538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[Adam Griffin]

The Manchin team is purposefully engineering a primary for the reasons that have been alluded to above, and "the Left" - in its classic incompetent and unorganized form - is playing right into their hands. It's like waving a red flag at a bull; they can't help themselves. His staff leaked that audio on purpose from a few weeks back where Manchin encouraged the left to primary him and I'm sure a whole lot more is going on right now too.

So here's how it plays out: some no-name (likely a non-WV native) will declare and make general overtures to progressives, maybe hire a couple of no-name staffers once donations begin flowing. The Green Web will whip itself into a frenzy and begin raising money - with practically none of it coming from WV - and before you know it, this person will have a million or two in small contributions. Manchin will happily go to every candidate forum, every debate and engage with the opponent at every turn. His opponent will have a better grassroots campaign structure than Manchin, more canvassers, and possibly more money on top of that. In the end, Manchin wins the primary by 40 points, and proceeds to the general election with most of his ad budget focused on replaying all of those Sister Soulja moments he had during the primary and talking about how he stands up to extremism no matter which side of the aisle it's on.

Then we'll get to hear how Manchin won 3-to-1 only because the system is rigged and MUH CLOSED PRIMARIES.



Those who are fond of labels like "True/Real/Bold Progressives" need to accept that their beliefs are not viable in every state of the country - nor even in every state's Democratic electorate. There are still heaps of Democrats who consciously, directly and overtly prefer moderate and even conservative Democrats: they just can't seem to accept this. To them, it must just be because they're "uninformed" or "need to do their research" or whatever.

They also need to learn how to pick their fights and not be baited so easily. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if more Democrats start engineering themselves to be primaried for brownie points in tougher districts/states. And these irate types will continue to fall for it hook, line and sinker, wasting their time, energy, money and anger on this rather than doing something productive to make left-of-center politics more viable in this country.

It also wouldn't hurt for them to not associate the word "progressive" with "someone who supported the candidate I supported in the primary". Really embarrassing to see people claim that Tulsi Gabbard and Jeff Merkley are True Progressives or whatever.

[Adam Griffin]

Did you see Bernie's town hall in WV? The Democratic party's neoliberalism is what is killing it in WV.

Did I see a substantially non-white crowd of maybe 150 people in a high school in a 90% white county? Yeah, I did. Please stop acting like there is some sort of massive organic enthusiasm in WV for True Leftism, let alone in McDowell County. In the spirit of the typical Bernie event, I'd bet good money that a substantial chunk of people in the audience weren't even locals.

[Adam Griffin]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

[Adam Griffin]

Did I see a substantially non-white crowd of maybe 150 people in a high school in a 90% white county? Yeah, I did. Please stop acting like there is some sort of massive organic enthusiasm in WV for True Leftism, let alone in McDowell County. In the spirit of the typical Bernie event, I'd bet good money that a substantial chunk of people in the audience weren't even locals.

Keystone, WV in McDowell County is actually 65% Black.

Well, yeah...but I'm not sure how that's necessarily relevant? Keystone's like 1% of the county's population and the town hall was several miles away. FWIW I'm familiar with McDowell's history of black miners and the like, but it's nowhere nearly as black as it was.

I'm also willing to accept that the audience was likely less diverse than what we saw in most shots of the debate: even in a place like McDowell, MSNBC had to make sure to promote a multicultural vibe by putting several Latinos, Muslims, etc directly behind Bernie and then presumably rotating panning to every non-white member of the audience, because a lot of the individual close-up shots were on non-whites.

Much to jfern's chagrin, his theory about massive True Leftist support is busted in either case, whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, then a lot of people in the audience weren't from there and drove to be at the event. If I'm wrong, then it makes sense that the audience would be so diverse; if (national) Democrats are down to like 20% of the population there, then a very substantial share of the Democratic coalition would be non-white even in a place like that.

[Adam Griffin]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

[Adam Griffin]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

Look at who seems to be close to the leader of that party.

God forbid one head of state be seen or interact with another! What's Gabbard's excuse for associating with both him and the party?

[Adam Griffin]

You guys can keep making excuses for Gabbard, pretending she's a True Progressive and whitewashing all of her right-wing positions and posturing, but you and I both know the only reason you consider her such is because she supported Bernie.

This is why "the Left" in this country is a complete failure and will continue to fail: no different than the establishment, just wants its ass kissed at every turn and will defend its own cult of personality - even from its own proclaimed ideals. The problem with that is that the establishment is the establishment, and it's the establishment for a reason: it does all of those things better.

[Adam Griffin]

You guys can keep making excuses for Gabbard, pretending she's a True Progressive and whitewashing all of her right-wing positions and posturing, but you and I both know the only reason you consider her such is because she supported Bernie. This is why "the Left" in this country will continue to fail: no different than the establishment, just wants its ass kissed at every turn and will defend its own cult of personality - even from its own proclaimed ideals.

Adam, you give too much importance for random trolls on the internet.

Story of my life

[Adam Griffin]

BUMP! Looks like Manchin isn't rulling out voting for Gorsuch. Still want this guy in your party?

I sure hope they do.

They wont.

Well I for one am glad Atlas forum does not have the same demographics as the WV Dem primary.

WV Democrats voted for Bernie.

They didn't vote for Bernie because they were TRUE PROGRESSIVES: they voted for Bernie because of the opposite. The alternative was "that coal-hating, power-hungry bitch". Turns out you can learn a lot by looking at what the actual voters of WV said in their Democratic primary:

40% of Bernie voters in the primary said explicitly that they were voting for Trump in November, ffs.

[Adam Griffin]

That doesn't say a lot. IN many states, where people thought Dems should continue Obama's policies, Bernie got good votes too. In Oklahoma, the people who said it should be more liberal & more conservatives both went big for Bernie while people in the middle stayed.

40% would anyways go for Trump in WV. Trump got 9% of the total Dem vote. That number will have to be high among Bernie Sanders supporters (16% odd i read somewhere). There were many Bernie/Trump voters in many states.

Not everyone voted to stop Clinton, many did. Many did because they supported it. You continue to take straw examples & paint a whole picture which isn't fair. Issues are mostly complex & are influenced by a myriad of factors & it rarely is 1 thing only !

Y'all just don't get it.

Tons 👏 of Bernie voters 👏 in WV 👏 protest 👏 voted 👏 for him.

I'm not painting any other picture than what is fair, and I'm certainly not using "isolated examples: 40 percent of the Democratic primary electorate always planned on voting for Trump. Of the remaining sixty percent or so, 35 percent legitimately supported Sanders and 25 percent legitimately supported Clinton. The overall group of Trump supporters was the plurality among those three groups, and 25% of all WV Democratic primary voters were Trump supporters who voted Bernie despite never supporting him.

They didn't vote for him because they liked him or wanted to see him as President: they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton - just like a huge portion of the love for Clinton there in the 2008 primary was fueled by her not being Blacky McBlackface.

They are conservatives who are registered Democrats because the Democratic Party has and still does rule WV local politics with an iron fist: they have closed primaries and if you want any say whatsoever over who ultimately runs your local and state politics, you register as a Democrat. This stuff isn't hard: a majority of registered voters in WV are registered Democrats but WV hasn't given a majority of its votes to a Democrat since 1996; in the past four elections, it hasn't even been in the single-digits.

It's not an outlier, it's not an exception: the difference between the picture you and others are trying to paint versus what is the reality is the difference between a solidly-progressive state and a heavily-conservative one; the difference between a legitimate Sanders rout (in both primary and general) and a victory where the primary's margin was fueled solely by protest voting.