>-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.
That makes sense.
>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.
Blaming it all on the electorate is even more defeatist. As for reaching out to the voters and selling a more progressive political platform, you must admit it is something of a handicap that the organised (into political parties) US left is denied the opportunity to do that by standing candidates for election. Which is one of the main ways that progressives "reach out" in the democratic world.
Can't be done in the US, so it is ridiculous to dismiss the talk of structural issues as a "smokescreen", an excuse for not "reaching out".
The system actually handicaps the left from reaching out. Not the party machines, I agree, party machines have no place in electoral politics in the US anyhow. Not the electorate, in fact the electorate hasn't got much of a place in US electoral politics either. The electorate can only vote for candidates who are represented on the ballot. The system sees to it that the choices are severely restricted.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas