine Waters. Woops! The upshot was that the two candidates for chair of the Caucus were too good and there was an even split between the votes so they had to do a coin toss. Luis Heredia who HAD won before the proxies were appropriately counted lost the coin toss and the other candidate, Jess Durfee, was elected. They shook hands after and wished each other well. That’s about as dramatic as it got.
Everyone else was just “I’m BORED AND WANT TO GO GET DRUNK” after the fourth vote. Which is normal. Having been to dozens of Democratic meetings in the past from the district level to the national, it is common that after a period of time most people are tired of business and want to find something more enjoyable. Especially when in a fun place like Las Vegas.
One of the highlights was being able to talk to the highly entertaining and extremely competent Chair of California Democratic Party, Eric Bauman. A transplant from the Bronx to California, he has a New Yorker’s knack for easily cutting straight through any noise to the main issue and get things moving. If it wasn’t for the fact that running California’s Democratic Party is a more than full time job (he had an actual assistant!) I would have supported Bauman for chair of this meeting.
Reason to Hope
While the media paints the DNC meeting as a super dramatic week for the Dems, it wasn’t. The attendees are the chairs and top members of their state parties. They aren’t going to be throwing fits, they aren’t going to be acting like divas. They were there to network, share ideas and figure out how to win as many seats as possible, at every level of government.
The state chairs may not be happy with all the decisions of the officers obviously since no one wants to lose but they weren’t going to storm out. If there is one thing that Democrats know, it’s compromise. There were a lot of great ideas, as well as positive news of getting farm teams of city council and state legislative candidates, efforts to do more in depth person to person canvass and a lot of energy.
Getting those farm teams is important. By having these positions filled by Democrats you have experienced candidates who have learned to do the basics of governing: talking to voters, holding meetings, voting on laws and ordinances that have the greatest impacts on people’s lives. Those that do well are able to raise their name ID and move onto larger offices. Don’t forget that our last Democratic President was a former State Senator.
That’s what I saw at the meeting.
Additional observations: Keith Ellison appears to be a night owl, way more hyper in the evening then in the mornings. But he most certainly wasn’t sitting crying, drunk in the corner.
The most feminist men I know have never announced to me that they’re feminists. I was able to discern their feminism from their actions.
— 👻Imani Gandy👻 (@AngryBlackLady) October 7, 2017
As the latest revelations of the extent to which GamerGate-related harassment and intimidation of women online were coordinated at the highest levels of right wing and even mainstream media organizations reverberate throughout social media, many men who like to think of themselves as allies, and who are not themselves overflowing with misogyny, are left to wonder how they can be useful to their female friends who find themselves the subject of harassment that has become all too ubiquitous. Below are some useful tips and reminders for male allies.
1. Believe Women: Don’t Fall Into Gaslighting.
If a woman in your life who you know and respect tells you that she is being harassed, believe her. Many men, intentionally or not, have developed habits to question everything, which in many contexts are rewarded. However, in the context of supporting a friend or loved one who is experiencing misogynistic harassment, intensive questioning or interrogation can be perceived by the victim as questioning their lived experience, or gaslighting behavior.
As an ally, your primary responsibility should be to offer support to the victim of harassment or abuse. It is not your job to diagnose the cause of the harassment, or what the victim could have done to avoid the harassment. Your job as an ally is to offer support, which in many cases is as simple as just listening to the victim tell her story in her own words.
2. Remember That Women Are Better At Detecting Misogyny Than Men.
While you’re listening to the victim’s experience, some men may wonder whether the harassers’ motivations are truly rooted in misogyny. However; it is important to remember that we, as men, don’t have to deal with the subtle ways our culture reinforces misogyny on consistent basis. As a general rule, men should trust that, no matter how enlightened we think we may be, our male privilege erects blinders to our ability to perceive the subtle and even not-so-subtle ways misogyny presents itself.
Thus, when a woman says that she is the target of misogynistic abuse or harassment, more often than not, questioning whether misogyny is actually present is gaslighting.
