An interview with former Seattle mayor, Michael McGinn and Kshama Sawant, council member.
Kshama is on the "Bernie or bust" side of the argument, while ex-mayor will support Clinton in case she wins the nomination.
But both agree on one thing: the Democratic Party has lost touch with their base.
democracynow.org
read it
READ IT
bump
Pay denbts
okay?
bump
Pay Debts Olive Nigger
>lost touch
The democratic party has been pretty steady over the last decades. What they missed was that the youth became radicalized and as American got more influenced by European politics.
Ultimately the movement is in fact more important than the elected officials but they're just saying this to rationalize their defeat. Bernie's rise is something that both came from the movement of the radicalized leftist youth and also helped better organize it.
The dislocation of Bernie's party from the rest of America will only strengthen their us-them attitude and further radicalize them. While they are going to split on voting (or largely abstain) this election cycle as they hate both people this action is going to lead to the growth of third parties or a massive reform in the democratic party.
>The democratic party has been pretty steady over the last decades. What they missed was that the youth became radicalized and as American got more influenced by European politics.
thanks for repeating what was stated
>The dislocation of Bernie's party from the rest of America will only strengthen their us-them attitude and further radicalize them.
are you blaming progressives for polarisation?
>both agree on one thing: the Democratic Party has lost touch with their base.
Hmm?
Seems to be the same as always, tbqhfam.
>are you blaming progressives for polarisation?
They're a big part of it. The left is eating itself.
Same thing happened with the right and Trump. It's a movement.
Trying too hard
Mate, I'm tired, give me a break. I was saying that it's improper to say the party has lost touch but that the base moved away from the party.
>are you blaming progressives for polarisation?
I believe there is some mutual issue here coming from the anti-establishment rhetoric of the Bernie crowd in the wake of Hilary's actions. Talk of manipulation has only made it worse, though I find it legitimate and would blame Hilary and her peeps for that.
Largely, I'd blame the media for the beginning of the us-them narrative.
In retrospect, I'm expecting this situation to be pictured as a "coming out" of this generation's left and right wing.
Here is how it might go:
>Bernie keeps going until all Dem delegates are assigned
>DNC confirms Hillary as the candidate
>Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Jill Stein (because she is the closest to him ideologically)
>Splits the vote, allowing Trump to win, and forcing the Democratic party to adopt ranked-choice voting as nationwide policy
FPTP reinforces the 2-party system. It needs to die. I would accept 4 years of Trump to see that happen.
do you know what that phrase means? "lose touch with their base"? It means that the portion of people who the party claims to represent, aren't actually repressented by the party.
In this case it means that the majority of the people who are willing to vote for Democrats, will do it under the condition that Bernie gets the nomination. But the delegates who will vote for the nominee will not vote according to that wish. So the party is running itself for itself and not for the interests of those who would vote it.
hm. I see.
>FPTP
this is the acronym for the delegate system, correct? What does it stand for?
First Past the Post.
thanks.
and fuck you, lol.
Yeah that. It's a bad system. For any vote where only one candidate can be elected, FPTP should be replaced by ranked-choice.
agreed