Despite the current mess the Republican Party finds itself in, both
major parties are committed to a two party system. And in supporting
and working for this two party system, they also attempt to control
the party loyalists from their central committees.
I just received my primary ballot. In Washington, we vote by mail. I
do have the option, which I use, to go to my county courthouse and
vote by an accessible machine, which reads to me as I mark my paper
ballot. But on my ballot, according to my wife, there are only two
columns, Democrat and Republican. While I am not either, I will mark
my ballot for Bernie Sanders.
Carl Jarvis
On May 6, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nichols writes: "What Sanders is proposing is a necessary quest - and a
realistic one. Already, he is better positioned than any recent insurgent
challenger to engage in rules and platform debates, as well as in dialogues
about everything from the vice-presidential nomination to the character of
the fall campaign."
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty)
A Contested Convention Is Exactly What the Democratic Party Needs
By John Nichols, Moyers & Company
05 May 16
Bernie Sanders will go to Philadelphia with more pledged delegates than any
insurgent in modern history. Here's what he could do with them.
Joe Biden understands something about the Democratic Party and its future
that his fellow partisans would do well to consider. "I don't think any
Democrat's ever won saying, 'We can't think that big - we ought to really
downsize here because it's not realistic,'" the vice president told The New
York Times in April. "C'mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I'm not part
of the party that says, 'Well, we can't do it.'" Mocking Hillary Clinton's
criticism of Bernie Sanders for proposing bold reforms, Biden dismissed the
politics of lowered expectations. "I like the idea of saying, 'We can do
much more,' because we can," he declared, leading the Times to observe
that,
while Biden wasn't making an endorsement, "He'll take Mr. Sanders's
aspirational approach over Mrs. Clinton's caution any day."
Unwittingly or not, Biden made an even better case than Sanders has for
taking his insurgent campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in
Philadelphia. If the party is going to run in 2016 on a "do much more"
agenda - as opposed to triangulating around the center - the Vermont
senator's supporters and like-minded Democrats, including Clinton's
progressive backers, will have to force the issue. Taking the Sanders
insurgency to the convention is the paramount vehicle for placing demands
that are ideological and, as Biden's comments suggest, also strategic.
That's one reason why Sanders promised in a statement on April 26 to go to
the convention with "as many delegates as possible to fight for a
progressive party platform" - despite the fact that Clinton's delegate
advantage now all but guarantees that she will win the nomination.
What Sanders is proposing is a necessary quest - and a realistic one.
Already, he is better positioned than any recent insurgent challenger to
engage in rules and platform debates, as well as in dialogues about
everything from the vice-presidential nomination to the character of the
fall campaign. As veteran political analyst Rhodes Cook noted in a survey
prepared for The Atlantic, by mid-April, Sanders had exceeded the overall
vote totals and percentages of Howard Dean in 2004, Jesse Jackson in 1988,
Gary Hart in 1984 and Ted Kennedy in 1980, among others. (While Barack
Obama's 2008 challenge to Clinton began as something of an insurgency, he
eventually ran with the solid support of key party leaders like Kennedy.)
By
the time the District of Columbia votes on June 14, Sanders will have more
pledged delegates than any challenger seeking to influence a national
convention and its nominee since the party began to democratize its
nominating process following the disastrous, boss-dominated convention of
1968.
This new reality has Clinton supporters fretting about the prospect of a
chaotic convention that could expose divisions within the party when it
should be uniting for what increasing looks like a fall fight against
Donald
Trump. But a muscular appearance by Sanders and his delegates at the
convention doesn't have to lead to bitterness. Historically, contested
conventions - not carefully choreographed coronations - have led parties
and
their nominees to take more audacious positions and to excite broader
electoral coalitions.
"Conventions are where we come together, but you don't really come together
if you avoid differences," says the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has protested,
attended or spoken at nearly a dozen Democratic national conventions (and
who has not endorsed a candidate in the primary race this year). "You start
by understanding that it takes two wings to fly. If you have two strong
wings - a wing that has won and a wing that has lost - you don't deny the
differences; you recognize them. You debate, find common ground, find ways
to start working together for immediate goals - the next election - and for
long-term goals that can mean as much to the nation as to the party."