3. Avoid Engaging in Misogynistic Abuse Online (And In Person, For That Matter).
If you consider yourself an ally to feminists, the easiest way to ruin your credibility as an ally is to engage in misogynistic abuse against a woman you disagree with. That is not to say that you should not voice disagreement with people just because they are women. However; using gendered slurs or other forms of misogynistic abuse (such as slut shaming, body shaming or objectifying, etc.) against a woman, even a woman who holds objectively abhorrent views, is not something committed allies should do.
In fact, it might be a good idea to review your social media accounts for any use of gendered slurs and reflect on why you decided to use such problematic rhetoric. It is all too common for men, particularly when we get emotional or agitated, to blurt out a nasty insult to get our rhetorical opponents to back off. Gendered slurs, slut shaming, body shaming and other forms of misogynistic abuse are ubiquitous because many of us have not seriously grappled with exactly why these rhetorical devices are at the top of our consciousness when speaking with women we disagree with or who have irked us in some way.
Consider that when you call a conservative woman you are arguing with about the merits of Cheeto’s Muslim ban a “b*tch,” you are providing cover for the next Bernie Bro or MAGA troll to use that same slur to your friend or loved one.
If you’ve done this in the past, own up to it. No ally is perfect. We all have done and said things that we wished we hadn’t (like, for example, that time I referred to Susan Sarandon as a “b*tch,” which I apologized for in Season 2, Episode 4: Mistakes Made). Being defensive or explaining why what you said was different is not going to come across well. Speaking from experience, the best way to deal with being confronted with a past transgression is to accept responsibility, reflect on why you did it, and pledge to be more careful with your words and actions int he future.
4. Call Out Misogyny And Harassment When You See It.
There is a remarkable disparity between how men and women view online harassment. According to a recent Pew poll, seven-in-ten women (70%) say they see online harassment as a major problem, compared with 54% of men. If online harassment is going to be taken seriously, we need to work on closing that gap.
In my opinion, a big reason for the gap is that some men just don’t see harassment of women for what it is, so we have to show them.
5. If You Choose To Get Involved, Do So With A Purpose.
If you do choose to white knight, this article is a good resource for tips and strategies.
National Organization for Men Against Sexism (“NOMAS”) spokesman Ben Atherton-Zeman wrote this article from Ms. magazine:
Clearly there’s no one “right” way to intervene, but I’ve already heard several suggestions. Men, we can’t remain silent any longer. Let us:
1. Listen to women’s experience of online abuse and threats by men. Let us read articles about it – the ones linked here are a good place to start. Instead of suggesting solutions, we can take in how hurtful the comments are.
2. Reach out to the target of the abuse. Ask her what she’d like to you do, if anything.
3. Write, “I think you’re right,” in Comments sections of articles, Facebook postings etc. of feminist women. Whether or not they’ve been harassed or attacked, agree with them and do so publicly.
4. When men harass women online, speak up. We can say something like, “As a man, your harassing comment offends me,” in the Comments sections. Say how it hurts you rather than speaking on behalf of the target.
5. Name the specific silencing tactic being used: name-calling, focusing on a woman’s appearance instead of her argument, etc.
6. Use humor. We can post something like, “Dude, put down your club–your caveman is showing!” Search online for feminist comedians of all genders who have done entire routines on this.
7. Watch for “professional trolls” from the “Men’s Rights” or “Father’s Rights” groups. They will often use terms such as “misandry” and refer to the feminist movement as anti-male or the domestic violence movement as an “industry.”
8. Send supportive emails, letters, candygrams, etc. to feminist women. Thank them for the good work they are doing–not just when they are targets of online harassment, but all the time. “If you see someone doing good work, you can be sure they’re being told they’re fat and ugly,” says Emily May. “Nice emails counterbalance the noise.”
9. Flag Facebook posts (or pages) when they’re abusive. If it’s a comment, click on the X to hide the post. You then have the option to flag it as abusive.
10. If the perpetrator isn’t an individual but a company, boycott the company. Write negative reviews of it on “Yelp” or other review sites, or suggest policy or legislative changes. (See the Ecological Model for Social Change for the philosophy behind this.)
