Tuesday, December 25, 2018

ANS -- Is this any way to run a superpower?

Here's a Doug Muder article about Trump tweeting the end of the war in Syria.  If you are interested in such things, this is a good rational way to look at it.  
--Kim


Is this any way to run a superpower?

It's not crazy to want U.S. troops to come home from Syria and Afghanistan. It is crazy for a superpower's global strategy to shift from one tweet to the next.


When I heard that Trump had tweeted the withdrawal of America's 2,000 troops from Syria, and then heard reports that he would soon pull half of our 14,000 troops out of Afghanistan, my initial reaction was: "What's wrong with that?"

I'm not a pacifist, but I judge an American intervention in a foreign war by a few simple criteria.

  1. Are we fighting on the right side?
  2. Do our soldiers have a clear mission with an achievable goal?
  3. Are the resources we're committing sufficient to achieve that goal?
  4. Do Congress and the American people believe that the goal is worth the cost, and understand the risks involved?

Weighing Syria and Afghanistan. The Syria commitment could pass that test only as long as the goal was narrowly defined: to make ISIS a stateless state again by driving it out of all its territory. Given the nature of ISIS, which is as much an idea as a caliphate, that probably won't kill it. But it should make it less of a focal point for global Muslim discontent.

What's more, the strategy laid out by President Obama was working: ISIS had lost the majority of its territory by the end of the Obama administration, and Trump more or less continued what Obama had been doing, until now ISIS has been driven back to a few small enclaves. (The claim that we had not been beating ISIS under Obama but started "winning" under Trump is the usual Trumpian bullshit.) If those enclaves were about to fall, then it was time to think about declaring victory and getting out.

The longer we stay in Syria, though, the more secondary goals the mission picks up. We're supporting rebels against the brutal Assad government that Iran and Russia back. We're protecting the Kurdish forces (who have been doing most of the fighting against ISIS) from attack by Turkey (which has its own Kurdish region and fears Kurdish nationalism).

Those might be fine things to wish for, but they don't fare well against my criteria. In particular, if we're going to be players in the Syrian civil war, we'll need a lot more than 2,000 soldiers. I don't think the American people are ready to back that kind of commitment, and I don't see how it is supposed to end.

Our Afghan commitment is harder to justify. Originally, we sent forces to Afghanistan in response to 9-11. The goal, which had close to universal support from the public at the time, was to capture or kill the people who attacked us and establish an Afghan government that wouldn't let Al Qaeda operate freely within its borders. But 17 years later, Bin Laden is long dead and our effort to stand up an effective pro-American government in Kabul has failed. It's hard to estimate a troop level that could truly pacify the country — Obama couldn't do it with 100,000 — but whatever it is, the American people aren't willing to underwrite it.

So yes, we should be trying to disengage. But here's an idea the Master of the Deal might want to consider: Couldn't we negotiate some concessions from the people who want to see our forces gone? Why just make an announcement and start pulling out?

And here's my real problem with Trump's decision: Disengagement requires a plan just as much as engagement does. Maybe I have things to do and I'm sick of standing here plugging a hole in this dike with my finger. But predictable things will happen if I pull my finger out, and how do I intend to respond when they do?

ISIS isn't defeated yet. The premise of Trump's Syria tweet was clear:

We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.

But as he so often does, Trump is claiming credit for something that hasn't happened yet. (Despite his claims, North Korea isn't denuclearized yet either, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future. And the trade deal with China he announced still hasn't been worked out.) ISIS still controls a small amount of territory, it still has fighting forces, and it has squirreled away a considerable amount of money to fund future operations.

So the job isn't done, but the US withdrawal will begin immediately. (Although Sunday's tweet described the pullout as "slow & highly coordinated".) Trump himself seemed to acknowledge this in a subsequent contradictory tweet that also happens to be false. (Russia loves that we're leaving Syria.)

Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy about the U.S. leaving, despite what the Fake News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us.

So the first predictable thing that might happen is that ISIS stages a comeback and starts gaining territory again. What's the plan for that scenario? Accept it? Send our troops back in? Ask our Russian friends or our buddy Bashar al-Assad to handle it for us? (No, wait! Turkey will do it, according to last night's tweet. Turkish troops going deeper into Syria, which they used to rule back in the Ottoman days, where they might come into conflict with Assad, Hezbollah, and Russian forces … what could possibly go wrong? "We also discussed heavily expanded Trade.")

What's the new mission in Afghanistan? I can't find any explanation for the 7,000 figure: What is the mission of the 7,000 that will remain, and why do they no longer need the help of the 7,000 who are leaving? My intuition says that there is no new mission. "Pull out half of them" just comes from Trump's gut, and isn't based on anything.

What about the Kurds? The reason American casualties in Syria have been so low is that Kurdish militias are doing most of the actual fighting against ISIS.

The Kurds and their Syrian allies paid a severe price: They have suffered about 4,000 dead and 10,000 wounded since 2014. Over that same period, the United States lost only three soldiers in Syria, according to a U.S. military spokesperson.

Trump seems not to know these facts. "Time for someone else to fight," he tweeted, as if Americans were battling ISIS alone.

Turkey is worried about Kurdish militias operating in its own territory, which it sees as terrorism. According to AP, a December 14 phone conversation between Trump and Turkish autocrat Erdogan sparked the withdrawal decision.

Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two U.S. officials and a Turkish official briefed on the matter told The Associated Press.

The Dec. 14 call came a day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu agreed to have the two presidents discuss Erdogan's threats to launch a military operation against U.S.-backed Kurdish rebels in northeast Syria, where American forces are based. The NSC then set up the call.

Pompeo, Mattis and other members of the national security team prepared a list of talking points for Trump to tell Erdogan to back off, the officials said.

But the officials said Trump, who had previously accepted such advice and convinced the Turkish leader not to attack the Kurds and put U.S. troops at risk, ignored the script. Instead, the president sided with Erdogan.

The obvious implication is that if Erdogan wants to attack the people we've been relying on to push ISIS back, he should just have at it. We'll get out of his way.

Erdogan isn't the only one likely to attack after we leave. To the Assad government, the Kurds are just one more set of rebels. What if the Kurdish region of Syria (green on the map) collapses and our former allies start getting slaughtered? What are the implications of that in other conflicts where the US wants to find local allies?

Sometimes, superpowers have to make such betrayals. We left a number of Vietnamese allies in the lurch when we exited the Vietnam War, but few Americans would want us still to be fighting there. I just wish I could believe Trump (or anyone involved in his decision process) had thought these questions out and was making these decisions strategically.

What generals and diplomats are for. There's a way that major policy changes are supposed to happen: The National Security Council meets and the various departments involved weigh in: Pentagon people talk about military implications, State Department people anticipate how our allies will react, and regional experts from the intelligence services outline the most likely scenarios. They all make their recommendations and then the President announces a decision. The advisors whose advice wasn't taken then try to talk him out of it. If the President stands firm, though, they have to yield.

Next, all the principals return to their departments with the message: This is where we're going; make plans. The plans go back to the NSC, where they get accepted or rejected. (Sometimes the President has to say one more time, "No, I really meant it. This plan doesn't do what I asked for.") Allies get consulted. Political types design a messaging strategy to explain the new policy to the American people as well as the rest of the world. Then, when all the ducks are in a row, an announcement is made and the whole government moves in unison. If things are working well, our allies move with us.

There's a reason for doing things that way: A global superpower is much bigger than the kind of family business Trump is used to running. There's more to know and more to figure out. (As an analogy, consider the different medical specialists who might get together before a particularly complicated surgery. It's not just a question of where to cut, but whether last week's infection is under control, whether the patient's heart will stand the stress, how the patient tolerates anesthesia, what kind of recovery plan is needed, and dozens of other considerations.) The various departments are in the meeting not just to protect their turf, but because they represent different kinds of expertise. You consult with the generals and diplomats because that's what they're there for. They know stuff.

Hardly any of the usual process seems to have happened in this case. The only advisor Trump seems to have listened to before making his decision is Erdogan, a foreign autocrat. (He's also the former client of Michael Flynn, for what that's worth.) The messaging strategy was for Trump to write a tweet; everybody else had to adjust on the fly.

The result is that most of the interested parties, both within our government and among our allies, were taken by surprise. As they carry out the withdrawal, no one involved can possibly have confidence that all the relevant factors were considered and all the risks foreseen.

Mattis and McGurk. Two major officials, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Special Envoy Brett McGurk, resigned in protest. Historian Michael Beschlossclaims no defense secretary has ever done this before.

Mattis' resignation letter explains his decision in terms of worldview. In Mattis' world, American power depends on its alliances, but Trump sees our allies as parasites.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships…. [W]e must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances.

Mattis mentions Russia and China as examples of the kind of "malign actors and strategic competitors" that we and our allies need "common defense" against, because they "want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model".

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.

I can't help believing, though, that it's as much Trump's process as his policy that makes it impossible for Mattis to keep working with him. If a decision as important as withdrawing from a war can be made off the cuff while talking to a foreign dictator (Turkey may not be a threat as large as Russia or China, but it also a country run on an "authoritarian model".), by a President who doesn't read memos or listen to briefings, then it's not clear what role there is for people who know things.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

ANS -- Two brief articles about vehicles going electric

Here are two brief articles about the state of vehicle manufacturing with respect to electric vehicles.  
--Kim

Germany's Opel announces plans for electric van in 2020

  • Opel is among several major companies ramping up their presence in the electric vehicle sector.
  • The business will also open its order books for a battery electric version of its popular Corsa model.
Published 6:09 AM ET Thu, 6 Dec 2018  Updated 7:31 AM ET Thu, 6 Dec 2018

German automaker Opel is set to roll out an electric model of its Vivaro van. 

The new midsize van will be available as a battery electric vehicle in 2020, the company said in an announcement Thursday. 

In addition, Opel will open its order books for a battery electric version of its popular Corsa model and a plug-in hybrid version of its Grandland X sports utility vehicle (SUV) in the first half of 2019. 

Opel's CEO, Michael Lohscheller, said that the new Corsa would "make electro-mobility affordable for many customers." 

Lohscheller added that the company was "putting maximum effort into the electrification of our portfolio." 

Founded in 1862, Opel is one of the largest carmakers in Europe. It has been part of French company Groupe PSA since August last year. 

Opel is among several major companies ramping up their presence in the electric vehicle sector. 

In 2017, for example, Volvo Cars announced that every new car it launched would have an electric motor from 2019. The business also wants fully-electric cars to account for 50 percent of sales by the year 2025. 

In September 2018, Mercedes-Benz launched its first totally electric SUV. The Mercedes-Benz EQC was unveiled at an event in Stockholm, Sweden, and is the first vehicle produced under Mercedes' technology brand EQ. September also saw Audi begin mass production of its e-tron, the brand's first totally-electric SUV.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volkswagen says last generation of combustion 

engines to be launched in 2026

VW, Europe and China's best selling passenger car brand, will focus 

on electric cars instead.ead.

An American flag flies next to a Volkswagen car dealership in San Diego, California
An American flag flies next to a Volkswagen car dealership in San Diego, California, U.S. September 23, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo
Dec. 5, 2018 / 3:41 AM PST
By Reuters

Volkswagen will develop its final generation of vehicles using combustion engine technology in 2026, the company's strategy chief said on Tuesday.

VW made a strategy shift toward battery-driven vehicles in the wake of a damaging diesel-emissions cheating scandal in 2015, which forced the carmaker to pay billions of dollars in fines for hiding excessive pollution.

"In the year 2026 will be the last product start on a combustion engine platform," Michael Jost told the Handelsblatt automotive summit conference at Volkswagen's headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany.

A spokesman confirmed Jost's remarks meant that VW, Europe and China's best selling passenger car brand, will focus on electric cars instead.

VW will continue to adapt its petrol and diesel engined cars to meet environmental standards during the lifetime of those vehicles, but the German carmaker is now committed to radical steps to stop global warming, Jost said.

As a way to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord, Volkswagen has changed its car development benchmarks to include the target of radically cutting levels of carbon dioxide pollution in production as well, Jost said.



--------------------------------------------

Germany's Opel announces plans for electric van in 2020

  • Opel is among several major companies ramping up their presence in the electric vehicle sector.
  • The business will also open its order books for a battery electric version of its popular Corsa model.
Published 6:09 AM ET Thu, 6 Dec 2018  Updated 7:31 AM ET Thu, 6 Dec 2018

German automaker Opel is set to roll out an electric model of its Vivaro van. 

The new midsize van will be available as a battery electric vehicle in 2020, the company said in an announcement Thursday. 

In addition, Opel will open its order books for a battery electric version of its popular Corsa model and a plug-in hybrid version of its Grandland X sports utility vehicle (SUV) in the first half of 2019. 

Opel's CEO, Michael Lohscheller, said that the new Corsa would "make electro-mobility affordable for many customers." 

Lohscheller added that the company was "putting maximum effort into the electrification of our portfolio." 

Founded in 1862, Opel is one of the largest carmakers in Europe. It has been part of French company Groupe PSA since August last year. 

Opel is among several major companies ramping up their presence in the electric vehicle sector. 

In 2017, for example, Volvo Cars announced that every new car it launched would have an electric motor from 2019. The business also wants fully-electric cars to account for 50 percent of sales by the year 2025. 

In September 2018, Mercedes-Benz launched its first totally electric SUV. The Mercedes-Benz EQC was unveiled at an event in Stockholm, Sweden, and is the first vehicle produced under Mercedes' technology brand EQ. September also saw Audi begin mass production of its e-tron, the brand's first totally-electric SUV.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

ANS -- Are We Trying to Make Everyone an Aristocrat or a Peasant?

Here's another thoughtful piece from Ben Studebaker.  It's about the questions of what is freedom, and what is equality? It should get you thinking.  
--Kim

BENJAMIN STUDEBAKER

Yet Another Attempt to Make the World a Better Place by Writing Things

Are We Trying to Make Everyone an Aristocrat or a Peasant?

by Benjamin Studebaker

On the left, we care a lot about equality. But we really, really don't agree on what that means. Some of us want everyone to be an aristocrat. Some of us want everyone to be a peasant. Some of us want everyone to be a worker. Some of us want everyone to be middle class. Some of us want everyone to spend some time doing all of these things. We don't talk about this difference very much, but it seems kind of important, because these proposals are not at all the same thing.

