Bill Bartlett wrote:
>Would denying them party endorsement guarantee they couldn't run as
>Democrats under the US electoral system? Do they even have to be
>members of the Democrat party to run as demnocrats under the US
>electoral system?
-Michael Bloombeg, mayor of New York, was a life-long Dem, but since -he wasn't part of the machine, he could never have gotten a spot on -the primary ballot.
Oh BullShit. He didn't run because the voters in the Democratic primary are more progressive than those of the general electorate, so they likely would have voted against him. Bypassing the primary and using the Republican primary was an easier way to the ballot because he was afraid of Democratic VOTERS, not any machine.
If the votes had been there for him among Democratic primary voters, he could have spent his money there just as easily as in the general election.
All this bullshit about a Democratic machine. It's non-existent. When Pataki - a Republican -- faced McCall -- endorsed by Democrats and the Working Families Party -- all the unions endorsed either Pataki or used Working Families to endorse McCall. On the streets on the day of the election, you couldn't see hardly any Democrats turning anyone out. Without the unions, there was no "machine", just a few folks watching a couple of polls.
If we want better election results, we need a better class of electorate. Blaming "party machines" is all just an excuse for not facing the fact that the rightwing has been doing a bit better outreach to many working class voters progressives need to get a majority.
Talking about all these structural issues is just a smokescreen not to deal with that fundamental fact.
Nathan Newman