To what seems to be a few years ago but turns out is about 13 years, I was going through an All Things Molly Ivins phase. This was shortly before she passed away from breast cancer, that continuing scourge of women in the United States. She had released multiple books with collections of her essays and one essay was titled “Sex, Death and Media Ethics” which discussed the behavior of the press. The media published multiple stories about a man named Michael Dorris who ended his life rather than have what happened after his death happen.
She notes two rules: 1) “is there any good reason to print this story?” and 2) is there any good reason not to print this story?
Most of the time the answer to the first question is easy and most of the time the answer to the second is not so easy. The media has a lot of power in this country. What is reported can instantly cause total destruction of people’s lives. The wrong story told at the wrong time can cause people untold misery while at the same time the right story at the right time can spur action and make lives better.
I start this essay about that because I am going to talk about the abusive press and Hillary Clinton. In her recent book she talks a lot about how bewildered she was over the press’s treatment of her emails, her statements about literally anything that could be twisted and her unhappiness at never being able to break through the wall of hate they had for her.
Clear Cut Examples
There are hundreds to choose from but one recently got treatment in Vox which is one of the few media outlets that treated her fairly during the 2016 election. At least after Ezra Klein sat down and went “holy shit, this woman I have been bashing my entire career actually fucking means she wants to make life better.” They are also the only mainstream media entity that laid out the Clinton Rules. (By the way, even Vox isn’t perfect since the guy who wrote the Clinton Rules also is the jackass behind Shattered: How the Media Still Doesn’t Admit They Fucked Up 2016.)
In the example Clinton’s attempt to talk to people in West Virginia about how she doesn’t want to forget about helping them since they are going to have their livelihoods destroyed when coal entirely goes away. But she didn’t say the right thing at the right time and the media pounced. First it was the right wing media and eventually it was the rest of the media. But it took her trying to say the truth and twisted it into something to hurt her about.
Another clear example was the reaction of the press to Clinton’s fainting spell on 09/11/2016. She was powering through like all candidates do at the tail end of a campaign and got dehydrated and fell ill. But the way the press reacted was as if she had been hiding a diagnosis of cancer crossed with TB and ebola. All of which we would have noticed by that time yet the press was in hysterics. They reacted like the only way to avoid being treated like she was literally being carried to the grave was to shove a camera in her face as she drank some water, rested and took some medicine.
This Isn’t Reporting, This is Harassment
It goes back to two those first two questions Molly Ivins brought up-the news did need to report on both her less than perfect delivery of her statement to the coal miners and her illness. What the news didn’t need to do was act as if she had committed a major crime in not being whatever it was that they wanted from her. Time and again they would do this. Even those sympathetic to her. There would be something that was a mild hiccup and the media would go insane over it with endless stories about every aspect. Then, once that was thoroughly dissected, they immediately would jump into if she reacted the right way. “What, you mean she DID try to make amends to the coal miners? She can’t do that. We already decided she was forever guilty of somehow hating the coal miners!” “wait, she didn’t apologize for getting sick?! How dare she?! Did she apologize for not letting us shove cameras in her face while she recovered? No? THAT BITCH.”
That’s how the media acted again and again.
Everything she did was wrong. If she didn’t hold a press conference it was bad. They even created timers. If she did hold a press conference, she didn’t answer anyone’s questions the way they wanted. She literally could not do a thing right to them. And they wouldn’t let up on her for an instant. Instead of saying “wow, it sucks that she was sick” it was “wow, how dare she not tell us in triplicate that she was ill?”
Walking On Eggshells
There are a few signs someone is abusive:
- Telling the victim that they can never do anything right
- Showing jealousy of the victim’s family and friends and time spent away
- Accusing the victim of cheating
- Keeping or discouraging the victim from seeing friends or family members
- Embarrassing or shaming the victim with put-downs
- Controlling every penny spent in the household
- Taking the victim’s money or refusing to give them money for expenses
- Looking at or acting in ways that scare the person they are abusing
- Controlling who the victim sees, where they go, or what they do
- Dictating how the victim dresses, wears their hair, etc.