In the beginning, Aristotle argued that it was best to be an aristocrat. For him, an aristocrat is someone who has their basic needs met and can therefore decide on their own what to do with their time. Beyond this, an aristocrat is an educated person. This education helps the aristocrat choose to use their time in a virtuous way, pursuing activities that the aristocrat believes to be good rather than activities that lead to wealth or status.

Image result for aristotle wallpaper

This model of the society was pretty straightforward:

  1. The aristocrats have leisure and education, and therefore use their time to pursue the good. They are "the virtuous".
  2. The "craftsmen" or "artisans" have less leisure and less education, and therefore use their time to pursue wealth and/or status. They are "the vulgar".
  3. The slaves have very little leisure and education, and therefore are used as tools to create leisure and education for other people. They are "the slavish".

Aristotle supplemented his belief that you need leisure and education to live well with another belief that some people were just by nature incapable of figuring out what to do with themselves even if they are afforded these things. He called these people "natural slaves". Because Aristotle lived in ancient times when resources were very scarce, he didn't think it was possible for there to be aristocrats if there were no slaves, because slaves created the free time the aristocrats needed to get educated and pursue the good.

The left doesn't think there are natural slaves. But there are a lot of people on the left who think that education is good, and that education requires free time. These people think that if we have leisure and education, we will make better decisions about what to do with our lives. Some of these people also think that industrialisation is ending scarcity and creating abundance, and that we can use this abundance to make it possible for everyone to live like Aristotle. For them, that's what the left is–expanding the set of people who have access to the aristocratic life until it includes everyone.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are the "3rd World Marxists", people like Mao Zedong and Frantz Fanon. These people think that western education is bad for you, because they think it encourages people to be right-wing. In a sense, Mao and Fanon think that western education doesn't make us into aristocrats–they think it makes us into vulgar capitalists. Their solution is to find the group of people most isolated from western education–the rural peasants of very poor countries–and find a way to put them in charge. If western education fails to produce aristocrats, then the choice is between rule by the vulgar and rule by the slavish, and Mao and Fanon prefer the slavish.

Image result for fanon

But Mao and Fanon aren't totally satisfied with the slavish as they are–they still want the slavish to create some new kind of education. Unfortunately, they're not totally sure what this education looks like. For one, Mao seemed to think that as soon as the peasants cease to be peasants, everything they say and do becomes deeply suspicious. That's why Mao was always sending people away to live on farms and having students beat up their teachers. But if you're spending your time being a farmer, how do you also spend your time getting educated? And if you beat up your teacher whenever they say something you don't like, how does your teacher teach you anything new or controversial? For two, Fanon was quite suspicious of his own education, because he was very aware of how western it was. So in Fanon's case, he wasn't even sure he was fit to prescribe an education program to the peasants. The most he could hope for is that the peasants would get all existentialist and use some kind of transcendent radical freedom to make something new. But on some level Fanon knows that's a bunch of French hooey. New societies emerge from old societies. The slavish have been denied the leisure and education they would need to come up with something new. They have been oppressed and mistreated, and when they are empowered they return the violence and oppression they received. So when the slaves empower themselves, we get a reign of terror. Fanon saw this–he argued that a slave revolution would be full of "cathartic violence". He hoped it would eventually somehow produce a transition to a newer, better society, but he feared it would just spiral. The organisations in the poor countries most committed to freeing their societies from western education and influence–Boko Haram and the Islamic State–are not offering an attractive alternative. They're just killing and abusing people, especially women.

Nevertheless, having been in universities for a while, Mao and Fanon have a point. A lot of people who go to universities don't become aristocrats. They become really successful at pursuing vulgar ends. And a lot of the people who don't go to universities are kinder and gentler than we are, despite all the terrible things we put them through. When I was younger, I was more technocratic than I am now. I used to think the people at the universities knew what they were doing, but were largely obstructed from having positive influence by our institutions. Having watched university people for a while, I can now say that while universities do produce some aristocrats, most university-educated people really are vulgar. So if we put the university-educated people in charge, we'd end up reinforcing the power of the vulgar.

Aristotle is right that most of us need leisure and education to be good people. Mao and Fanon are right that our universities don't provide that kind of education to most of the people who attend them. Despite this, somehow we do end up with some good people, in spite of ourselves. Some of the people who come out of our universities do genuinely think about this stuff and are real aristocrats. Some of the people who work for a living are savants at goodness and don't need fancy education to figure it out. But if we put the university-educated people in charge, the good ones won't win out, and we'll get vulgar government. And if we put the workers in charge, the good ones won't win out, and we'll get terror. Somehow we have to get the good university people and the good working people into the same political movement. But it's hard to do this, because we don't trust each other. We fear they might kill us. They fear we might enslave them. A lot of this history has already been written. We have enslaved them. They have killed us.

In practice, "should we all be aristocrats or peasants" often means "should we all go to universities or should we all work tough manual jobs"? Some people look at this and think the answer is "both". But I'll be honest with you–I don't want to work on a farm. I wouldn't be good at it and I wouldn't enjoy it. I don't think it's the best way for me to spend my limited time here on earth. And I bet there are a lot of people who work on farms who don't want to read political theory, because they don't enjoy it and don't want to spend their lives that way. Can we be egalitarians and accommodate that?

If the liberals have anything right, it's that we aren't all going to agree about how to live. Reasonable people are going to want to do different things with their time, because reasonable people are going to have different understandings of the good, even with all the leisure and education in the world. A society that is really free will create the time and space for people to make these decisions for themselves. It will give them leisure, but it won't make them go to a university or a farm, and it certainly won't make them go to both of these places. It will let them choose what to do, and give them the resources to make any choice. We have to stop trying to use the education system to make everyone else like us. We need to give people time and resources and let them decide what to do with these things.

That's why freedom from necessity is so important for the left. Time is the most valuable thing. If you don't control your time, you're not free. Scarcity makes us surrender our time, if not to our boss or the collective then to necessity itself. There is no freedom until scarcity is dead. We can democratise the workforce, we can give people more say at work, but until it's possible for all people to choose to be idle and still have their basic needs met, we're not free. Until then, we will keep twisting our notions of the good life to justify our own submission to the demands of scarcity. We will keep living in mental prisons. Some of us might choose to do manual labour even if we were freed from necessity–we might not all run off to join Plato's academy. But as long as we make people do it, as long as they don't choose to do it, we cannot be sure that we're not all rationalising our own lot in life.

The sad thing is that we don't have real abundance yet. We can't give people real choices. Whether you flip burgers for a democratically run co-op or flip burgers for Burger King, for the moment you still have to flip burgers to make a living, regardless of whether it's what you believe you ought to do with your life. It's worth striving to improve working conditions for the burger-flippers. But one day we might be able to give them a real choice. Some might remain burger-flippers, some might not. I'd love to find out what they'd pick if they didn't have to live in fear of the consequences.

So the answer is not "we should all be aristocrats" or "we should all be peasants". It's not "why not both". The answer is that we need to find a way to let people figure this out for themselves, without any pressure from the rest of us to come to any particular decision. That doesn't just mean we don't tell them what to do–it means we give them the resources to do whatever they choose. To get there, we need to end scarcity, and to end scarcity, we need to automate as much of the economy as possible. 20th century socialist proposals have been unsatisfying because they have all accommodated themselves to scarcity, and because of this they all involve making people do things they don't believe in. In some of them, a dictator tells you what to do, and in some of them the demos does. It feels better when you get a vote, but a vote is not freedom.

We're still building a world fit for people to live in. It's not ready yet.

Friday, December 07, 2018

ANS -- Why Bernie Sanders is the Clear Frontrunner in 2020

This is quite long but a good article about why Bernie Sanders has the best chance of winning against Trump in 2020.  He covers all the bases.  Let me know what you think.  Do you agree?  Who would you like to see as our candidate? Personally, though I would love to see a woman president, I don't think a woman, any woman, has a chance in America today.  
Also, I think Bernie and Trump are closer in age than he says here.  Maybe Trump lies about his age?  He lies about everything else, why not?
I messaged the author that he needs to proofread or get someone to -- it's rather messy.  
--Kim


Why Bernie Sanders is the Clear Frontrunner in 2020

photo byArmand Aviram

This is probably about the time that the dread has been setting in. Just when you thought you had begun to recover from the 2016 election, here we are. You were probably hoping for at least a year off after the midterm elections before having to confront this reality, but unfortunately this is where we are at.

It is unclear whether the corporate media is intentionally working to suppress this point of view to protect their own interests, or because they live inside of a bubble, so divorced from working people and reality itself, that the obvious has eluded them.

Unfortunately reality does not bargain with our misconceptions. In other words, it's time to get real people, and create a future we can all believe in.

Despite losing ground in the Senate, the Democrats won back control of the House. The danger here is to let this create a false sense of security. If the midterms proved anything, it's that candidates won elections by running on unabashedly progressive platforms. We can say definitively from 2016 that running on a centrist platform or simply being anti-Trump is not nearly enough to mobilize the left's base. The right wing can be motivated by fear alone or divisive wedge issues. Liberals and progressives must be inspired by vision, charisma and enthusiasm.

Medicare for all, creating good paying jobs, a green new deal, national $15 minimum wage, free college, ending corporate welfare, tax breaks for billionaires and foreign wars, banning fracking, and public banking are all issues that are inspiring people and gaining overwhelming support. The problem is that outside of party loyalists, nobody believes any of these candidates are going to follow through on their campaign promises, which is why turnout is so low. When turnout is low, democrats lose.

It has been a difficult two years living under the chaos of the Trump administration and the stakes are high as 2020 approaches. This may be the most important presidential race of our lifetime and if you identify as a democratic voter or tend to vote for democrats, this message is specifically for you.

One of my favorite descriptions of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Unfortunately we are already starting to see some familiar trends amongst the democratic establishment hacks, that have already lead us down a very dark path to a Trump presidency.

Over the coming months you will undoubtedly be bombarded with an endless barrage of op-ed, talking head and social media commentary offering a nauseating spectrum of conjecture. It is understandable that you will at times feel overwhelmed as the cacophony of opinions becomes white noise in your daily feed. Hopefully these words can offer some clarity in those moments as they present you with the opportunity to resolve yourself to sit back in total serenity, knowing that Bernie is our best chance at winning the White House and perhaps saving a good portion of the human race (…yes I am referring to climate change).

Before we examine each of the salient points I invite you to first briefly consider where we went wrong in 2016 with this part of nomination process.

Media Malpractice

By now you may have noticed that already the corporate media has been back at it neglecting to center Bernie Sanders as the presumptive front runner. Sanders has always been critical of the corporate media and their prioritizing sensationalism and political football over substantive debate on the issues.

The corporate news media, namely mainstream television outlets like MSNBC, CNN, Fox News have made a fortune off of Donald Trump.

The Pew Research center has profits for the telecom giant outlets soaring by billions of dollars since 2015, with CNN ad revenue increasing at 32 percent, and MSNBC a whopping 62%. That's a lot of people tuning in to hear about how Russia was to blame for Donald Trump.

But were they alone to blame?

The networks gave Donald Trump over $3 Billion in free advertising. They even at one point, showed an empty stage at a Trump press conference while Bernie was addressing a record crowd of 40–50,000 people in Washington Square Park in New York City (official estimates recorded conservatively 27,000 but those in attendance reported an additional 20,000 spilling out of the park and into the surrounding side streets- not to mention 40K people watching on livestream).

Why? Because in a time when ratings were declining fast and most people were turning to social media for their information, he was like a gift from on high (or below as the case may be).

Don't believe me? Here is CEO of CBS in his own words on Donald Trump and the 2016 election:

Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: "It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS."

Not convinced yet? He goes on to say…

"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? … The money's rolling in and this is fun…I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going…Donald's place in this election is a good thing."

Why is this important?

Because there was once a time when journalists were an integral part of the checks and balances that kept the people informed and able to make decisions based on facts. Not only did they lie to us to keep the money train going but they laid the ground work for Trumps post fact world and his famous diatribe, "Fake News." It stuck because though not everything they had reported about Trump was false, it had the ring of truth because they were lying to us. Instead of telling Democrats to fight for every vote, they routinely said that there was no way that Hillary would lose. Rachel Maddow at one point even said that South Carolina was "light pink" and that they were in a dead heat in the deep red state.

That's right. Light pink.

Hillary went on to lose by almost 15 points in that race alone.

These talking heads are paid millions of dollars a year to be the propaganda arm of the military industrial complex and their business model is to keep the political football game alive and the campaign ad money flowing.

In a time when most Americans stopped tuning in to network news because of social media, the corporate media not only stood to make billions off of Donald Trump's shit show political circus and become relevant again, but that, just like Brexit, all of their political pundits got it very very wrong. In fact just about all of the liberal elite were wrong

It wasn't just the television media. The non-profit Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting released an analysis of the Jeff Bezo's owned Washington Post, who released an astonishing 16 negative hit piece articles in 16 hours against Sanders

Did they get it wrong because of hubris? Bad assumptions? Or because they were trying to tilt the scales of public perception in favor of their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton? It is uncomfortable to remember all of the painful details. No one wants to be wrong. We will go to almost any lengths to not be wrong. We know this because of the Wikileaks' earthquake release of John Podesta's and the DNC's emails. We know because of DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile's own bombshell admissions and what 13 million Sanders supporters witnessed with their own eyes.

Did Everyone Get it Wrong?

Not everyone. Van Jones, Michael Moore, and Keith Ellison all tried to warn the American people and were laughed at.

I never had a platform as big as they did but I was also one of the ones who accurately predicted this. I told this to Marc Elias (lead counsel for the Clinton campaign who helped engineer the infamous Trump-Russia dossier) at the Democratic Platform committee when Hillary's delegates were striking down just about every progressive item on the Bernie delegates agenda.

Why is this even relevant? Why not let the past be the past?