Recent conventions have been so tightly scripted that it's easy to forget
that both parties have long histories of contested gatherings - sometimes
with open combat over the party's standard-bearer (as may erupt at this
year's Republican convention), but often with spirited competition over
rules, platforms and the very nature of the party itself. Contested
conventions can open policy debates and clear the way for "significant
political and social progress," argues Fitchburg State University professor
Benjamin Railton, who has analyzed the history of conventions. With 18
state
wins so far and more than 1,350 delegates, Sanders is uniquely poised to
push for such progress. Since Clinton will likely arrive at the convention
with a majority of the pledged delegates and a lead in the popular vote,
she'll have every right to argue, as she did in April, that "I am winning.
And I'm winning because of what I stand for and what I've done."
Front-runners rarely invite input from insurgent challengers, and if
Clinton
chooses to wall Sanders off, she'll have the upper hand in Philadelphia. In
January, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
appointed a pair of Clinton allies, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy and
former Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin, to head the platform committee. And
an ardent Clinton supporter and noted Sanders antagonist, former
congressman
Barney Frank, will cochair the rules committee.
But Clinton's decision to adopt what was initially Sanders's position on a
host of issues, from wages to climate change to trade policy, shows that
her
campaign recognizes that a substantial portion of the party's base - as
well
as its potential base - is attracted to Sanders's more aspirational
message.
And the pressure to make that recognition a part of the Democratic platform
will grow as the committees expand before the convention and Sanders aides
urge the DNC to deliver on the promise made by spokesman Luis Miranda: that
the party is "committed to an open, inclusive and representative process"
for drawing up the platform, and that "both of our campaigns will be
represented on the drafting committee."
If Sanders advocates gain sufficient representation to provoke debates,
what
are the likely pressure points? Like Jackson and his supporters, who forced
rules reforms and the diversification of the DNC in 1988, the Sanders camp
could champion a more open and representative Democratic Party. There could
be calls for reducing or eliminating the role of superdelegates, for a
better approach to scheduling debates and for consistent primary rules to
avoid dramatic variations in turnout based on whether the primary is open
or
closed. Even though Sanders ran well in caucuses, his backers could gain
credibility by also arguing that caucuses are too incoherently organized
and
difficult to participate in to be justified. On all of these issues,
Sanders
supporters would have to establish alliances with Clinton backers who
recognize that it is time to "democratize the Democratic Party."
The prospect of aligning with Clinton supporters, especially progressive
members of Congress and labor activists who will attend the convention as
superdelegates, creates even greater openings for platform fights.
Prospective nominees tend to favor weaker platforms; Harry Truman would
have
preferred milder civil-rights commitments than were made in his party's
1948
platform, and it took steady pressure from unions, liberals and Ted Kennedy
to get Jimmy Carter to finally embrace spending on jobs programs. It will
take similar pressure to get Clinton and her inner circle to accept a
Democratic platform that Sanders says must include "a $15-an-hour minimum
wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all
health-care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending
fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities
tuition-free, and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the
planetary crisis of climate change." Clinton stalwarts may want to keep
things vague, but look for the Sanders team to demand specifics, such as an
explicit endorsement of a national $15 minimum wage instead of the $12
proposal that Clinton initially offered, and an unequivocal rejection of
the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that President Obama supports and that
Clinton once championed but now criticizes.
As it happens, many of Clinton's most passionate allies have been outspoken
supporters of the fight for $15, fair-trade policies and proposals to break
up the big banks. One of them, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a potential
vice-presidential pick, has argued publicly that Clinton "should work with
[Sanders] on the platform" in order to strengthen the party's appeal. Other
Clinton backers like Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and
nonaligned House members like Wisconsin's Mark Pocan could play a critical
role in steering the party toward unequivocal opposition to the TPP. There
could also be room for cooperation on addressing mass incarceration,
passing
constitutional amendments to get big money out of politics and guaranteeing
voting rights for all.