- Stalking the victim or monitoring their victim’s every move (in person or also via the internet and/or other devices such as GPS tracking or the victim’s phone)
Many of these things have nothing to do with Clinton (I left out the sex stuff for instance) but the media told Clinton she could never do anything right, they insulted her, dictated how she could dress, demanded all access at all times to watch what she does and in one thing left off that list-always changed the rules so she could never comply while not enforcing anything like rules for others.
So Clinton tried to thread the needle thin walkway they shoved her on while also not showing the obvious frustration one feels at being treated this way. Along the way, her speech suffered because she was naturally worried about another coal miner treatment. She tried to not say anything remotely controversial. She tried to not be too ecstatic that this was the first time women were going to take on the role of President (after all, that meant the media would assume women were only voting for her because she had a vagina.) She tried to accommodate their insane demands for access. She tried so hard to do exactly what they wanted so the abuse would stop.
But it never did.
If being president means you must take unwarranted abuse, she showed that she was capable of it with the way they treated her and continue to treat her. The difference is as I noted on Twitter recently, she doesn’t have to care anymore what they say about her.
So @ahumorlessfem made a boo boo in ordering her eleven hundred million copies of Hillary Clinton’s awesome new book What Happened. She got one too many copies so that means YOU the eager listener/reader/foot massager get to put in to win the extra copy!
The Contest Should You Chose To Accept It
Write up your most awesome Hillary memory and then your chosen candidate to help get elected in 2018. It can be anyone-state house, school board, coroner, etc. But it has to be a seat that you are working to flip from red to blue. Write a blurb why you are supporting them and what you plan to do to help them.
Send your little essay to email@example.com
Time of Contest
This will go for one week and at the end the best essay will be splashed all over the media world as in it will be posted here for us and probably tweeted about a few times. Okay, once. With FEELINGS. Okay probably a few times but still, ONCE will have FEELINGS.
A while back someone asked me to explain why I don’t like Bernie Sanders. So here is my best attempt to explain why I dislike him.
First Findings About Sanders
The first thing I remember hearing about Bernie Sanders was his appearance at Netroots Nation’s conference in Phoenix during the summer of 2015. Friends of mine who went said they were unimpressed with how he handled it. I was willing to give a bit of a pass because I hadn’t been there but it was a preview to what was to come. Sanders does not like being challenged by anyone. Ever.
I had other friends who thought he was the bee’s knees. But they didn’t really seem to have a lot of information about him outside a few pat phrases. For instance, when asked what he has done, I was told he was the Amendment King. Essentially, he didn’t introduce a lot of legislation but he did get a lot of amendments added to other bills. And it is judged true by Politifact. That does not however tell me what these amendments were or how much they helped other people. That’s not helpful if you are trying to persuade people to vote for your guy.
Back when I was a big Deanaic, I could and still can rattle off a list of his accomplishments: he got nearly universal health care in Vermont by expanding Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance, he instituted a nurse’s visit to new mothers to help them recover from birth (very important in light of our worsening maternal death rate), he signed the civil unions bill being one of the first governors in the US to expand marriage equality while at 35% in the polls and went on to win the next election, he had started his career as a man who wanted a bike path and became governor when his predecessor died while fixing a pool. That’s what I expected from the Bernie people and to this day, never get.
However they assured me Bernie was better than Clinton because he hadn’t voted for the Iraq war and was anti-bank. Also she gave speeches to a few Wall Street banks and he hadn’t despite the fact that it wasn’t legal for him to do so anyway as a member of Congress. That made him better. Also he got lots of small donations so that made him a lot better.
I was not convinced. After all, Howard Dean rode a wave of people power/small donations and failed to place in Iowa high enough and eventually dropped out of the Democratic primary. I honestly thought this was simply the same thing. A guy from Vermont who is fresh and new and everyone jumps on board only to leave later on. No harm no foul.
The Harassment Campaign
But then I started seen some disquieting things. Ta Nehisi Coates did an article on Sanders and caught living hell until he finally said he was going to vote for the man. Many other writers or media figures did the same thing after a wave of harassment. To me that isn’t persuasion, that’s bullying. That’s making someone do something not because they want to but because they have to in order to stop someone’s treatment of them.
Other people started getting bullied for supporting Clinton: Representative Jim McDermott was harassed multiple times over this leading to two arrests. One Sanders supporter put together a hit list. There was a literal gauntlet for Clinton supporters to have to walk through in Los Angeles. The infamous threats that the Nevada Democratic State Party Chair endured after the last caucus meeting. On and on and on. But hey, those Bernie Bros don’t exist right? Even though many people pointed out they do by their own personal experience. And the Bros themselves announced they believed they had the right to treat people this way because they are “discomforting the establishment Democrats.” I witnessed it first hand. First with my friends who had to ultimately unfollow or unfriend on Facebook because their hatred for Clinton was so out of control they were blaming her stuff she literally had nothing to do with. Then with people on Twitter and other online spaces.
That didn’t make me want to support Sanders. That made me want to avoid anything to do with him.
I am going to briefly go over what I thought at the time was a tempest in a teapot but turned into something much darker by the Sanders campaign. I am talking about the data stealing that Sanders allowed to happen on his watch.
The Sanders campaign was suspended from using the website that most of the campaigns in the Democratic Party use because of the fact that they went into the Voter Access Network (VAN) and stole data from the Clinton campaign. It wasn’t a long suspension and it was well before the start of the actual voting yet the reaction by Sanders and his team was eye-opening to say the least.
First they did the right thing-they fired the person responsible and supposedly held other people accountable. And that was sufficient for the DNC to restore access. It was apparently not good enough for Sanders and his team since they immediately filed a lawsuit for access. The lawsuit dragged on until April of 2016 when they finally withdrew the lawsuit long after access was restored and any possible damage was gone.
His campaign screwed up and he should have taken responsibility and left it at that. Instead he let a lawsuit drag on for months for no reason. That isn’t the actions of someone I want anywhere near my party.
The Behavior of Sanders Himself
That might have been the end of it. After all, I was pretty nasty myself by the midpoint of the campaign towards people. Clinton wasn’t that responsible for my behavior and Sanders wasn’t that responsible for his online hordes following him. Especially since there was plenty of Russian troll armies doing things to whip it up. He was responsible for his own behavior however. And that behavior started out great. Then he started losing and lashing out. This is a common trait with him by the way. When he is running against a woman and loses he acts like the way he did with Clinton. He immediately claims he is better than the person running on their top issue. That is why he claims he was better for civil rights than Clinton (despite voting for the crime bill, he got a pass from much of the media and his supporters while Clinton was held fully responsible for the bill while having neither written or signed it.) and his lack of actual effort over the past forty years for civil rights. But did you know he marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Then when he lost or didn’t get endorsements, he started insulting the organizations that didn’t endorse him. When Planned Parenthood stood with the woman who had always stood by them, he called them establishment which by then he had defined to mean anyone who isn’t me. There was push back of course but the damage was done. Then he didn’t bother to pay any attention to an article written up with a pretty bad headline. Clinton never said she thought he wasn’t qualified, she said she thought he hadn’t shown he was ready. But clickbait has to clickbait and Sanders immediately claimed she wasn’t qualified despite her clear record being qualified based solely on the headline and doubled down until the wave of outrage pushed him back slightly.
He started making claims that the party was being unfair to him. He even wrote a letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz making that claim and threatened a floor fight at the convention if he didn’t get his way. This started setting up a certain general election candidate to say similar things against Clinton. There were countless examples of these petty, mean-spirited things he did.
And he never reigned in his surrogates until absolutely forced to. As an example, when Dr. Paul Song called Democrats corporate whores Sanders didn’t have his team yank him off stage and it took more than a day to get Sanders to say anything disavowing this. Meanwhile his supporters started throwing dollar bills at Clinton at a fundraiser and he never disavowed that.
The New York Daily News Editorial Board Meeting
Now we come to one of the most horrible interviews with an editorial board meeting since I was in one for an endorsement from the AZ Republic. The NYDN meeting with Sanders was horrifying. He knew nothing. He remembered nothing. There were times I was cringing while reading it because I couldn’t believe someone running for President could give these answers. Hell *I* could answer them better and I don’t know a damn thing about running a country.