The reason that this is relevant is to create a proper context to assess just how strong a candidate Bernie Sanders really is. It is also vital to understand that the without the millions of progressives who voted and campaigned for him, the country is fated to endure a second Trump administration.

Marc Elias, lock step with the rest of the Washington political establishment condescendingly told me that their "data was clear, and everyone would come around to support Clinton." I told him "you are high if you believe that, and the election is going to come down to the angry white guys that got fucked over by NAFTA living in the Rust belt." I went on to tell him that, it would be a horse race and that the real numbers would start emerging in late September, early October and that they would tell you just what they told all the super smart people in the U.K. who said there was no chance that Brexit would pass; that you are losing.

The outcome of the election speaks for itself.

Progressives are the most energetic leftists in the country. It's not just the numbers, but the enthusiasm. Many of the progressive leaders were willing, despite being treated badly by the Clinton machine, to reluctantly throw their support behind the democratic nominee to avoid a Trump presidency. At the platform committee it became clear that her allegiances were to the fracking, AIPAC and Wall St. lobbyists who financed her campaign. Progressive leaders were told to shut up and kiss the ring. Save one victory on the climate agenda, won only by fighting tooth and nail, it was brutal.

The rest is history.

Now here are some of the reasons that Bernie is our only hope.

It's Important That They Like You

This recent Newsweek article proves that not only is Bernie the only one that can beat Trump but that he is the most popular elected official in the country.

Net favorables are perhaps the most important indicator of electability. Since this was graph was released , Sanders' favorability rating has skyrocketed to from 51% in 2016 to an astonishing 75%.

As you can see by the winners and losers how important this is.

Harvard Study from 2016. Sen. Sanders' net favorability has increased to 75% since this was released

Branding and the Media Game

The left often does not seem to fully grasp that in this age of late stage capitalism Americans have become so conditioned by corporate consumerism that branding has pervaded every aspect of life in our society. Politics is no exception. In a time when people will literally trample their fellow man for the best Black Friday deal, brand hegemony is everything.

Bill Clinton even cited in a 2015 interview with Stephen Colbert that Trump was a master brander. Trump has proven that he could convert the media's endless lust for sensationalism into real political power. He was not only able to amass throngs of frenzied supporters who packed stadiums to hear his rhetoric, but he took out an entire field of republican career politicians.

Jeb Bush had a $130 million warchest and Trump ended his dynasty bid for the White House by branding his opponent with with three words:

"Low. Energy. Guy."

Clinton was never able to get out from under Trump's accusations of her being the epitome of the Washington establishment who has been selling American people out to their Wall Street cronies. It has always stuck because he finds his victims' glaring vulnerabilities and reduces them to sound bites that stick.

There isn't anyone in the field that will be able to go toe to toe with Trump on the debate stage other than Bernie. Beto may generate enthusiasm and have a bright future, but he would most likely get handled easily on the debate stage. His only real claim to fame is running against Cruz and losing. Just like a liberal version of Marco Rubio he would get eaten alive.

We never got to see Bernie take the gloves off in the primary as he was committed to running a positive campaign. Here is his takedown of conservative free market demi-god Alan Greenspan, so you could imagine what it might be like to go head to head with Trump. Bernie is the only one who has the grit, fire, facts and credibility to break through Donald Trump's rhetoric. Let's face it, every one of us wants to see Bernie annihilate 45 on national television.

Guess who else understands the media game. Bernie Sanders. He and his team has demonstrated a next level digital media savvy. His Facebook live videos regularly attract millions of viewers. One tweet from the Senator sent a pharmaceutical company's stock plummeting 15% in one day, costing shareholders almost $400 million. That is real power.

Bernie Sanders has a heavy cavalry of alternative media who are fiercely loyal, from platforms such as The Young Turks and a host of other independent talk shows. The Political Revolution not only takes advantage of new media, but it is tech savvy. Founded by Bernies supporter Rapi Castillo, the Progressive Coders Network or ProgCode is a collective of over 200 coders that was formerly Coders for Bernie. The group was responsible for creating many of the apps that enabled the Bernie's Political Revolution to fast become a fund raising and GOTV behemoth.

Bernie Sanders not only has a brand, but it is en fuego. His brand is synonymous with integrity, honesty, authenticity and a genuine concern for the welfare of the people. This is the rarest commodity in modern politics.

There is also more Bernie merchandise out there than you can imagine. There is everything from Bernie t-shirts made from famous punk rock logos, ugly Christmas sweaters, to prayer candles, and even Bernie onesies.

One of the reasons this is so important right now is because the democrats' brand is in serious trouble. Decades of neoliberal policies like NAFTA, corporate subsidies, bailouts and interventionist wars have left the poor and middle class decimated. Working people are hurting. Even after the public shockwave of 2016 losses, email leaks and whistleblowers, the Democratic leadership has failed to address concerns that they are out of touch with working people. Gains were made in the midterms largely due to the newly revitalized grassroots movements, but the party leaders continue to present the same tired messaging and same faces that were at the helm with the ship ran aground.

Bernie Has an Army of Supporters

Anyone who has spent time in the Trump digital groups doing basic opposition research will attest to the fact that the Donald's online following is a juggernaut. The numbers in the Facebook groups alone are terrifying and their memes are ubiquitous. Make no mistake, 45 is going to be very difficult to defeat. There is even an entire mythology about how Trump supporters dominated the interwebs with the viral power of their memes. They call it "The Great Meme War".There is also remarkable podcast by Radiolabs telling the story of how 4Chan came together to defeat Shia LaBeof in the most spectacular and horrifying way.

If you aren't taking this seriously yet, you really should be.

Here is a hard truth. Perhaps the greatest vulnerability on the left is the attitude of self-righteousness. According to recent studies, Americans hate pc culture. Even if we are correct about the myriad forms of oppression that exist, left to our own devises we can be a never ending barrage of pointing out "what's wrong" with the world most people would prefer to tune out. I do it too, and am just as much to blame.

It can be an awful cacophony of woke-a-tarian white noise. This is part of what gave rise to the weird anti-SJW internet subculture on Reddit and 4Chan that Steve Bannon was able to game and weaponize into a political tsunami. If you want to win a general election you're going to have to court voters outside of the echo chamber of the democratic party.

Not to fear. Bernie's Sanders supporters are an online tidal wave

Not only does Bernie have a brand and an army of followers, but a slogan that has become the battle cry of millions of dedicated Sandernistas. By the end of the primaries #FeelTheBern had been posted almost 7.4 million times. Granted #MakeAmericaGreatAgain was shared over 11 million times, but keep in mind that unlike the Berniecrats, Trump supporters largely do not take to the streets to canvas and organize. Think Kamala, Biden, Warren or Joe Kennedy have a shot at generating this type of online excitement to counter Trump's social media leviathan? Think again.

We even turned the iconic Hollywood landmark Johnie's Diner into a Bernie-themed center for grassroots activism and campaigning, replete with psychedelic murals. If the left is going to reclaim control of the government from the current corporate conservative regime we are going to need to think outside of conventional politics

There is an almost endless number of pro-Bernie groups on Facebook that have maintained their active membership for 2 years. Pages and groups Bernie Sander's Dank Meme Stash and Millennials for Bernie (now Millennials for Revolution) controlled the "memes of production." Memes can be incredibly powerful tools transmitting narratives, but only if they are good.

The People for Bernie Sanders is a volunteer lead grassroots social media platform that not only outperformed Hillary Clinton's accounts every day of the primary, generating billions of impressions with virtually no budget, but also spearheaded organizing efforts that helped launch in person Bernie groups all over the country.

Social media hegemony is not necessarily based in logic but in what narratives are gaining footholds the fastest. This is why both Russia and Hillary Clinton Super Pac Correct the record created online troll farms to silence dissent and promulgate various narratives. Though Sanders was not able ultimately to overcome the opposition, the power of his online following was certainly a factor in his becoming the first grassroots lead insurgent campaign in the modern age to legitimately challenge the most well funded and powerful political machine on the planet. Even though the primary ended, Bernie never stopped being in campaign mode and the majority of his supporters have remained active.

Powerful memes and hashtags can do more to counter a narrative than any cogent, well thought out argument, especially if the opposition is impervious to logic and live in a post-fact reality. They only work if they are good. There is an art to the meme and there is a saying in the digital underground; "the left can't meme." This is largely true with the exception of Bernie supporters, who have the dankest memes.

For example, imagine someone suggests Donald Trump is "draining the swamp."

My response:

See what I mean?

A meme like this is only effective because Sanders integrity and authenticity has come to redefine modern politics on the left.

The Bernie movement has also displayed a tremendous capacity to respond in real time to events. Bernie supporters grassroots media and organizing played a significant role in the bringing of the Dakota Access pipeline at Standing Rock to the national stage. The same crew of surrogates who stumped for Bernie across the country were instrumental in generating the awareness propelling NoDAPL to become the largest pipeline fight in history.

Allies such as Shailene Woodley, Susan Sarandon, Dr. Cornel West, and Mark Ruffalo helped draw tens of thousands to the front lines, many of whom were Sanders stalwarts, inspired by the photos of Bernie getting arrested during the Civil Rights movement*.

What's the point? Bernie has an actual army. Many of the core Women's march organizers including Linda Sarsour were vocal Sanders supporters in the primary.

Bernie's organization Our Revolution has multiple groups in almost every state in the union and has become a force supporting progressive candidates in elections nationwide at all levels of government.

Still Feeling the Bern

Bernie unites the left in a way that even Obama was never able to do. All that energy that we tend to focus on what is wrong with the world is transmuted into an intersectional vision for America that both recognizes the sources of oppression and channels the collective rage into positive actionable policies. He also is able to do this without alienating average working people.

Bernie's brand is fun and it is people powered. Because the movement behind him was decentralized it inspired countless creative events, songs, marches, videos and other crowd sourced offerings.

There was even a Bernie Sanders Star Wars parody series created by our friend Shane Barbera called Bernie Sand Wars (click link to watch). You couldn't make this up.

Everything changed in 2016 and it changed forever. It was the first year that social media won out over traditional big money machine politics and ground game. The Democratic party spent $1 Billion on high paid consultants. Where did that get the party and the rest of the country for that matter?

Bernie is a Rockstar

I have attended Sanders rallies all over the country. What did they all have in common? They took place in stadiums, large concert halls and arenas, and they were all packed. The lines to get in stretched over a hundred yards and had people selling merchandise just like a festival or U2 concert.

The last rally I attended, which was hosted by Shaun King and Black Lives Matter L.A., took place in downtown Los Angeles. Bernie not only packed the theater, but had to have a separate rally outside for the thousands of people who couldn't get in. The line was literally around an entire city block and when Sanders arrived the applause was deafening. This was two years after the election. This was a stark juxtaposition to Clinton rallies, who, despite her being one of the most famous public figures on the planet, failed to draw numbers consistently greater than in the hundreds.

Sanders 2016 campaign rally

Trump has never stopped campaigning and drawing big crowds. There is no other candidate that has the capacity to attract the numbers to exceed or rival that of Orange Hitler. This music video #JustVote that we made documenting the rallies should give you an idea of the enthusiasm Bernie rallies generate.

The reason that Bernie is able to attract such big crowds is that he has surprising rockstar charisma. Charisma has been the deciding factor as to whether or not a democratic nominee has gone on to not only win but be reelected. What is the difference between two-term presidents Bill Clinton and Obama and Michael Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary? Rockstar charisma versus lifeless, uninspiring, robotic personalities

The Power of Cool

Bernie has the cool kids. Hands down. No contest. I challenge you to go back to every presidential general election in the last 40 years, and you will find that the cooler candidate won. Every time.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Reagan vs Dukakis or Carter. Clinton vs George Bush or Dole. George W. vs Gore or Kerry. Clinton vs. Trump. Obama vs either conservative white guy. In the case of Obama it was a blood bath. I disagree with a great many of Obama's neoliberal economic, security and energy policies but there will never be a cooler president.

Sanders has avowed support from cultural influencers like Killer Mike from Run the Jewels. Shepard Fairey. Ta-Nahisi Coates. Sonic Youth. Zoe Kravitz. The Red Hot Chili Peppers. Saul Williams. Rosario Dawson. Roger Waters. Neil Young. Susan Sarandon. Jeff Tweedy from Wilco. Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros. Shailene Woodley. Reggie Watts. The list goes on.

They don't just like and support him. They are ride or die for the Bern. No one else in the field comes close, and they will never catch up. Bernie is not just a candidate or policy maker, and whether you like him or not, he has become an American icon and a symbol for progressive change.

Killer Mike and Bernie Sanders post interview. Throwing up the RTJ sign. Tight.

Bernie won 22 states in the primary including Rust Belt states Michigan and Wisconsin that were Obama strongholds but went to Trump. The Rust Belt states were some of the hardest hit by NAFTA and never fully recovered. I have travelled throughout the region and the name Clinton still inspires anger even amongst those who have traditionally identified and voted as democrats. They were always going to be pivotal swing states and yet why was this never at the forefront of the discussion as to Hillary being the presumptive front runner?

"For every blue-collar Democrat we will lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two or three moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia," Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, told The Washington Post

Yup. That was a thing.

This is critical to keep in mind for 2020 as the Rust Belt will again be a determining factor in the outcome of the general.

If you consider the factor that Bernie would have had the grassroots fracking, climate, coalitions, undocumented rights and union coalitions behind him as well as the full force of the Democratic party base and establishment, his working class populist message very likely would have outperformed Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida. As Gasland director Josh Fox said at the Democratic Platform Committee, "Pennsylvanians and Ohioans aren't going to vote to frack their own backyard."

Fundraising

Bernie's fundraising alone should qualify him as the clear front runner.

Sanders raised $218 million online from a record 2.8 million donors mostly from small individual donations averaging $27. He smashed Obama's 2008 fundraising records. Consider the magnitude of this achievement given the fact that he took no corporate campaign bribes from Wall Street, Big Pharma, fossil fuels, or weapons manufacturers and that he started the race with a 1% name recognition nationally. He ran against a former first lady, senator and secretary of state who is one of the most recognized names in the world.

