On Saturday March 5 I went to a nearby high school in Kansas
City, KS, where I live, to the Democratic Caucus so I could caucus for Bernie
Sanders. I had never been to a caucus before; in 2008, intending to caucus for
Barack Obama, I came late and couldn’t get near the school. This year one had
to register between 1 and 3, and we got there early; the lines were long and
there were still people in line at 3 (they got in; we waited). I’m not quite sure
why the process takes so long; part of it is needing to ensure voters are
registered Democrats (or, also time-consuming, register them on-site); some may
be poor organization.
Wyandotte County, where KC, KS is, is one of the few
Democratic counties in Kansas, and I was not too surprised at the large
turnout, which in fact set a record for this particular caucus with over 1,0000
people, beating 2008. The fact that there were more Sanders than Clinton
supporters was obvious early; as we searched for seats, we found ourselves in
the Clinton section because, well, that’s where the chairs were – we, of
course, moved. They tried putting us in groups of 10, lining us up in chairs,
but as the crowds swelled they eventually had to move us up to the gym, with
the two groups facing each other like fans of opposing basketball teams. There
were a lot more Bernie supporters.
It took a long time, but finally the count was in and Bernie
won 782-231. Then we could elect 12 representatives to join the other caucus
reps in our KS Third Congressional District (143 in all) on April 2. Bernie won
the state by 2:1 and will get 23 of Kansas’ 33 delegates. He also won
Democratic caucuses in nearby Nebraska, as well as Oklahoma and Colorado. So he
is popular among Democrats here in this deep red state.
But I get the sense that he is maybe not so popular among
the Democratic establishment. As I said, this is a Democratic county, and
several elected state representatives and a state senator were there; all but
the senator, who ran the show, were caucusing for Clinton. Each side got one speaker,
and the Clinton speaker indicated that she had been a Democrat for 45 years,
and that now was Hillary’s “time”. There was a sense that these “new” people
who were here, caucusing for Sanders, were perhaps interlopers, not true
Democrats, not paid their dues.
And probably that is true. The cool thing about the caucus
is that, even though it takes hours, compared to very little time to vote in a
primary, you get to actually see all the people and interact with a lot of
them. My group of 10 had a couple of retired people, 5 or 6 young people, some
working and some students, and a couple of middle-aged people. Virtually all
the young people were on the Sanders side. While there was a much higher
proportion of African-Americans on Clinton’s side, there were many on Sanders’;
they were a smaller percent, but maybe as many. There were also older people,
retired people, working people, and a lot of people who had not been previously
invested in the political process. So, maybe they had not paid their dues,
maybe they had not earned their “chops” with the Democratic party. So what?
They were Americans, and they were here now, and they were newly invested in
caring who was the next president. That is 100% good. It could help the
Democrats win. Even if the person they elect is not the one chosen by those who
have been long-term Democrats.
There is a good chance that Clinton will win the nomination,
and I will vote for her against whichever of the right wingers, mostly
proto-fascists, wins the Republican nomination. I think lots of people will.
But I fear that a lot of the folks who turned out for Bernie will not bother to
vote. Is it a victory for the Democratic establishment if they get “their”
candidate nominated but lose the general election? It is, as President Obama
demonstrated twice in winning the presidency (and yes, Republicans trying to
block him appointing someone to the Supreme Court, the American people HAVE
spoken!) about bringing new people into the political process. This is the
goal, both for the Democrats and for democracy.
The politicians from the legislature talked about how hard
it is being a Democrat in that body, and how terribly reactionary the
atmosphere in Topeka has become. They want us to elect more Democrats to the
legislature. They also talked about how important it would be to not only elect
a Democratic president, but to replace many of the Republicans in the House and
Senate. And, yet, what are they doing in Kansas? In 2010, the blue-dog Democratic
congressman from the 3rd district retired, and a 34-year old Republican
legislator was elected to the seat. In 2012, when he was completing his first
term, the Democrats ran NO ONE against him! This year, there is someone, a
legislator told me at the caucus, actually two people, one someone no one has
ever heard of and the other someone whose name he couldn’t even remember. Is
this the way the Kansas Democratic Party will take back what should be a
winnable seat? Why are none of these relatively well-known legislative leaders
running? Gave up already?
Of course, Kansas is a red state, and will go Republican in
November. Our reprehensible Electoral College system means all of its votes
will go to the Republican, whatever happens in the popular vote. This means
that even if there is a huge increase in the percent of Kansans voting
Democratic in November compared to 2012 (and there will be, because of the
immense unpopularity of Governor Brownback and his minions, whose policies have
bankrupted the state), it will have no greater impact than it did in 2012.
Indeed, most of the states where there have been caucuses or
primaries have been solid red; Clinton’s big victory in South Carolina will
avail the Democrats nothing in November. Only a few blue states (MN, MA, VT)
and swing states (VA, CO, NH, NV) have voted so far. In this sense, it is
irrelevant whether Clinton or Sanders win the red states, except to the extent
that who is the eventual nominee may impact how many new, young, voters turn
out in the general election in OH, PA, VA, FL, NC, CO and possibly NH and NV
where the election will be decided.
It is pretty clear that there will be many more if Bernie is
the candidate, and none of them will be dissuaded by Republicans calling him a
Jewish Socialist. On the other hand, Clinton may bring out a larger African-American
turnout in these swing states. But this has to be the question now: how can we
vitalize both the Democratic Party and democracy?
