Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The Dems could still mess things up especially if they shutdown the government to assist illegal immigrants.   Yea, most people are for visas for 'dreamers' but not full on amnesty and open border.     The Dems and GOP could agree on immigration reform that includes the something for 'dreamers' but the Dems refuse since the GOP is demanding mandated E-verify and funding for border security.   

I also would advise the Dems to NOT run any CA politician (e.g. Harris),  for President in 2020.   CA politicians are all about identity politics and that is no way to win over voters that are not part of those Dems 'favored' identities.

 

I agree with most of the above. The Democrats are not very adept at coming up with a real program, articulating a message and sticking with it, not to mention the lack of inspiring or adept leadership. The Republicans also have a fairly wide diversity of "identities" within the party (Tea Party, evangelicals, anti-immigrants, "Reagan" democrats) but they have united behind the Koch Brothers messages. It seems to me that the Democrats began losing their way when they nominated the centrist, Carter and have slowly lost much of what ought to be their natural constituency by nominating centrist candidates.

I am not sure who would be a worthy nominee for them. Sherrod Brown, maybe?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Thenryb said:

I agree with most of the above. The Democrats are not very adept at coming up with a real program, articulating a message and sticking with it, not to mention the lack of inspiring or adept leadership. The Republicans also have a fairly wide diversity of "identities" within the party (Tea Party, evangelicals, anti-immigrants, "Reagan" democrats) but they have united behind the Koch Brothers messages. It seems to me that the Democrats began losing their way when they nominated the centrist, Carter and have slowly lost much of what ought to be their natural constituency by nominating centrist candidates.

I am not sure who would be a worthy nominee for them. Sherrod Brown, maybe?

 

Not sure I would call Carter a centrist, although he was not a liberal.  He was more just incompetent for the job.  The Dems were fairly successful with the avowed centrist candidate Bill Clinton (two terms).

Not sure I would call Obama a centrist either and while he did get elected to two terms, his policies are somewhat to blame for the revolt that put the Republicans in office beginning in 2010 and culminating with Trump.

Basically, the American people generally prefer a centrist government.  

Otherwise I agree with what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

How about O'Malley? He won't be too old in 2020. Don't know much about

his politics, but I think he's a fairly reliable liberal but not too left wing. He's

been through it before, though he didn't do too well, but that's not a big

problem the next time out. And he can't hurt with Irish-American voters. :)

I actually preferred Martin O'Malley (former gov. of MD) to the other Dem. candidates in 2016.  Unfortunately, the Clinton v. Sanders fight completely inundated him.  He didn't make this list so maybe he doesn't have the support needed to get through another bruising battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Thenryb said:

I agree with most of the above. The Democrats are not very adept at coming up with a real program, articulating a message and sticking with it, not to mention the lack of inspiring or adept leadership. The Republicans also have a fairly wide diversity of "identities" within the party (Tea Party, evangelicals, anti-immigrants, "Reagan" democrats) but they have united behind the Koch Brothers messages. It seems to me that the Democrats began losing their way when they nominated the centrist, Carter and have slowly lost much of what ought to be their natural constituency by nominating centrist candidates.

I am not sure who would be a worthy nominee for them. Sherrod Brown, maybe?

 

Bernie Sanders had a clear message and inspired hope but the Dems chose to run Hillary Clinton of all people. :lol:

Share this post


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

I actually preferred Martin O'Malley (former gov. of MD) to the other Dem. candidates in 2016.  Unfortunately, the Clinton v. Sanders fight completely inundated him.  He didn't make this list so maybe he doesn't have the support needed to get through another bruising battle.

O'Mallwy seemed pretty lame and uninspiring. He did about as well as Jeb in the primaries. If you get rid of Clinton and Bernie I'd have to say the next best would be Jim Webb but unfortunately he chose to run as Republican instead of Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Bernie Sanders had a clear message and inspired hope but the Dems chose to run Hillary Clinton of all people. :lol:

Sanders would have been clobbered in the general and taken lots of governors, senators and representatives down with him. 

Share this post


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

I actually preferred Martin O'Malley (former gov. of MD) to the other Dem. candidates in 2016.  Unfortunately, the Clinton v. Sanders fight completely inundated him.  He didn't make this list so maybe he doesn't have the support needed to get through another bruising battle.

I don't even know if he is thinking about running again in 2020. But I

think he would make a pretty good general election candidate if he did.

 

Of course the Democrats have a message. It's the opposite message of

the GOP, just as the GOP has a message, which is the opposite message

of the Dems.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"At least six progressive insurgents managed to out-raise their establishment Democratic opponents in House races in the final quarter of 2017, a stunning development that threatens to upend the way the party goes about selecting candidates.

