completely immunized from attempted hostile takeovers by socialists and social democrats. Democrat entryism has been tried multiple times and will not work.
This is pretty silly, considering Bernie was the frontrunner prior to Super Tuesday and it took unprecedented coordination (and a fair amount of luck) to shut him down. It's also silly considering the current President was a far less serious candidate than Bernie and won the nomination of our other major party by (a) being an outsider in a time when people are broadly fed up with the standard fare and (b) taking advantage of a split field with a wealth of unpopular candidates.
I would point to the ratfuckery as evidence that the Dem leadership won't tolerate any serious attempt at socialist infiltration or entryism. When put in a losing position they will flip the chessboard and toss their own rules out the window. They are allowed to do this, because the Democratic Party is a private organization with no internal democratic accountability. There were no rank-and-file lanyards which Bernie could turn to to help him pressure the neoliberals to play fair. I mentioned the Blairite ratfuckery against Corbyn to illustrate that even in an actual party with that sort of internal democracy, this sort of ratfuckery is still possible. If Corbyn can't win his tug of war against the Blairites, what hope did Bernie have? What hope did Jesse Jackson have? None. Dems will always find a way out of having to concede to this sort of insurgency, no matter how popular. Dem entryism is almost as ridiculous and fruitless for socialists as socialists attempting Republican entryism.
Dems will always find a way out of having to concede to this sort of insurgency, no matter how popular.
The "always" is where I think you're wrong. There are practical limits to what they're able to pull off, as evidenced by the fact that they weren't able to stop Bernie until Super Tuesday and it took a popular former president and a good amount of luck to do it.
They won't always have an Obama-like figure who can swoop in and demand everyone fall in line (Republicans didn't in 2016). They won't always nail the timing; imagine if the pandemic hit the U.S. a little earlier, or if the Tara Reade story had broke a little earlier, or if George Floyd had been murdered a little earlier, etc. A Bernie-like candidate won't always have to build their political infrastructure from scratch. If a Bernie-like candidate wins by a clear majority because we recruit more leftists and centrists continue to lose interest, it might not be close enough to rig.
Democrats didn't kill Bernie by flipping a switch. It took effort and coordination and luck that won't always be on their side.
If Bernie had achieved sufficient momentum to win the primary despite the ratfuckery and despite the superdelegate bullshit, the Dems would have sabotaged his campaign in the general election, just like they did to Sinclair's gubernatorial campaign in the 1930s and like the 1972 McGovern campaign, and similar to the Blairite ratfuckery against Corbyn. Winning the primary wasn't the last hoop Bernie would have had to clear.
the Dems would have sabotaged his campaign in the general election, just like they did to Sinclair’s gubernatorial campaign in the 1930s and like the 1972 McGovern campaign, and similar to the Blairite ratfuckery against Corbyn
I don't think any of those other scenarios involved years of "vote blue no matter who" indoctrination of the relevant political base.
You absolutely right about other hurdles -- there really is no last hoop to clear, at least not for decades in the rosiest possible future -- but it's dangerous to read history as if it's a reflection of some divine, unchangeable laws. We have to walk the line between learning from our mistakes and ignoring a relatively easy way to build power because something arguably similar failed in an arguably similar situation generations ago (or across the globe in an entirely different political context).
This is pretty silly, considering Bernie was the frontrunner prior to Super Tuesday and it took unprecedented coordination (and a fair amount of luck) to shut him down. It's also silly considering the current President was a far less serious candidate than Bernie and won the nomination of our other major party by (a) being an outsider in a time when people are broadly fed up with the standard fare and (b) taking advantage of a split field with a wealth of unpopular candidates.
I would point to the ratfuckery as evidence that the Dem leadership won't tolerate any serious attempt at socialist infiltration or entryism. When put in a losing position they will flip the chessboard and toss their own rules out the window. They are allowed to do this, because the Democratic Party is a private organization with no internal democratic accountability. There were no rank-and-file lanyards which Bernie could turn to to help him pressure the neoliberals to play fair. I mentioned the Blairite ratfuckery against Corbyn to illustrate that even in an actual party with that sort of internal democracy, this sort of ratfuckery is still possible. If Corbyn can't win his tug of war against the Blairites, what hope did Bernie have? What hope did Jesse Jackson have? None. Dems will always find a way out of having to concede to this sort of insurgency, no matter how popular. Dem entryism is almost as ridiculous and fruitless for socialists as socialists attempting Republican entryism.
The "always" is where I think you're wrong. There are practical limits to what they're able to pull off, as evidenced by the fact that they weren't able to stop Bernie until Super Tuesday and it took a popular former president and a good amount of luck to do it.
They won't always have an Obama-like figure who can swoop in and demand everyone fall in line (Republicans didn't in 2016). They won't always nail the timing; imagine if the pandemic hit the U.S. a little earlier, or if the Tara Reade story had broke a little earlier, or if George Floyd had been murdered a little earlier, etc. A Bernie-like candidate won't always have to build their political infrastructure from scratch. If a Bernie-like candidate wins by a clear majority because we recruit more leftists and centrists continue to lose interest, it might not be close enough to rig.
Democrats didn't kill Bernie by flipping a switch. It took effort and coordination and luck that won't always be on their side.
If Bernie had achieved sufficient momentum to win the primary despite the ratfuckery and despite the superdelegate bullshit, the Dems would have sabotaged his campaign in the general election, just like they did to Sinclair's gubernatorial campaign in the 1930s and like the 1972 McGovern campaign, and similar to the Blairite ratfuckery against Corbyn. Winning the primary wasn't the last hoop Bernie would have had to clear.
I don't think any of those other scenarios involved years of "vote blue no matter who" indoctrination of the relevant political base.
You absolutely right about other hurdles -- there really is no last hoop to clear, at least not for decades in the rosiest possible future -- but it's dangerous to read history as if it's a reflection of some divine, unchangeable laws. We have to walk the line between learning from our mistakes and ignoring a relatively easy way to build power because something arguably similar failed in an arguably similar situation generations ago (or across the globe in an entirely different political context).