Sanders backers want to win these platforms fights - not to make a point
about their campaign, but to make a deeper point about what the Democratic
Party must stand for in order to win the 2016 election and the future. "The
convention can amplify what this campaign made visible - that there are
millions of Americans who are hurting - and say that the Democratic Party
has to respond to that pain with bigger and bolder policies," says Working
Families Party national director Dan Cantor, a veteran of the 1988 Jackson
campaign who is now a Sanders backer. "Democrats who want to win a big
majority in November, to take back the Congress and to move forward in the
states, know that the party has to stand for something that excites young
people, that excites working people. No matter who the nominee is, the
party
has to take a big-vision stand."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty)
http://billmoyers.com/story/a-contested-convention-is-exactly-what-the-democ
ratic-party-needs/http://billmoyers.com/story/a-contested-convention-is-exac
tly-what-the-democratic-party-needs/
A Contested Convention Is Exactly What the Democratic Party Needs
By John Nichols, Moyers & Company
05 May 16
Bernie Sanders will go to Philadelphia with more pledged delegates than any
insurgent in modern history. Here's what he could do with them.
oe Biden understands something about the Democratic Party and its future
that his fellow partisans would do well to consider. "I don't think any
Democrat's ever won saying, 'We can't think that big - we ought to really
downsize here because it's not realistic,'" the vice president told The New
York Times in April. "C'mon man, this is the Democratic Party! I'm not part
of the party that says, 'Well, we can't do it.'" Mocking Hillary Clinton's
criticism of Bernie Sanders for proposing bold reforms, Biden dismissed the
politics of lowered expectations. "I like the idea of saying, 'We can do
much more,' because we can," he declared, leading the Times to observe
that,
while Biden wasn't making an endorsement, "He'll take Mr. Sanders's
aspirational approach over Mrs. Clinton's caution any day."
Unwittingly or not, Biden made an even better case than Sanders has for
taking his insurgent campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in
Philadelphia. If the party is going to run in 2016 on a "do much more"
agenda - as opposed to triangulating around the center - the Vermont
senator's supporters and like-minded Democrats, including Clinton's
progressive backers, will have to force the issue. Taking the Sanders
insurgency to the convention is the paramount vehicle for placing demands
that are ideological and, as Biden's comments suggest, also strategic.
That's one reason why Sanders promised in a statement on April 26 to go to
the convention with "as many delegates as possible to fight for a
progressive party platform" - despite the fact that Clinton's delegate
advantage now all but guarantees that she will win the nomination.
What Sanders is proposing is a necessary quest - and a realistic one.
Already, he is better positioned than any recent insurgent challenger to
engage in rules and platform debates, as well as in dialogues about
everything from the vice-presidential nomination to the character of the
fall campaign. As veteran political analyst Rhodes Cook noted in a survey
prepared for The Atlantic, by mid-April, Sanders had exceeded the overall
vote totals and percentages of Howard Dean in 2004, Jesse Jackson in 1988,
Gary Hart in 1984 and Ted Kennedy in 1980, among others. (While Barack
Obama's 2008 challenge to Clinton began as something of an insurgency, he
eventually ran with the solid support of key party leaders like Kennedy.)
By
the time the District of Columbia votes on June 14, Sanders will have more
pledged delegates than any challenger seeking to influence a national
convention and its nominee since the party began to democratize its
nominating process following the disastrous, boss-dominated convention of
1968.
This new reality has Clinton supporters fretting about the prospect of a
chaotic convention that could expose divisions within the party when it
should be uniting for what increasing looks like a fall fight against
Donald
Trump. But a muscular appearance by Sanders and his delegates at the
convention doesn't have to lead to bitterness. Historically, contested
conventions - not carefully choreographed coronations - have led parties
and
their nominees to take more audacious positions and to excite broader
electoral coalitions.
"Conventions are where we come together, but you don't really come together
if you avoid differences," says the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has protested,
attended or spoken at nearly a dozen Democratic national conventions (and
who has not endorsed a candidate in the primary race this year). "You start
by understanding that it takes two wings to fly. If you have two strong
wings - a wing that has won and a wing that has lost - you don't deny the
differences; you recognize them. You debate, find common ground, find ways
to start working together for immediate goals - the next election - and for
long-term goals that can mean as much to the nation as to the party."