The fundraising upsets reflect a burst of progressive energy that is also powering Democrats more broadly. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, challenging Ted Cruz, once again out-raised the Texas senator. The National Journal counted some 30 Democrats out-raised incumbent Republicans this past quarter....

...a rival strategy, ....adopted in part by Barack Obama, and later in full by Bernie Sanders, is now going local, fueled by second-generation national online groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and MoveOn, as well as new ones, such as Our Revolution and Justice Democrats. In short, candidates who campaign on populist, progressive platforms find grassroots supporters who can collectively rival the corporate donors who have powered the party for so long.

“Our movement is developing an alternative infrastructure to support populist campaigns so they never have to court the big corporate donors who push so many Democrats away from a working class agenda,” said Waleed Shahid, communications director of Justice Democrats, a group pushing for more populist progressives in the Democratic Party.....

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/six-insurgent-candidates-just-out-raised-their-establishment-democratic-opponents/

:)

Share this post


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

"At least six progressive insurgents managed to out-raise their establishment Democratic opponents in House races in the final quarter of 2017, a stunning development that threatens to upend the way the party goes about selecting candidates.

The fundraising upsets reflect a burst of progressive energy that is also powering Democrats more broadly. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, challenging Ted Cruz, once again out-raised the Texas senator. The National Journal counted some 30 Democrats out-raised incumbent Republicans this past quarter....

...a rival strategy, ....adopted in part by Barack Obama, and later in full by Bernie Sanders, is now going local, fueled by second-generation national online groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and MoveOn, as well as new ones, such as Our Revolution and Justice Democrats. In short, candidates who campaign on populist, progressive platforms find grassroots supporters who can collectively rival the corporate donors who have powered the party for so long.

“Our movement is developing an alternative infrastructure to support populist campaigns so they never have to court the big corporate donors who push so many Democrats away from a working class agenda,” said Waleed Shahid, communications director of Justice Democrats, a group pushing for more populist progressives in the Democratic Party.....

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/six-insurgent-candidates-just-out-raised-their-establishment-democratic-opponents/

:)

Populism is how Trump got to power so it could work well for the Dems too. :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"At least six progressive insurgents managed to out-raise their establishment Democratic opponents in House races in the final quarter of 2017, a stunning development that threatens to upend the way the party goes about selecting candidates.

The fundraising upsets reflect a burst of progressive energy that is also powering Democrats more broadly. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, challenging Ted Cruz, once again out-raised the Texas senator. The National Journal counted some 30 Democrats out-raised incumbent Republicans this past quarter....

...a rival strategy, ....adopted in part by Barack Obama, and later in full by Bernie Sanders, is now going local, fueled by second-generation national online groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, and MoveOn, as well as new ones, such as Our Revolution and Justice Democrats. In short, candidates who campaign on populist, progressive platforms find grassroots supporters who can collectively rival the corporate donors who have powered the party for so long.

“Our movement is developing an alternative infrastructure to support populist campaigns so they never have to court the big corporate donors who push so many Democrats away from a working class agenda,” said Waleed Shahid, communications director of Justice Democrats, a group pushing for more populist progressives in the Democratic Party.....

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/six-insurgent-candidates-just-out-raised-their-establishment-democratic-opponents/

:)

 

9 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Populism is how Trump got to power so it could work well for the Dems too. :D 

The "populism" that Trump used was not real populism.  He just appealed to people's baser instincts and used his superior messaging capabilities to conquer his primary opponents and win the GOP nomination.  Then he continued that with the support of 95% of the Republican Party to win the election.  Add in the poor performance by Clinton and the DNC and Sanders creating dissatisfaction of Clinton among his supporters and we get Trump as president.

Hopefully the fund raising among Dems of all types is a positive sign.  However, the real challenges will be in the general elections.  We have seen far too many times where a "progressive" or liberal Dem can win the primary, but then get crushed in the general.

Share this post


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

He just appealed to people's baser instincts

Isn't that the definition of populism?   

As for Dem fund raising:  The question here is now much of those funds will be used by the Dem establishment in the Dem primaries for establishment candidates against all the new Dem challengers?    Like I noted for CA:  In many districts 5 or more Dems are running in the primary often against an incumbent (especially if the incumbent is a man).    

Like with the Tea Party in past elections,   these 'grass roots' type candidates often cause the establishment to spend funds in the primary and therefore drain resources from the General election. 

Share this post


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

these 'grass roots' type candidates often cause the establishment to spend funds in the primary and therefore drain resources from the General election. 

It's mattering less and less how much the Establishment spends on elections now. The internet has changed the game.

The Establishment's Media is no longer the only game in town, and its ability to control all narrative is being replaced by the populist medium of online communication. 

