TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

859 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Yeah, the term refers to merchants, shop keepers and traders and those type of things. 

Okay. I wondered, wouldn't the word "small" be more appropriate? 

But I typed "petite bourgeois" into google and it returned the phrase "petite bourgeousie", also called "petty bourgeoisie" - a derogatory term referencing middle-class business persons who wish they were higher in class and so seek to imitate such as much as possible.

Have I ever mentioned how much I dislike the French language?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??????Verified account @dorseyshaw

 

I had a lot of fun watching Meghan McCain completely melt down at the thought of Democratic Socialists coming for her inherited wealth

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

Progressive Blacksmith (aka Proggy B)? @ProgBlacksmith1 13h13 hours ago

 
 
Replying to @dorseyshaw @daviddoel

Notice three things happening here that show how badly Meghan McCain is losing the argument:

1)Screaming and talking over everyone to make her point.

2)Constantly using Venezuela, as an example, while ignoring Scandinavia.

3)Strawmanning socialist policies and making things up.

 

:unsure:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better post offices!!! Never thought of that one. I got a kick out of Meghan's statement

that the average Venezuelian has lost 24 pounds. Like to see the science behind that stat.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delaware US Senate race becoming very interesting.  A three term Dem senator with previous service as governor and treasurer being "primaried" by a far left challenger.  Dems barely control the state legislature, so state is not assuredly Dem as some think.  So, if the far left Dem wins, will it make it possible for GOP to win the seat in Nov.?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/a-test-in-delaware-can-an-old-school-politician-succeed-in-a-campaign-season-defined-by-tumult/2018/07/26/7fcc6528-8e85-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.61fd84787a02&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Delaware US Senate race becoming very interesting.  A three term Dem senator with previous service as governor and treasurer being "primaried" by a far left challenger.  Dems barely control the state legislature, so state is not assuredly Dem as some think.  So, if the far left Dem wins, will it make it possible for GOP to win the seat in Nov.?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/a-test-in-delaware-can-an-old-school-politician-succeed-in-a-campaign-season-defined-by-tumult/2018/07/26/7fcc6528-8e85-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.61fd84787a02&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

A lot will depend on the Trump effect;   the impact intense feelings towards the clown has on voter turnout and how independents and moderate Dems vote;   I.e. will they vote for a far left candidate,  when they normally would NOT,  because of how they feel about Trump and how he is dominating the election news cycle?  

   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

A lot will depend on the Trump effect;   the impact intense feelings towards the clown has voter turnout and how independents and moderate Dems vote;   I.e. will they vote for a far left candidate,  when they normally would NOT,  because of how they feel about Trump and how he is dominating the election news cycle?  

   

I know the Dems (and many of us) are hoping for a Trump effect that will cause the GOPers to lose both the House and Senate.  I just don't think it will happen unless the Dems put forward candidates that the independents and some Republican voters will actually vote for.  That is a big ask.  I could not vote for the far left Dems.  Of course in my area, that doesn't matter as Dems never win anyway.

What I fear is that the far left candidates will turn off the independents and "convertible" Republicans such that many moderate Dems, independents and Republicans will not even bother to vote at all.  Rather than voting Dem, they will see not voting as repudiating Trump.  That gets nothing for Dems.  It will also affect the down ballot races.

Incidentally, controlling the House is one thing, but controlling the Senate would be better.  That's where all the extreme right wing judges are going to be confirmed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Democrats Need to Run Left -- on Economics

"...........the trouble with this kind of story, which has become a sloppy habit for commentators, is that it lazily conflates two kinds of left. After 40 years of declining economic prospects for ordinary Americans and two years of fake populism by Trump, the Democrats need nothing so much as progressive candidates on pocketbook issues. These are the kind of candidates who can win back seats in Trump country. 

There may be lots of moderate Democrats in Michigan, as Times reporter Burns quotes former party chairman Brewer. But moderate on what? Surely not moderate on losing their jobs and their homes....

Deft Democratic candidates promise hard-pressed voters a better deal on economics, but reflect the views of their districts on hot-button social issues. .....

Only in a handful of swing, Republican-held suburban districts, where voters, especially Republican women, are disgusted with Trump, does it make any sense for a Democrat to run as more of a moderate on economics. And even in those districts, there are less affluent people who would turn out if a candidate gave them a good reason to vote.

So asking whether Democrats are running too far to the left in general is precisely the wrong question. The right question is how they blend economic issues—where they need to be left almost everywhere—with social issues, given that immigration rights, gun rights, or abortion rights can be divisive in the more socially conservative parts of the country. 

The worst combination of all, as Hillary Clinton painfully demonstrated in 2016, is left on identity issues and pro-Wall Street on economics........

http://prospect.org/article/yes-democrats-need-run-left-on-economics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Yes, Democrats Need to Run Left -- on Economics

"...........the trouble with this kind of story, which has become a sloppy habit for commentators, is that it lazily conflates two kinds of left. After 40 years of declining economic prospects for ordinary Americans and two years of fake populism by Trump, the Democrats need nothing so much as progressive candidates on pocketbook issues. These are the kind of candidates who can win back seats in Trump country. 

There may be lots of moderate Democrats in Michigan, as Times reporter Burns quotes former party chairman Brewer. But moderate on what? Surely not moderate on losing their jobs and their homes....

Deft Democratic candidates promise hard-pressed voters a better deal on economics, but reflect the views of their districts on hot-button social issues. .....

Only in a handful of swing, Republican-held suburban districts, where voters, especially Republican women, are disgusted with Trump, does it make any sense for a Democrat to run as more of a moderate on economics. And even in those districts, there are less affluent people who would turn out if a candidate gave them a good reason to vote.

So asking whether Democrats are running too far to the left in general is precisely the wrong question. The right question is how they blend economic issues—where they need to be left almost everywhere—with social issues, given that immigration rights, gun rights, or abortion rights can be divisive in the more socially conservative parts of the country. 

The worst combination of all, as Hillary Clinton painfully demonstrated in 2016, is left on identity issues and pro-Wall Street on economics........

http://prospect.org/article/yes-democrats-need-run-left-on-economics

I found this article sort of confusing, but then the subject is confusing.  Regardless, politics is perception and the critical issue is who actually shows up to vote and how they feel.

Being "left" on economics is dangerous.  Many, many working and middle class voters benefit from "leftist" economic policies, but they do not understand that.  They side with the "conservatives" on economics because unfortunately they do believe in trickle down.

As for Clinton, the Republicans and Trump were far more pro-Wall Street and they pretty much control the country.

The Dems have to show that their economic policies will better everyone's lives, to include the working and middle classes, small businesses, etc.  The Dem-Socialist present it as improving the lives of minorities, the poor, etc.  Free college, Medicare for All, etc. They need a better message - and a better delivery system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Steyer’s $110 million plan to redefine the Democrats

The billionaire investor is on a collision course with party leaders.

 

".....Steyer is building out an operation that’s bigger than anyone's other than the Koch brothers' — and the billionaire and his aides believe the reservoir of nontraditional voters he’s already activated could become the overriding factor in House and other races across the country.

 

Yet Steyer’s oversize role also stands to position him squarely against Democratic Party leadership, which has shown little appetite for pursuing one of his signature causes: impeachment.

Unlike the $80 million being spent by Michael Bloomberg on House Democratic races, Steyer will put his cash toward building out NextGen America and Need to Impeach, his two growing political organizations, as well as funding clean-energy ballot initiatives in Arizona and Nevada.....

“There’s all this concern in Washington that impeachment is going to rile up Republicans, but our numbers show the opposite. … It’s time to get past the establishment talking points and get to what’s really going to win elections,” Mack said, urging Democrats not to avoid impeachment “in fear of bothering 21 percent of Republicans who aren’t going to vote for us anyway.” ...........

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/steyer-democrats-millions-midterms-751245

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren Unveils Radical Anti-Corruption Platform

...... In broad strokes, Warren is attempting to take the profit motive out of public service by making it extremely difficult for former lawmakers and government officials to cash in on their government experience, while simultaneously giving Congress and federal agencies the resources needed to effectively govern without the motivated assistance of K Street. ...

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws. She would create a new Office of Public Integrity to enforce the new ethics laws. .....

The vision is not in conflict with democratic socialist reforms such as Medicare for all (which she supports) or free public college (which she also supports), but it’s more a matter of emphasis.

Where Bernie Sanders made eliminating college tuition central to his campaign, Warren has for years focused on exposing abuses by student lenders. Where Sanders has become synonymous with Medicare for all, Warren this year unveiled a plan she argued should be implemented if the loftier goal is out of reach, relying heavily on cracking down on insurance companies and expanding subsidies for purchasers of insurance....