Bernie's email list is not only one of the largest and most powerful in the country, but has integrated it with his platform that is a fundraising machine.

Tom Perez, DNC chair, said he wants "to learn from Senator Sanders about how he did it."

Support Amongst Black Voters

In the primary, the Sanders campaign did not have the time or resources to run a 50 state campaign and adequately reach out to African American voters especially in the South. This was despite the fact that black leaders like civil rights icon Harry Belafonte, Black Lives Matter activists Erica Garner and Shaun King, Dr. Cornel West, Spike Lee, Killer Mike, Danny Glover and others were unabashedly outspoken supporters giving speeches all around the county in support of Bernie. They frequently referenced his life long commitment to civil rights and fact that the African American community supported the Democratic party, but that the democratic leadership often failed black communities.

Bernie Sanders getting arrested during civil rights protests

Now that Bernie is no longer an unknown Senator from Vermont, his overall popularity amongst African American voters has hit a critical mass. He named Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution in 2017 and has been working diligently to make inroads with other leaders like Poor People's Campaign co-founder Rev. William Barber. He will still need to make up ground in bridging the gap in public perceptions but his agenda for criminal justice and economic reform has already lead to his surging in popularity with black voters. As the title of this Washington Post article tells us, it's time to end the myth that black voters don't like Bernie Sanders.

Again displaying their dexterity for online rapid response, Sanders supporters countered the media myth of the "Bernie Bro," with the hilarious hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite. This rehashing of the 2008 "Obama bro" trope, framing his supporters as mostly young, disillusioned, misogynistic white males. This was but one example of how the online army behind Bernie is a force that is not only diverse but cannot be ignored.

It is often noted by Clinton loyalists that her defeat of Sanders was overwhelming, but consider the fact that at least 13 of the states she won were deep red republican strongholds that would give a decisive victory in the primaries, but would be of no real consequence in the general.

Bernie's Got Nurse Power

I am perhaps biased because I come from a family of nurses, but there are few professions so fiercely committed to the betterment of our collective well being. If you went to any Bernie Sanders rally across the country, it was inevitable that you would witness red tour buses and a sea of smiling faces in red shirts waiving Nurses (heart) Bernie signs.

"What Bernie Sanders' campaign represents is an opportunity to not just speak truth to power, but to join movements together to change our country," said National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro. "His issues align with nurses from top to bottom." DeMoro wasted no time endorsing Sanders potential bid for 2020 by releasing the NNU statement in September of 2017.

"There is no other legislator who represents the same humanity, the same courage," DeMoro said, adding that for his track record of supporting the issues that matter most to nurses, the public and the planet, NNU is proud to endorse Sanders as a "president for all people."

Expect massive union support as Senator Sanders has recently introduced a bill to revitalize unions and ban "right to work" laws.

Third Parties

Despite corporate media narratives, third parties were not a decisive reason that Trump was elected president. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson won the lionshare of third party votes and most likely pulled more from Trump than from Clinton. Third party voters like Green Party supporters of Ralph Nader or Jill Stein WILL NEVER SUPPORT AN ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE. If Biden or anyone who is perceived to have been selected by the party bosses is nominated, you can write off those votes. No matter how you try to explain that it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow Donald Trump to be elected president, it will not matter.

If people actually tell you ahead of time that they will not support the establishment candidate what makes you think they will change their minds and whose fault is it really for not taking this into consideration?

The far left is more radically minded and therefore less malleable in their positions on the issues. They will however vote for Bernie in greater numbers. Unfortunately even though you think Elizabeth Warren is progressive, she is viewed largely as a sellout because she failed to endorse Sanders in the primaries, where she could have made the difference in the Massachusetts primary and possibly shifted the direction of the race.

The greater danger in not nominating Sanders for 2020 is not losing far left votes, it is that the majority of progressive voters will either support third party candidates running on the issues they care about or simply will not bring the enthusiasm necessary to get out the vote or will stay at home on that fateful Tuesday in November. Even greater still is that they will troll whatever candidate is selected to tow the line for the lobbyists and wealthy donors in the Hamptons. Do not for one moment entertain the thought that they will fall in line. It didn't happen in 2016 and it won't happen in 2020.

Insanity. Doing the same thing expecting different results.

"He's Not Even a Democrat"

Given everything that has happened, are we even entertaining this as a valid objection? This is the moment I am going to invite you to take a deep breath and think good and hard about this conversation you are having with yourself and whoever else you have been talking to. Consider that this is the same tribalistic partisan mentality that has shut down all intelligent discourse in our country and lead us to the present political realities that gave rise to the conditions that would allow someone like Trump to come into power.

First and foremost our concern must be to win, and Bernie Sanders is currently the only prospect in the field that can beat Trump.

Also consider the fact that Bernie Sanders maintaining his status as an Independent is a good thing. Independents are the largest voting bloc in the country. Only 58.1% of eligible voters showed up to the polls in 2016 versus 64% of the electorate in 2008. Why? Because most didn't see any hope for the kind of change people are desperate for.

Updated 2018 figures — GOP 28% Dems 30% Independents 39%

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who during his term as mayor of New York, instituted the racist and destructive "Stop and Frisk" policy, is the 11th richest man in the world. He is currently on most mainstream media lists as a legitimate contender for 2020. See where I am going with this?

In a time when democrats have been losing badly to republicans, no one has done more to revitalize the party than Bernie Sanders and his political revolution. Outrage over the Trump presidency only in part contributed to the Democrats taking back the House this November. A great majority of the enthusiasm of the "Blue Wave" was fueled by the Sanders wing of progressives out in the streets knocking on every door.

Also isn't the Democratic Party supposed to be the "big tent" all inclusive party?

Bernie's independent status hurt him badly in his race for the nomination as only 22 states have open primaries, where non-democratic party voters are eligible, but he would have dominated in the general election where this is not a factor. This is important to consider with respect to 2020. The reflex might be to discount someone who isn't "one of us", but perhaps it would be wise think beyond to our tribalistic inclinations to back the strongest candidate.

Author Heather Gautney points out in a Guardian op-ed:

"During the New York primary, between 3 and 4 million "unaffiliated" voters were disenfranchised due to a statute that required changing one's party affiliation 25 days prior to the previous general election. In 2016, that deadline was 193 days before election day. Over a third of under-30 voters — Sanders's core constituency — weren't registered to any political party. When those young people tried to vote, they were turned away."

Many of these voters are still hurting from the trauma of 2016. They will not support a Democratic candidate selected by the party elite, but they will be ride or die for Bernie.

Let's not make the same mistake twice.

The battle for the White House is going to come down to what side gets out of bed on Tuesday.

With all that is at stake it is imperative to approach 2020 with a winning mindset. What that does not look like is "falling in line" behind the media and party bosses who continue to go to any lengths to resist letting go of control. The populist left Bernie represents will not support a candidate selected by wealthy corporate donors in the invisible primaries taking place in the Hamptons. Despite losing the White House, the Supreme Court and over 1000 seats nationwide to a radical right wing agenda, the democratic establishment, who, like the record companies who tried to fight and sue Napster instead of adapting with the changing times like iTunes did, has continued to shore up the status quo.

