I would love to be bullish on Ellison, and I do agree he's just what the
Democrats need. Unfortunately, he probably has as much chance of getting the
Democratic nomination in 2020 as I do. The powers that be in the party really
do believe they can just stay the course. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if
Hillary was trotted out again in four years. Something has to change, and
Ellison is one of the people who could change it. But he's not going to get the
chance.
Kevin LaRose
Anderson, IN
Email: kl1964@xxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 15, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Truthdig
Sorry, Garrison Keillor: Keith Ellison Could Have Beaten Trump, and Still
Can (Video)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/sorry_garrison_keillor_keith_ellison_cou
ld_have_beaten_trump_20161214/
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to More7
Posted on Dec 14, 2016
By Juan Cole (http://www.truthdig.com/staff/juan_cole) / Informed Comment
(http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/garrison-keillor-president.html)
I am a fan of Garrison Keillor, of "Prairie Home Companion" fame. I am also
a fan of Keith Ellison (D-MN), the prominent liberal representative from
Minneapolis and happens to be a Muslim.
Unfortunately for me, I have to choose between them because Keillor, deep in
depression over the advent of the Trump Gilded Age, blasted the idea of
Ellison
(http://www.citypages.com/news/garrison-keillor-says-keith-ellison-lackluste
r-black-muslim-is-wrong-for-dnc-chair/406052705 ) becoming the Democratic
National Committee chair. Keillor doesn't think all the children of Lake
Wobegone are above average. He thinks Ellison is a "lackluster black
Muslim" who would have difficulty connecting with the white factory workers
of Youngstown, the kind of people the Democrats need if they are to win in
2020.
Keillor is quick-witted and generally insightful, but why he chose to be so
wrong, and wrongheaded, on this issue is probably a mystery that would stump
even the great sleuth Guy Noir.
So here's a counter-proposition for Mr. Keillor to consider. If the
Democratic Party had been less dynastic and had run Keith Ellison as its
presidential candidate in 2016, Ellison would have beaten Trump. And,
moreover, if the Democrats were smart they would try to convince Ellison to
run in 2020.
In order to understand why I say this, you have to understand why Hillary
Clinton lost the election. It was because in some key states like
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, she suffered from a lack of enthusiasm on
the part of Democrats. In those states, it is true that perhaps 14% of the
white working class defected to Trump
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_myth_o
f_the_rust_belt_revolt.html ) . But another 21% just stayed home. As
Konstantin Kilibarda and Daria Roithmayr argue at Slate, the idea that Trump
flipped the white working class is incorrect. It was Sec. Clinton's
inability to get them to come to the voting booth for her that was decisive.
Moreover, Clinton lost the African-American vote in two ways
(http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-09/clinton-made-her-ca
se-to-black-voters-why-didnt-they-hear-her ) . First, she couldn't inspire
as many of them to vote as did Obama. They were only 12% of the electorate
in 2016, down from 13% in 2012. Second, she couldn't get as many of those
who voted to vote for her. Only 88% did so, about the same level as Kerry
attracted in 2004 but way off Obama's percentages (93%). She performed
especially poorly with younger African-Americans and with well-educated
ones. And she was way off
(https://mic.com/articles/159402/here-s-a-break-down-of-how-african-american
s-voted-in-the-2016-election#.8CqaEF4pM ) among African-Americans in
Florida, at only 84%.
Sec. Clinton also suffered an enthusiasm gap among Latino and Asian voters
compared to Obama. In 2012, Obama won 71% of the Latino vote. She got only
65% of Latinos to cast their ballot for her. She performed poorly among
youth across he board, compared to Obama. She did not do as well as Obama
in 2008, and while her popular vote totals are near his for 2012, her
support was distributed differently (it doesn't do her any good to have
extra millions vote for her in California and New York but for Michigander
Dems to stay home).
In short, Clinton lost in key states because she could not put back together
the Obama coalition.
But Ellison can? Ellison can.
Ellison is substantially to Clinton's left and those factory workers in
Youngstown know that he is their champion. The AFL-CIO is jumping up and
down over the moon with enthusiasm for him. He has been at the forefront
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/keith-ellison-afl-cio_us_5849b929e4b040
02fa806e23 ) of the struggle for the right to unionize, the right to strike
and the right to be paid a living wage. Maybe you think the white working
class is racist. It may be in the deep South and the West, but most of
those states weren't decisive in the presidential contest. It isn't in the
Northeast and the Midwest, where its votes matter
(http://thedemocraticstrategist-roundtables.com/?page_id=44 ;) :
"In Democracy Corps' combined interviews for 2012, Obama won white
non-college voters in New England by 51 to 42 percent, tied Romney in the
West North Central states by 47 to 46 percent and trailed by only 7 points
in the Mid-Atlantic by 44 to 51 percent."
Ellison, being to Obama's left on workers' issues, has the potential to do
even better than Obama among white workers in the Midwestern states that
Trump narrowly won, and he certainly has the potential to get them out to
vote in much larger numbers than Sec. Clinton did.
There is one person on the political horizon who could put back together
Obama's winning coalition. It is Keith Ellison. You couldn't imagine
Hillary Clinton winning North Carolina. Ellison at least certainly could,
putting together the liberal whites of the Research Triangle Park with an
enthusiastic African-American vote. Ellison could handily win Michigan and
of course Minnesota and Wisconsin. The blue firewall did not hold for
Clinton but it would, for Ellison.
If we can cede to Ellison the youth vote, the working class vote, the
African-American vote, the liberal white suburban vote (which he wins in his
home district), and the Latino vote, it is hard to see where we could go
wrong with him.
There is that Muslim thing, of course. And billionaire arch-Zionist Haim
Saban called Ellison an anti-Semite because he cares about rights for
Palestinians.
In fact, Ellison has been pro-Israel, despite attempts to smear him by
phonying up interview clips (the Trump fake news division). In fact, he
is to the right of the Democratic Party
(https://sadat.umd.edu/sites/sadat.umd.edu/files/key_findings_december_2016_
final_0.pdf ) on most issues having to do with Israel. As Bernie Sanders
showed, it is possible to care about basic human rights for Palestinians
while at the same time supporting basic human rights for Israelis. It
cannot be assumed that Ellison would do worse nationally with Jews,
especially those under 60, than Obama. But it also has to be noted that
Jews are an ever-shrinking proportion of the electorate and that
crowd-funding has made fanatics like Saban increasingly irrelevant. Trump
took plenty of risks with the Jewish vote, down to playing to Neonazis,
which is not something you could at all say about Ellison!
As for being Muslim, it could hurt him in some quarters. But likely those
are the same quarters where it would hurt him to be Black. I doubt
African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans would care very much. As for
white suburbanites, ever since Trump and the GOP far right began attacking
Muslims, the view of Islam among independents and Democrats has improved
markedly in just a year, according to Shibley Telhami's polling
(https://sadat.umd.edu/sites/sadat.umd.edu/files/FINAL%20KEY%20FINDINGS%203.
pdf ) :
"From November 2015 to June 2016, Americans views on Muslims have gone from
53% favorable to 62% favorable , while Americans with favorable views o f
Islam have increased from 37% to 44% in June over the same period. During
that same time frame, the percentage of people who think that Islamic and
Western religious and social traditions are compatible increased from 57% %
to 64 %."
Given that Trump is filling his administration with crazed Islamophobes,
this trend could well continue and accelerate, making a Muslim like Ellison
not only reputable but even beloved as an underdog. Besides, if Americans
will vote for a pussy-grabbing narcissistic erratic white nationalist with a
bad comb-over, it is hard to rule them out voting for almost anyone at all.
Mr. Keillor, your Democratic Party, and your idea of winning politics, is
so twentieth century. Keith Ellison is the future of America, which is
what makes me optimistic about, well, the future of America. Ellison for
President, 2020!
The U.S. Military's Role in Asia in the Age of Trump
A 'Jaw-Dropping' Assessment on Arctic Warming
Young Turks: Electing Trump Put $36,000 Into Pockets of Every Millionaire
in the U.S. (Video)
Professor Who Criticized Trump Is in Hiding After Death Threats
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
