instead, i want to start talking about 2024, now. and, i'd invite the left to follow my lead on this. don't even bother with a biden v trump election, let's just move on to the next cycle immediately.
there has to be a generational overturn coming up, but we keep saying that and it doesn't happen. i'd expect that biden, bloomberg, sanders and warren are probably not coming back next cycle, and that a couple of them will probably actually be dead. steyer has a lot of money, but he might get distracted between now and then. i'd suspect that buttigieg will find another job.
only klobuchar is really likely to come back. and gabbard - who may never stop running.
and, that means you're really looking at a clean slate in 2020. after coming so close, and failing so badly, what does the left need to do to finally take over this party, and push the neo-liberals and religious conservatives out of it?
first of all, i want to see a younger candidate emerge because this may take a few tries. we might really be looking at 2028 or 2032 before we can actually win this thing. so, this person has to be in it for the long haul, and ready to fail a few times. but, what is the right strategy?
i think building on the start of sanders' movement is the right idea, and this is something we've seen a few times, now. where can a leftist emerge in the united states? it would have to either be in new england or in the pacific northwest. california is just too big. they need a smaller area to work with. kshama sawant is potentially the right kind of candidate, as she leans left in a real way and is in a relatively small district that she can probably hold for a long time. i'm not personally convinced of aoc's left-wing credentials, and it would help if she'd write some legislation; i would not consider her an ideal candidate, at this point. while it is going to be necessary to maintain the support of dark skinned voters in the north, it is probably not necessary to run a minority candidate; it is, however, important to ensure that this younger candidate doesn't have a long list of liabilities around issues of race. this candidate may not succeed in winning an outright majority of black voters in the end, but we don't need to give black voters excuses to vote for a neo-liberal candidate. so, that needs to be very carefully scrutinized, and anybody with liabilities of this nature should excuse themselves, under the recognition that it is important to keep an open door to african-american voters, even if there is an understanding that they are probably not going to be a part of the socialist coalition, moving forwards, by their own choice not to be.
first of all, i want to see a younger candidate emerge because this may take a few tries. we might really be looking at 2028 or 2032 before we can actually win this thing. so, this person has to be in it for the long haul, and ready to fail a few times. but, what is the right strategy?
i think building on the start of sanders' movement is the right idea, and this is something we've seen a few times, now. where can a leftist emerge in the united states? it would have to either be in new england or in the pacific northwest. california is just too big. they need a smaller area to work with. kshama sawant is potentially the right kind of candidate, as she leans left in a real way and is in a relatively small district that she can probably hold for a long time. i'm not personally convinced of aoc's left-wing credentials, and it would help if she'd write some legislation; i would not consider her an ideal candidate, at this point. while it is going to be necessary to maintain the support of dark skinned voters in the north, it is probably not necessary to run a minority candidate; it is, however, important to ensure that this younger candidate doesn't have a long list of liabilities around issues of race. this candidate may not succeed in winning an outright majority of black voters in the end, but we don't need to give black voters excuses to vote for a neo-liberal candidate. so, that needs to be very carefully scrutinized, and anybody with liabilities of this nature should excuse themselves, under the recognition that it is important to keep an open door to african-american voters, even if there is an understanding that they are probably not going to be a part of the socialist coalition, moving forwards, by their own choice not to be.
so, the first attempt should be modeled similarly to bernie's 2016 run, both in terms of how he raised money and the policies he pursued. the first run has to attempt to build an unabashedly left-liberal movement by winning in states that actually support left-wing policies - which are states in the northeast, states in the west and states around the great lakes. this first run will probably fail, but it has to be able to elevate it's candidate as the leader of the left - which is not the same thing as the candidate for the democratic party.
the second run should attempt to build on this by trying to broaden the support base by chipping away at the rank and file of the party, but it should be done in a way that de-emphasizes identity (including race) and focuses more on issues of class. i understand that a lot of people will find that upsetting, but that's because they're neo-liberals. it should just be explained in cordial language that they're not aligned with the socialist movement, and should seek political representation that better reflects their views.
the voters most likely to react well to an election that is explicitly about class are voters in the midwest and voters in the southwest, which should be the states where the candidate focuses most of their energy on winning. the intent should be to try to maximize turnout in these states by appealing to economic issues, like universal healthcare and the (un)affordability of higher education. while race should be de-emphasized, open doors and accepting policies must be paramount. equality is equality is equality!
while the southeast should not be totally abandoned, minimal resources should be expended on trying to win church-going black voters. rather, the way to interface with the black church is to run a series of stalking-horse candidates that split the vote. that's the only way to get a socialist to win the nomination; that is what we should learn from bernie's disastrous strategy - it's never going to work, you have to find a way around them. and, once our socialist president takes office, there should be a very serious, organized effort to increase access to education in the deep south, in order to beak the political power of the black church once and for all. democrats will have a better chance of winning georgia again after a left-wing president makes a few important changes to tweak the demographics....
and, that's the coalition that a socialist candidate needs to build - "liberals", workers & poor people, western hispanics (with some caveats) and young people together should carry enough states in the northeast, the great lakes, the midwest, the southwest and the northwest to win enough states to get a majority at the convention.
the opposite, neo-liberal coalition that a socialist coalition will seek to defeat will consist of southerners (including southern blacks, southern whites and south-eastern hispanics), seniors and the managerial or "middle" class and will win states in the deep south and along the eastern seaboard.
the second run should attempt to build on this by trying to broaden the support base by chipping away at the rank and file of the party, but it should be done in a way that de-emphasizes identity (including race) and focuses more on issues of class. i understand that a lot of people will find that upsetting, but that's because they're neo-liberals. it should just be explained in cordial language that they're not aligned with the socialist movement, and should seek political representation that better reflects their views.
the voters most likely to react well to an election that is explicitly about class are voters in the midwest and voters in the southwest, which should be the states where the candidate focuses most of their energy on winning. the intent should be to try to maximize turnout in these states by appealing to economic issues, like universal healthcare and the (un)affordability of higher education. while race should be de-emphasized, open doors and accepting policies must be paramount. equality is equality is equality!
while the southeast should not be totally abandoned, minimal resources should be expended on trying to win church-going black voters. rather, the way to interface with the black church is to run a series of stalking-horse candidates that split the vote. that's the only way to get a socialist to win the nomination; that is what we should learn from bernie's disastrous strategy - it's never going to work, you have to find a way around them. and, once our socialist president takes office, there should be a very serious, organized effort to increase access to education in the deep south, in order to beak the political power of the black church once and for all. democrats will have a better chance of winning georgia again after a left-wing president makes a few important changes to tweak the demographics....
and, that's the coalition that a socialist candidate needs to build - "liberals", workers & poor people, western hispanics (with some caveats) and young people together should carry enough states in the northeast, the great lakes, the midwest, the southwest and the northwest to win enough states to get a majority at the convention.
the opposite, neo-liberal coalition that a socialist coalition will seek to defeat will consist of southerners (including southern blacks, southern whites and south-eastern hispanics), seniors and the managerial or "middle" class and will win states in the deep south and along the eastern seaboard.