"He's Too Old"

Bernie Sanders is 77 years old. Joe Biden is 76. If that is going to be the argument then we can disqualify Biden right now as well. Bernie is only 5 years the senior of Donald Trump and is indefatigable. During the primary he traveled the country giving, not a 10–15 minute pitch like most politicians, but a 90 minute impassioned discourse on the great challenges facing our nation and the policy measures necessary to meet them. Every. Single. Day. He still somehow managed to fly back (coach, not first class) and do his job of voting as a U.S. Senator.

Bernie knows what it means to run for president, understands the demands of the office and will only run if he is equal to the challenge. After that the trope "Bernie is too old" is simply ageism. His support amongst Millennials and Gen X'ers continues to grow who combined is now eclipsing the Baby Boomers in terms of voter turn out. This a combined voting bloc that is now eclipsing that of the Baby Boomers, who seem to be the only ones, generally speaking, concerned that his age is a factor. Also consider all of his fans who were too young to vote in 2016 but have now come of age and are showing up at the polls. At the end of the day it is a popularity contest, and there is no one who comes close.

Our concern right not above all is to elect a president who has the grit and vision to inspire this nation to rise above the radical right wing agenda and come together to save itself from self-destruction.

As of the mid term elections Donald Trump has retained about 90% of the support of the republican party which puts him on track for a second term. He continues to draw enormous crowds who don't seem to care that nothing he says is actually true. They live in an alternate reality where any criticism by the left mainstream media or democrats is "fake news."

One thing that Donald Trump understands that the left often fails to grasp is the power of narrative. According to the recently departed communications professor Walter Fisher, there are two aspects of narrative paradigm theory; narrative coherence and narrative fidelity. Narrative coherence measure how a story holds together and narrative fidelity connects with how well the story harmonizes with the listeners experience or world view.

To a rational person it is obvious that Donald Trump lies or makes things up as he goes. To someone who is desperate to believe that he is in a secret war with the globalists and the deep state. As John Barth once said, "Everyone is necessarily the hero of his own life story." To Trump supporters everything the media says about him is fake news because they are part of the Democratic elite that wants to take away their guns and elected a Muslim president who was born in Kenya.

Conservatives may not agree with Bernie's policies, but they overwhelmingly believe that he is honest, he cares about working people and that the media and Democratic Establishment is out to get him. Bernie is the only one that cuts through the narratives being driven by conservative media.

"They Will Never Elect a Socialist"

First off let's get one thing clear. If we are using Scandinavia as the model we aren't talking about socialism. Countries like Sweden and Denmark are capitalist social democracies. Socialism means that the workers control the modes of production. Bernie has never once advocated that. So really Bernie is in truth a social democrat. Keep in mind that even though he has identified himself in the past with democratic socialism, this has not affected his overwhelming popularity or effectiveness as a policy maker. If anything it has endeared him to the largest voting bloc in the country, the millennial generation.

Secondly, they also said that a black man name Barack Hussein Obama would never be elected president, or a draft dodging reality t.v. show hack trust fund baby who has never held elected office would win the Oval Office. And yet both of those things happened.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseating the 4th ranking House Democrat Joe Crowley is the canary in the coal mine for the party. She ran on a unabashedly progressive and democratic socialist platform. It worked. Big time. Like Bernie, her association with the "S" word has not prevented her social and political stock from rising, and rising fast.

Though Trump's popularity is holding with his base, his policies have continued to sell out working people. Their lives have not actually improved and in fact are becoming more desperate.

Even Daily KOS founder Markos Moulitsa's recently said in an interview:

"Democrats Better Embrace "Socialist" Label If They Want To Win In 2020"

Beating Trump is Not a Vision

In an interview last year Trump strategist Steve Bannon said, "The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

We know that Trump is a racist and a misogynist. We know he is a climate denier and is selling out the poor and middle class to the billionaire class. Everyone understands that victory is essential right now. It is not enough however for the democrats to run on a platform of how bad Trump is.

Conservatives can be motivated to get out the vote based on fear or racism. The left only turns out in numbers when there is excitement. This comes down to how charismatic the candidate is and how inspiring their campaign and platform is.

Like it or not, the progressives will not get excited to fire up the base for anyone in the field except Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard. Many may begrudgingly vote for "Not Trump 2020," but there certainly will not be the enthusiasm to knock on doors, phone bank, mobilize online, create viral content, come out to rallies, etc. Keep in mind that progressives are not like blue dog democrats.

The Democratic party establishment and loyalist voters will get behind the democratic nominee. That's why they are called blue dogs. They would vote for a blue dog if he was on the ticket. The progressives and far left will not. You may not like it, but it is a political reality that must be reconciled. It is crucial to understand this so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is a two edged sword. There has been rift in the party since 2016. The midterms were a step in right direction, but people are still far too disillusioned to create unity. Bernie can change that.

Not only will every vote count, but when the combined force of the democratic establishment meets the colossal energy of the grassroots, we can win the White House, the Senate and God willing the Supreme Court.

Time is Running Out

Income Inequality has reached record proportions. Unions are dying. Wages have remained stagnant while the billionaire class has enjoyed record gains. The banks are too big too fail and on course for another crash. We are facing Opioid epidemics, mass incarceration, and the need for massive immigration and criminal justice reform.

Climate Change is at our doorstep. The Camp, Woolsey and Thomas fires have already brought historic devastation to California now becoming an annual occurrence. At a 2 degree increase there will be a tipping point triggering catastrophic events escalating exponentially beyond our ability to respond. It is going to take massive global infrastructure change on par with World War 2 organizing efforts to meet the challenges of climate change, and the human race isn't even close.

Think the refugee crisis in Honduras or Syria is bad now? Some projections have climate crises displacing 150–300 million people as global temperatures and sea levels rise, and escalating climate catastrophes like Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. There are subsea methane deposits that could potentially endanger the survival of the human race. Both the democrats and republicans have been expanding fossil fuel extraction, when we need to at 100% renewable energy and kicking our addiction to fossil fuels like a junky needs to get of off heroin.

Countries on track to take Climate Action

Bernie Sanders is the only statesman to have the vision, grass root support, and political will to address these critical issues.

Just to recap, here are some of the reasons Bernie Sanders is the clear front runner for the 2020 presidential election:

  • Charisma
  • Net Favorables
  • Fundraising abilities
  • List size
  • Grassroots army
  • Support from Independents
  • Unions
  • Cool Kids
  • Online force
  • Grit and public perception of integrity
  • Policy Vision
  • We have no choice

We can no longer afford to relate to political candidates like our favorite brand of soft drink. We are past talking about who we like. It is time we acknowledge the political realities before us and align on the candidate who will not only win but can unite our country to create a sustainable society for future generations. If you truly want the Democrats back in power and guiding policies for this county, don't tow the party line to shore up the status quo and listen to consultants and media hacks give more bad advice. The best thing you can do to help the party is to hold them accountable to getting it right this time around.

Note: *It is important to note that while the Bernie movement made a significant contribution to efforts at Standing Rock, it was the efforts of the Indigenous activists and leaderships that deserve the credit and acknowledgement for leading that historic fight.