Non-Corporate Dems Winning and Attempts to Marginalize Meaning.
There has been quite a few wins lately from the non-Establishment branch of the Democratic Party. This is a very positive development that certain corpo-fascists seek to marginalize. They tend to cite the following points:
- The percentage of wins is low and below 50% (32%).
- The Non-Establishment Democrat that won, USED to work for some other Establishment Democrat like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.,.
- The Group that Supported them JD, OR or whatever, didn’t show that they helped by either Monetary or on-the-Ground Support.
I have to apologize, but I find those three points DUmb as hell as they are purposefully missing the point to try to take away from the hard-fought battles of these disparate groups branching out from the Establishment Wing of the Democratic Party.
From the looks of things, nothing annoys them more than someone who can point out their hypocrisy and faults, since people just don’t want to be wrong. I would like to address them for now.
The percentage of wins is low and below 50% (32%)
- One merely needs to look at past elections to see the dismal results of Democratic losses during Obama’s tenure, where they frankly lost thousands of seats previously held by Democrats on all levels. This involves State and Local governments. These were under their reign.
- They are still bleeding in terms of support and in positive public opinion. Which goes to show that they are going the wrong direction, and instead are trying to double down on failed methods.
- 32% on fledgling groups is actually high.
- By not having corporate sponsors, they are already running far below the establishment candidate who has a huge cash advantage.
- They also have to deal with less name recognition.
The Non-Establishment Democrat that won, USED to work for some other Establishment Democrat like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.,.
- Most that are running and endorsed by Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution and others have been working in the political fields for years. Obviously they would have worked for someone else.
- The difference is that they are NOT taking Corporate PAC money, and that really is the MAIN point of it all. They are not yet Bought.
- It is good to have some prior political work experience.
- Pay attention to the issues and what these candidates are fighting for. That is the difference. Especially in regards to action.
- Clinton Delegate? So what? Isn’t the point moving forward, and running on one’s own terms?
- The problem is not with the people of the Democratic Party, it is the Party Insiders and leaders that have been the issue. Those that say they are for something and have actions that are diametrically opposed to what they say they stand for.
The Group that Supported them JD, OR or whatever, didn’t show that they helped by either Monetary or on-the-Ground Support.
- What Justice Democrats and other groups of this sort provide, is exposure.
- These groups have a set of standards that candidates need to meet to be endorsed. This is the most important part of it.
- Because a candidate is endorsed by these groups, they are then seen by voters such as myself who then donate or support them personally. Why would I go to the group when I can go directly to a candidate and donate to their campaign itself?
- These groups don’t have much money either, and they have a limited operating expense which is being used to organize the sites, plan events, newsletters and others.
Basically, what is not understood, is that by having these candidates being endorsed by these groups, it provides a seal of approval in regards to the issues.
Issues are what matter, and the fact that they don’t take money from Corporate Special Interests is HUGE! People look at that, and even with limited monetary support, there are ways to promote oneself by cheaper means through the various social platforms that are around.
They still think it is just about the money. That’s why they keep losing. Look at Nancy Pelosi, whose only claim to being the Democratic House Leader is that she is the one who brings in the most money.
That 32% win of these groups, is done through a huge monetary disadvantage, and name recognition. That they slam people for saying people don’t even know them had they not won, obviously have not been paying attention. They are getting their name out there by many means, and many who help volunteer in the ground game started from these self-same groups that they seek to dismiss.
In the end, it really is about the issues. Democrats need to pay more attention to that, rather than names, groups and identities.
It’s a shame that it could not be quantified as much, but that’s why 538’s analysis falls short at this time.Pastiche, graycat, Pam and 23 othersSatan, kath, snot, Enthusiast, HomerRamone, Two way street, Scott Crowder, ccinamon, Marym625, Ohio Barbarian, Peace Patriot, ThomPaine, PADemD, eridani, Admiral Loinpresser, twenty, OCMI, Go Vols, disillusioned73, Dragon Turtle, mick063, nevereVereven, Hobbit709 like this
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.