That's why Bernie actually beat Hillary, despite the Media giving him only about 5% of the coverage they gave her. And that's why Trump beat all those Establishment Republican candidates to win the nomination. And that's why Trump is the President instead of Bernie (who would have won had the Democratic Party not been so corrupt as to fix it for Hillary).

The internet has made grass roots far more powerful than it ever has been before. That's why the Establishment is working so hard to try to undermine the free speech on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Isn't that the definition of populism?   

 

Populism is defined as "appealing to ordinary people."  Trumpism and today's Republicanism goes far beyond that.

Share this post


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

Populism is defined as "appealing to ordinary people."  Trumpism and today's Republicanism goes far beyond that.

Well we can agree to disagree here.    To me Trumpism is mostly about,  appearing to, appeal to, 'ordinary people'.

E.g. most deporables would be classified as ordinary people.  

Of course there are rich and super rich Trump supporters but they are the minority of Trump supporters.  Most Trump supporters are white people that are not rich.

 

 

Share this post


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

Well we can agree to disagree here.    To me Trumpism is mostly about,  appearing to, appeal to, 'ordinary people'.

E.g. most deporables would be classified as ordinary people.  

Of course there are rich and super rich Trump supporters but they are the minority of Trump supporters.  Most Trump supporters are white people that are not rich.

 

 

Try this lengthy discussion of populism.  Ordinary people (whatever that means) are a part of the groups that Trump claims to appeal to.  You implied that populists are the baser people to which Trump appeals.  Populism also covers other people who are not "deplorable."  

Regardless, the Dems need to find a way to appeal to them also - or at least the non-"deplorable" ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Share this post


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

Well we can agree to disagree here.    To me Trumpism is mostly about,  appearing to, appeal to, 'ordinary people'.

E.g. most deporables would be classified as ordinary people.  

Well, if you consider ordinary people to be those who have come to the feeling that the government no longer represents their interests as evidenced by their situations continually worsening, then maybe we can all agree to agree about what populism is, at least in present terms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Try this lengthy discussion of populism.  Ordinary people (whatever that means) are a part of the groups that Trump claims to appeal to.  You implied that populists are the baser people to which Trump appeals.  Populism also covers other people who are not "deplorable."  

Regardless, the Dems need to find a way to appeal to them also - or at least the non-"deplorable" ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

All people have baser instincts.    So it isn't 'that populists are the baser people' but instead that Trump was able to exploit the baser instincts that non-rich whites have (e.g. their fear that they are losing jobs to illegal immigrants or environmental over regulation).

Yes,  the Dems do need to find a way to appeal to 'them also' (mostly non rich, and mostly over 40 whites),  but that could be difficult with the Dems focus on identity politics.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Regardless, the Dems need to find a way to appeal to them also - or at least the non-"deplorable" ones.

Dems have adopted identity politics as their method. It's the kiss of death in terms of populist appeal.

When Dems start becoming real again - appealing to everyday people instead of just snowflaky college eds - that's when they'll begin to recover some support.

And they have to stop lying - promising change and never delivering. People have been fooled by that too many times now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embracing Bold Platforms, Progressives Working to Unseat Corporate Dems Nationwide

"If we reelect the same Democratic Party that we had going into this mess, then we're going to have the same exact result."

...........Fueled by small-dollar contributions—which in some cases have been enough to outraise incumbents who rely on corporate cash—grassroots candidates across the nation are working to break through these boundaries by running on ambitious progressive platforms in 2018 that include Medicare for All, tuition-free college, criminal justice reform, and a $15 federal minimum wage.

By Politico's count, "six veteran incumbents already face energetic primary challenges from younger candidates in New York and Massachusetts. In Illinois, two Chicago-based members are being targeted from the left."........

...the progressive wave now taking shape is largely a result the Democratic leadership's failure to respond to the needs of the party's constituents.

"This is a remarkably aware, awakened, active new generation looking at politics as not an option anymore but an obligation. I looked around and I saw a Democratic Party not doing much at all to welcome that group to the fold," Patel said. "I refuse to wait my turn in an establishment that doesn't make sure that people are competing. That's one of the things the Democrats need to grapple with."

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/02/12/embracing-bold-platforms-progressives-working-unseat-corporate-dems-nationwide?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

...the progressive wave now taking shape is largely a result the Democratic leadership's failure to respond to the needs of the party's constituents.

This wave is mostly being driven by the push for amnesty for all 11 million or so illegal immigrants as well as ensuring the welcome mat remains for millions more illegal immigrants.     

To me this plan will result in the Dems having LESS power in DC after the 2018 election.    While a more 'progressive' candidate may win the Dem primary,   in most states their odds of winning in the general election are reduced.   The best option for these Dem candidates is that the GOP also moves to the 'fringe' in purple districts \ states.  While it is hard to say how independents in purple areas would vote given too very different 'fringe' candidates,  if the economy is still strong my guess is that most will wish to 'stay the course' and that helps the GOP.   

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Quote from article: "...ambitious progressive platforms in 2018 that include Medicare for All, tuition-free college, criminal justice reform, and a $15 federal minimum wage."  Add in the immigration issues noted by James and appears a sure fire way to guarantee a Republican majority in Senate and House in 2018 and 2020, as well as continued domination of local and state governments by the Republicans.

However, I don't believe the "push for amnesty for all 11 million...illegal aliens" which James states is accurate.  There are only 690,000 covered by Obama's DACA.

As James noted, it may very well push some Dem districts into the GOP column while permitting the GOP to paint other Dem candidates throughout the nation as "left wing liberals" and increasing likelihood of GOP victories.

Need to remember that one reason Trump is president and GOP controls most states, US Supreme Court, US Judicial system and Congress is because the voters determined that the Clinton/Sanders/Obama/Warren/Pelosi/et.al. Democratic Party was not for them.

Share this post


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

This wave is mostly being driven by the push for amnesty for all 11 million or so illegal immigrants as well as ensuring the welcome mat remains for millions more illegal immigrants.     

To me this plan will result in the Dems having LESS power in DC after the 2018 election.    While a more 'progressive' candidate may win the Dem primary,   in most states their odds of winning in the general election are reduced.   The best option for these Dem candidates is that the GOP also moves to the 'fringe' in purple districts \ states.  While it is hard to say how independents in purple areas would vote given too very different 'fringe' candidates,  if the economy is still strong my guess is that most will wish to 'stay the course' and that helps the GOP.   

 

Hey, Cid I wonder what you're confused about.   Didn't you see all of the statements from progressive groups and other pro-illegal-immigrant activist.   E.g. they said they are going to try to remove Pelosi in the San Fran primary.

Now that will NOT happen,  but they are so misguided and most of them are 'new' to politics (as it relates to running for office or having a sound election strategy),  that they really believe far-left candidates can win in purple districts \ states.     Like the Tea Party tried to do with RINOs they wish to punish incumbents for not supporting their platform (which is FULL amnesty and open borders).    

Share this post


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

Hey, Cid I wonder what you're confused about.   Didn't you see all of the statements from progressive groups and other pro-illegal-immigrant activist.   E.g. they said they are going to try to remove Pelosi in the San Fran primary.

 

I'm sure you see far more on " pro-illegal-immigrants" than I do.  The confusion for me is your use of 11 million to be given amnesty and then welcoming millions more.  While there may be some who support that, not so sure even a majority of "progressives" do.

Then again, this whole progressive movement in the above article may very well just apply to the most extreme progressives in a relatively small number of districts.

Share this post


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

I'm sure you see far more on " pro-illegal-immigrants" than I do.  The confusion for me is your use of 11 million to be given amnesty and then welcoming millions more.  While there may be some who support that, not so sure even a majority of "progressives" do.

Then again, this whole progressive movement in the above article may very well just apply to the most extreme progressives in a relatively small number of districts.

Sorry I didn't see your prior post above until now.    The Pelosi wing of the Dem party is for total amnesty as well as what I call 'once you get in,  you can stay,  you shouldn't be deported'.    But the more moderate Dem Senators are NOT.  This is why Schumer broke with Pelosi and ended the shutdown,  as well as making a budget deal that prevents the Dem from using a shutdown to pass a DACA only type bill.   

Note that many months ago when Schumer and Pelosi when to the White House and meet with Trump and appeared to agree on a deal that included increased border security,  Pelosi was booed off the stage twice in town-hall meeting by illegal immigrant activist.   She was booed again, after Schumer made his moves the last week or so.    So yea, while it is only a minority of Dems that what full amnesty etc.. (just like only a minority of the GOP are against 'dreamers'),   these people are angry and plan on taking it out on those incumbents they view as traitors to the cause.

I believe my political POV here is sound;  voters with far-left or far-right stances on immigration will try to oust incumbents in their respective primaries IF Congress agrees on a 'moderate' immigration bill,  and that could lead to more fringe candidates in the general election and these fringe candidates tend to lose in all but the most secure districts \ states.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said many times before, Pelosi is one of the best things the GOPers  have going for them in 80% of districts, maybe more.

More critical nationally is the Trump budget which dramatically reduces or eliminates Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, health care, public education, etc.  This is what the Dems, including progressives, need to focus upon.  Add in the enormous waste in the new military budget and the DOA Trump infrastructure plan.

Immigration, Medicare for All, Free College, $15 min. wage will drive the voters right back to the GOPers again.

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

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...