They asked him questions directly in his wheelhouse too. For instance:
Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?
Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It’s an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.
You’ve got head of, I think it’s, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let’s talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.
Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That’s number one.
Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.
And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.
(Clinton’s interview was a lot more detailed but then, this is Hillary Clinton, the woman does her fucking homework which is what I should be doing.)
This is a terrible answer. He doesn’t talk about where the authority is (which is mostly under Dodd-Frank more details here) He doesn’t talk about the repercussions to the markets, to the local and global banking economy, he doesn’t mention what happens to those people no longer working at JP Morgan Chase. He doesn’t answer the questions at all because he doesn’t know.
When I brought this up with the one of the few remaining Bernie supporters I could stand, he said was absolutely okay to give these non-answers that showed Sanders has no idea what he is talking about because that’s what staff is for.
I was appalled. You should know something of what the law can do so you can effectively review what the staff brings you as ideas. You can’t just let them do everything because how do you know that person is giving you useful information or feasible policies? We see it now with the Trump Administration since none of them know what they are doing besides Elaine Chao and Nikki Haley. (Interesting the only two who are competent are the women.)
The DNC Convention
We come to the end of the race and Sanders refuses to drop out. Why did he refuse to drop out after he had lost so decisively? After all he lost it by 12 points, 977 delegates, by open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses and whatever you call Nevada. But he didn’t drop out until July 12th. Which is odd since the last primary was June 14th. He kept going and even kind of promised a floor fight unless he got his way on the platform and other things he wanted.
Yet despite all of the pleading for unity, he didn’t do squat until after a certain press conference that was bizarre in of itself. A week after that, he endorsed Hillary Clinton tepidly in New Hampshire. He immediately then went on to work on his book Our Revolution and skipped campaigning for her until the end of August.
To his credit he did a lot of campaigning in places like Wisconsin and Michigan. But during the DNC convention, he addressed his supporters a single time on their behavior and ignored their repeated efforts to drown out the speakers on every night of the convention. His facial expressions said it all. He was miserable to be there and angry he didn’t win.
After the Election
Since the election, which he immediately blamed on Democrats not paying attention to the white working class despite there being next to no evidence of that being why Clinton lost (racism and sexism explain it and was pretty obvious right from the start), Sanders has returned to being an independent. As Clinton pointed out in her new book, this isn’t a smear, it is what he says. He has taken that perch to spend as much time bashing the Democratic Party as he can. Here, here, here and on and on.
This despite the legislative victories the Dems keep racking up. They stopped the health care bill in the Senate (although zombie like it keeps coming back), they completely won on the most recent budget deal, which isn’t the first time and continue to do as much as they can to stop the Republicans in their tracks for all of the Republican priorities.
As we enter the 2018 election which starts around 01/30/2018, the Democrats are already starting to pick up seats in the state legislatures (these two and then these two) and have been running about 10 points in their favor for most elections.
But Sanders can’t help himself I guess. When you get lots of love from the media, that’s what you stick to. His endorsement is the kiss of death (none of the winners were endorsed by him) and his PAC that he started Our Revolution is more focused on scoring cheap political points than winning elections (they have won one seat, the NY seat which while listed on the candidate’s website, she barely mentioned when campaigning.)
Am I being petty? Somewhat but I am deeply angry. 2016 was a terrible year for me in a lot of ways and one of the key ones was the fact that an old man from Vermont did everything he could to make it miserable for those of us ecstatic to finally have our turn as women at the head of the table because he didn’t win. So I don’t like Sanders. He had some ideas I agree with (most of which were thought up by Democrats previously-single payer system, college, doubling the minimum wage which was Truman again as well as increasing taxes.) But his behavior has made me pretty much hate him. He can go back to being the backbencher he has always been. I am tired of his shtick. Tired of the insults, the petty sniping at people trying to stop the Trump Administration and the lack of respect for others.
So that’s why I don’t like Bernie Sanders. You’re welcome.