When it comes to Warren’s proposal, the elephant in the Senate is Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. If Warren were able to ultimately implement some of her anti-corruption agenda, it’s near certain those impacted would challenge elements of it in federal court — courts that Donald Trump is busy stacking with right-wing ideologues.

That Warren is pushing forward nonetheless also goes to the heart of her approach to government, which is never to shy from a fight.

“I’m not here to describe the death of democracy. I’m here to talk about fighting back,” she said Tuesday.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/21/elizabeth-warren-unveils-radical-anti-corruption-platform/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

Landslide Victory for Progressive Reform as DNC Cuts Superdelegates Down to Size

"This thing is over. The DNC membership just overwhelmingly approved the voice reforms by a voice vote. Super delegates do not get a vote on the first convention ballot unless a candidate already has the nomination sewn up from pledged delegates."

 

........The reform was pushed by DNC Chair Tom Perez, but faced strong opposition from a relatively small but vocal group of party members, who argued it would disenfranchise some of the party’s most prominent members.

The action seeks to heal divisions exposed during the 2016 Democratic nomination, when Hillary Clinton prevailed over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) after receiving the support of the superdelegates – "unpledged delegates" in the party’s parlance.

The vote was celebrated by numerous progressives who had demanded major party reforms in the wake of the party's devastating losses in the 2016 elections:.........

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/25/massive-landslide-victory-progressive-reform-dnc-cuts-superdelegates-down-size

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats strip superdelegates of power and reform caucuses in 'historic' move

Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders teamed up to push the biggest reform package the party has seen in decades.

.... The new rules will also make caucuses more accessible by requiring state parties to accept absentee votes, addressing concerns that the caucuses are less democratic than primaries because they require people to physically attend the events in order to participate in the presidential nominating process in their state. ...

The DNC can’t force states to change their rules but the reform package includes measures to encourage states to open their primaries and caucuses to independent voters, as well as to expand same-day voter registration in order to bring new voters. ..

“We’ve debated this ad nauseam,” said union president Lee Saunders of AFSCME, reflecting the fatigue of many in the room. “Our job as the Democratic Party is to get Democrats elected, so let’s start that right now.” .....

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Democrats strip superdelegates of power and reform caucuses in 'historic' move

Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders teamed up to push the biggest reform package the party has seen in decades.

.... The new rules will also make caucuses more accessible by requiring state parties to accept absentee votes, addressing concerns that the caucuses are less democratic than primaries because they require people to physically attend the events in order to participate in the presidential nominating process in their state. ...

The DNC can’t force states to change their rules but the reform package includes measures to encourage states to open their primaries and caucuses to independent voters, as well as to expand same-day voter registration in order to bring new voters. ..

“We’ve debated this ad nauseam,” said union president Lee Saunders of AFSCME, reflecting the fatigue of many in the room. “Our job as the Democratic Party is to get Democrats elected, so let’s start that right now.” .....

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Therin lies one problem, it is up to state legislatures and governors to change the system.  The Republicans in South Carolina have been trying for years to enact legislation requiring closed primaries.  So far, it has failed, but who knows for how long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

Schumer Surrenders-

 

The Democrats’ Senate leader lets Mitch McConnell pack the courts.

 

"....under this week’s McConnell-Schumer deal, the Senate mass-confirmed seven judges Tuesday and scheduled eight for next week. In exchange, Democrats appeared to get this: a couple of the judges who were former Obama appointees, the re-nomination of Mark Pearce to a Democratic seat on the National Labor Relations Board, and the release of 85,000 documents from Brett Kavanaugh in advance of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Democrats were already entitled to much of this: They had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the Kavanaugh documents, and a re-nomination for the NLRB seat doesn’t guarantee a successful vote.

Trading a couple of middle-of-the-road Obama judges for more than a dozen hardline Trump ones—including one rated “unqualified” by the American Bar Association—doesn’t make this much better.....

None of this has anything to do with how liberal Schumer or his caucus either is or isn’t. It’s all about tactics. In the minority, McConnell made life miserable for Senate Democrats, minimizing their output. Schumer has simply not stepped up with the same aggression.