Recent conventions have been so tightly scripted that it's easy to forget
that both parties have long histories of contested gatherings - sometimes
with open combat over the party's standard-bearer (as may erupt at this
year's Republican convention), but often with spirited competition over
rules, platforms and the very nature of the party itself. Contested
conventions can open policy debates and clear the way for "significant
political and social progress," argues Fitchburg State University professor
Benjamin Railton, who has analyzed the history of conventions. With 18
state
wins so far and more than 1,350 delegates, Sanders is uniquely poised to
push for such progress. Since Clinton will likely arrive at the convention
with a majority of the pledged delegates and a lead in the popular vote,
she'll have every right to argue, as she did in April, that "I am winning.
And I'm winning because of what I stand for and what I've done."
Front-runners rarely invite input from insurgent challengers, and if
Clinton
chooses to wall Sanders off, she'll have the upper hand in Philadelphia. In
January, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
appointed a pair of Clinton allies, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy and
former Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin, to head the platform committee. And
an ardent Clinton supporter and noted Sanders antagonist, former
congressman
Barney Frank, will cochair the rules committee.
But Clinton's decision to adopt what was initially Sanders's position on a
host of issues, from wages to climate change to trade policy, shows that
her
campaign recognizes that a substantial portion of the party's base - as
well
as its potential base - is attracted to Sanders's more aspirational
message.
And the pressure to make that recognition a part of the Democratic platform
will grow as the committees expand before the convention and Sanders aides
urge the DNC to deliver on the promise made by spokesman Luis Miranda: that
the party is "committed to an open, inclusive and representative process"
for drawing up the platform, and that "both of our campaigns will be
represented on the drafting committee."
If Sanders advocates gain sufficient representation to provoke debates,
what
are the likely pressure points? Like Jackson and his supporters, who forced
rules reforms and the diversification of the DNC in 1988, the Sanders camp
could champion a more open and representative Democratic Party. There could
be calls for reducing or eliminating the role of superdelegates, for a
better approach to scheduling debates and for consistent primary rules to
avoid dramatic variations in turnout based on whether the primary is open
or
closed. Even though Sanders ran well in caucuses, his backers could gain
credibility by also arguing that caucuses are too incoherently organized
and
difficult to participate in to be justified. On all of these issues,
Sanders
supporters would have to establish alliances with Clinton backers who
recognize that it is time to "democratize the Democratic Party."
The prospect of aligning with Clinton supporters, especially progressive
members of Congress and labor activists who will attend the convention as
superdelegates, creates even greater openings for platform fights.
Prospective nominees tend to favor weaker platforms; Harry Truman would
have
preferred milder civil-rights commitments than were made in his party's
1948
platform, and it took steady pressure from unions, liberals and Ted Kennedy
to get Jimmy Carter to finally embrace spending on jobs programs. It will
take similar pressure to get Clinton and her inner circle to accept a
Democratic platform that Sanders says must include "a $15-an-hour minimum
wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all
health-care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending
fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities
tuition-free, and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the
planetary crisis of climate change." Clinton stalwarts may want to keep
things vague, but look for the Sanders team to demand specifics, such as an
explicit endorsement of a national $15 minimum wage instead of the $12
proposal that Clinton initially offered, and an unequivocal rejection of
the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that President Obama supports and that
Clinton once championed but now criticizes.
As it happens, many of Clinton's most passionate allies have been outspoken
supporters of the fight for $15, fair-trade policies and proposals to break
up the big banks. One of them, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a potential
vice-presidential pick, has argued publicly that Clinton "should work with
[Sanders] on the platform" in order to strengthen the party's appeal. Other
Clinton backers like Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and
nonaligned House members like Wisconsin's Mark Pocan could play a critical
role in steering the party toward unequivocal opposition to the TPP. There
could also be room for cooperation on addressing mass incarceration,
passing
constitutional amendments to get big money out of politics and guaranteeing
voting rights for all.
Sanders backers want to win these platforms fights - not to make a point
about their campaign, but to make a deeper point about what the Democratic
Party must stand for in order to win the 2016 election and the future. "The
convention can amplify what this campaign made visible - that there are
millions of Americans who are hurting - and say that the Democratic Party
has to respond to that pain with bigger and bolder policies," says Working
Families Party national director Dan Cantor, a veteran of the 1988 Jackson
campaign who is now a Sanders backer. "Democrats who want to win a big
majority in November, to take back the Congress and to move forward in the
states, know that the party has to stand for something that excites young
people, that excites working people. No matter who the nominee is, the
party
has to take a big-vision stand."
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize