2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUm, Isn't the Groundswell for Change Supposed to Come from Red States?
Sandersian Groundswell Theory, as I understand it (and Gawd knows I could be wrong) goes something like this: the Political Revolution will be the mass awakening of political actors that will pressure the current entrenched Establishment to Do What's Right, which is to say, to enact these several plans rather than obstruct or ignore them.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that I embrace and accept Sandersian Groundswell Theory. Isn't it essential to this theory of change that it be particularly effective in the states that most need to be changed? That is, aren't all those conservative House districts and Red State senatorial races supposed to be precisely the site where the groundswell needs to be strongest?
I mean, I suppose the groundswell would also put pressure on "conserva-Dems" and other Establishment Types in blue districts and states, but the essential character, the kernel, the hard core and center of the Sandersian Groundswell Theory is that Red State politicians will be forced to act through Political Revolution.
So, to demonstrate the strength of Sandersian Groundswell Theory, shouldn't he be able to produce strong showings precisely in those districts and states?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)They are still in the 1950's
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)When you ask him how he'll pass single payer, he says something to the effect that increased participation will force the Congress to act. But those in Congress blocking such laws are mainly from Red States and districts, no?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)But I hear lots of republicans won't mind Hillary policies. Goldman for instance. Increased participation means we plan to vote all of the corporate bottom feeders out and replace them with ones that want to work for the people rather than for their own monetary gain.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)His answer is simple: pressure on Republicans from the political revolution.
That's his only answer.
If he can't demonstrate that he can put pressure on Republicans, then the whole theory of political change he spouts is worthless.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Including Dino's. Or the very real threat to work for the people or get tossed.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Would help if Bernie was drawing more than 30% of the Democratic vote in some of those districts, though!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)At least tonight, Bernie got soaked in a Red State. Soaked. So why should I believe he can get a groundswell of support to vote out Republicans? or even "DINO's."
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Right now many people are just now waking up to who Bernie is. We are patient, 46 more states to go.
SC is done. There really was no chance of ever talking SC- the confederate state- into changing. Hell, they just did take down the confederate flag!
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)make-up and regardless of the presumed outcome in the General Election.
Barack Obama was a revolutionary candidate because he fought for the vote in every state--even in RED states...and even in BLUE states that he was positioned to win.