As a result, McConnell has been able to outmaneuver his counterpart repeatedly, with wide-ranging consequences for all Americans. ....

http://prospect.org/article/schumer-surrenders

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aiden Wolfe @AidenWolfe Aug 29

 
 

ENOUGH. Stop the **** facade.

We're all guilty of salivating about a blue wave, but we gotta stop treating it like it's some divinely ordained inevitability.

 

The GOP may be utterly incompetent at governing,

but they're god damn Yoda when it comes to slithering into power.

:unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

“It Seems Like Iowa in 2007”: Is Beto O’Rourke the Left’s Obama-Like Answer to Trump in 2020?

O’Rourke offers not just a path to victory in Texas but an antidote to the entire stupid artifice of American politics in the Trump era.
He’s authentic, full of energy, and stripped of consultant-driven sterility. On what planet is Beto O’Rourke not a presidential contender, even if he loses?........
 
...unlike Washington consultants who say that Democrats should only be talking about health care this election season, and not the scandals swirling around Trump, O’Rourke seems to understand that it isn’t really that hard to do both. Because Democrats want to hear about both, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise. ...
 
In little over a year, O’Rourke has built a thriving political movement in the country’s second-largest state, with a strategy built purely on hustle, grassroots organizing, and his hunch that the standard-issue campaign playbook met its final demise in 2016. .....
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2018 Progressive Honor Roll-

Progressives were on the move this year, and they weren’t just resisting Trump—they were outlining the alternative to Trumpism.

......... They weren’t just winning the battle of ideas by moving Medicare for All and Fight for $15 proposals into the mainstream; they were winning battles at the ballot box as well. The fight for the future is far from over, but 2018 offered signs that it can and will be won. The Nation’s 2018 Progressive Honor Roll recognizes the dissidents and the strategists, the veteran campaigners and the next-gen leaders who are charting the course.

....Democrats took back the House of Representatives on November 6, restoring the system of checks and balances that had failed to function for the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency. But this was not a traditional transition of power: The winning Democrats were younger, more diverse, more aggressively progressive—and so many of them were women. ....

few senators have objected so consistently in 2018 as Bernie Sanders did to the Senate’s transformation into a rubber stamp for the Trump administration and Wall Street. But what made Sanders so valuable—and effective—was his determination to promote an alternative politics and policies. ........

(See entire list)

.....The worst deficit facing America is the democracy deficit.

It can be addressed, at least in part, by making the Senate a representative chamber.

Feingold can’t complete the process he began. But his allies who remain in the Senate—including the number-two Democrat in the chamber, Illinoisan Dick Durbin—should reintroduce his amendment proposal in the 116th Congress. As Durbin said several years ago, when he chaired a hearing on the issue, “Over a half century ago, Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said: ‘No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’ The same might be said of special elections to fill vacant US Senate seats—they are the worst way to fill such seats, except for all the others.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/republican-martha-mcsally-did-not-win-her-election-why-will-she-be-a-senator-next-year/

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2018 at 8:08 PM, mr6666 said:

:unsure:

“It Seems Like Iowa in 2007”: Is Beto O’Rourke the Left’s Obama-Like Answer to Trump in 2020?

O’Rourke offers not just a path to victory in Texas but an antidote to the entire stupid artifice of American politics in the Trump era.
He’s authentic, full of energy, and stripped of consultant-driven sterility. On what planet is Beto O’Rourke not a presidential contender, even if he loses?........
 
...unlike Washington consultants who say that Democrats should only be talking about health care this election season, and not the scandals swirling around Trump, O’Rourke seems to understand that it isn’t really that hard to do both. Because Democrats want to hear about both, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise. ...
 
In little over a year, O’Rourke has built a thriving political movement in the country’s second-largest state, with a strategy built purely on hustle, grassroots organizing, and his hunch that the standard-issue campaign playbook met its final demise in 2016. .....
 

I thought this a few weeks ago and am now seeing it in the media.  Biden for president and someone such as O'Rourke or Harris for Veep.

I don't think the "young Turks" or younger progressives or whatever you want to call them would win with one at the top of the ticket.  No matter how many young people, minorities, progressives, etc. they get on their side, it will come down to which party gets the most people to the polls in Nov. 2019 to win the Electoral College.  And therein is the rub, O'Rourke with all the media attention, grassroots organizing, money, etc. still lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheCid said:

And therein is the rub, O'Rourke with all the media attention, grassroots organizing, money, etc. still lost.

And to someone as deeply unlikable as Ted Cruz, as well. Yes, Texas is a very red state, and incumbents always have a leg up in elections, but Cruz is disliked by more people on both sides than most other politicians. Yet that still wasn't enough to swing things to O'Rourke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The InterceptVerified account @theintercept 1h1 hour ago

 
 

Progressives believe the pay-as-you-go rule will make it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, from “Medicare for All” to a Green New Deal to tuition-free public college.

 

=========================================

Nancy Pelosi Rams Austerity Provision Into House Rules Package Over Objections of Progressives

 

Despite pressure from progressive Democrats, the House rules package for the 116th Congress will include a pay-as-you-go provision, requiring all new spending to be offset with either budget cuts or tax increases, a conservative policy aimed at tying the hands of government....

progressives, who believe that the rule would make it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, from “Medicare for All” to a Green New Deal to tuition-free public college. Critics also argue that pay-go creates an unlevel playing field, where Republicans get to blow giant holes in the tax code, as they did with the 2017 tax cuts, while Democrats must pay fealty to the deficit.

“There’s enormous appetite in the Democratic Party and among all Americans for major public investment to tackle our nation’s major crises: deepening inequality and structural racism and climate disaster...."

The Trump tax cuts alone offer nearly $3 trillion in potential offsets simply by restoring corporate tax rates, “pass-through” rules on individuals, and inheritance taxes. But the pay-go rule forces Democrats to propose tax increases that Republicans gleefully broadcast. Meanwhile, Republicans, unconcerned with deficits, get to play Santa Claus, freed from having to match tax cuts with anything unappealing. ...............

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/nancy-pelosi-pay-go-rule/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mr6666 said:

The InterceptVerified account @theintercept 1h1 hour ago

 
 

Progressives believe the pay-as-you-go rule will make it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, from “Medicare for All” to a Green New Deal to tuition-free public college.

 

=========================================

Nancy Pelosi Rams Austerity Provision Into House Rules Package Over Objections of Progressives

 

Despite pressure from progressive Democrats, the House rules package for the 116th Congress will include a pay-as-you-go provision, requiring all new spending to be offset with either budget cuts or tax increases, a conservative policy aimed at tying the hands of government....

progressives, who believe that the rule would make it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, from “Medicare for All” to a Green New Deal to tuition-free public college. Critics also argue that pay-go creates an unlevel playing field, where Republicans get to blow giant holes in the tax code, as they did with the 2017 tax cuts, while Democrats must pay fealty to the deficit.

“There’s enormous appetite in the Democratic Party and among all Americans for major public investment to tackle our nation’s major crises: deepening inequality and structural racism and climate disaster...."

The Trump tax cuts alone offer nearly $3 trillion in potential offsets simply by restoring corporate tax rates, “pass-through” rules on individuals, and inheritance taxes. But the pay-go rule forces Democrats to propose tax increases that Republicans gleefully broadcast. Meanwhile, Republicans, unconcerned with deficits, get to play Santa Claus, freed from having to match tax cuts with anything unappealing. ...............

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/nancy-pelosi-pay-go-rule/

 

It is well past time Congress find a solution to providing more with less money.  Either raise taxes or cut expenditures or a combination of both.  This includes every department and program and every tax regulation.

I think Pelosi (for a change) is recognizing the reality of government finance.  Also, that more "liberal" spending with no money to do it will offend enough voters that the GOPers and Trump will win the next elections.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

It is well past time Congress find a solution to providing more with less money.  Either raise taxes or cut expenditures or a combination of both.  This includes every department and program and every tax regulation.

I think Pelosi (for a change) is recognizing the reality of government finance.  Also, that more "liberal" spending with no money to do it will offend enough voters that the GOPers and Trump will win the next elections.

Pelosi is just following the orders of her corporate backers (ha ha).    Anyhow,  yea,  as a 'moderate' I like her stance here.  What will be interesting is how the new members of Congress,  especially those socialist Dems and those where the majority of their funding didn't come from corporations or the rich (e.g. politicians where the majority of the contribution dollars were by small donors),   view Pelosi's stance here,  as well as possible Dem Presidential candidates like Warren and Sanders.     

My gut tells me they are NOT happy, at all, but when they will speak out and push-back is up in the air.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us