Future of the Democratic Party

[Squeakmaan]

Look, we get it, you're still bitter about the guy you liked losing, it happens. So either plan for the next fight, or cry in the corner, but trying to refight a battle your favorite was completely crushed in doesn't help you in the next battle.

[Scythia]

During the primary, there were many hostage style threats about how the party needed Bernie supporters, and how they'd watch it burn before they'd compromise, so pick Bernie or else.

Since the primary, some continue those threats, but they have one thing wrong: They need the party. The party has the money, connections, organization, and experience navigating the systems, rules, and paperwork involved in the process. No effort will succeed without those (see the Green party for what a lack of those looks like). In the meantime their unwillingness to compromise will only insure that they get none of what they want instead of some.

As for what dogmatic adherence to idealism leads to, well to paraphrase the Comedian: you'll be the most woke person on the cinder.

[bugleyman]

Bernie lost the primary. He very likely would have lost the general, too...but the simple truth is that we'll never really know.

Here's one thing we do know, though: Progressive infighting helps the GOP.

[Irontruth]

Bernie Sanders is backing anti-abortion candidates.

He also had significant issues with non-millennial aged African-American and Hispanic voters.

Bernie Sanders is a progressive for white men.

[Sharoth]

Not trying to sabotage this thread, but Bernie got screwed over by the Democratic party. They stabbed him in the back and do not want to face reality. Instead of learning from that and not doing it again, I see the higher up members doing the same stupid stunts that cost them this election.

So yes! We do need to talk about this so we can make sure it is not repeated. Sadly I actually expect the Democratic party to mess up again, despite what we do. OTOH maybe us common people can still pull off a miracle.

[Irontruth]

Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the Democratic party.

[Pan]

Problem with the "vote dems and get some of what you want" is its no longer enough. Folks want change and they want some progressives at the table. You cant hold their vote hostage any longer with "but the other guys be racist" thats what folks are trying to tell yall about the next battle.

[The Mad Comrade]

Irontruth wrote:

Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the Democratic party.

Bernie's running on the (D) ticket last year for many will 'wed' him accordingly regardless of facts that state otherwise. ;)

[bugleyman]

Pan wrote:

Problem with the "vote dems and get some of what you want" is its no longer enough. Folks want change and they want some progressives at the table. You cant hold their vote hostage any longer with "but the other guys be racist" thats what folks are trying to tell yall about the next battle.

And what we're trying to tell you is that holding your breath until you turn blue because you can't get 100% of what you want is at least part of what got us President Trump. You cut off your nose to spite your face. Congratulations?

[bugleyman]

Irontruth wrote:

Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the Democratic party.

Details, details. :P

[Knight who says Meh]

The Mad Comrade wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the Democratic party.

Bernie's running on the (D) ticket last year for many will 'wed' him accordingly regardless of facts that state otherwise. ;)

Sander supporters want it both ways. They expect the Democratic Party to support them while they constantly complain about the party.

[Guy Humual]

So what do you got to win the next election then? Because the not Trump ticket lost. Regardless of if the single most popular politician in the US would have won against the most hated is indeed useless speculation at this point. The obvious fact that Sanders is popular because his positions are popular seems lost on them. They seem to be looking for that Sander's charm to rub off on them, when all they need to do is start adopting some of his policies, but unfortunately a number of them are restricted by their donors, and so hanging out with Bernie, getting pictures with him, that's not going to make Sanders supporters like you.

[thunderspirit]

Irontruth wrote:

Bernie Sanders isn't a member of the Democratic party.

Gosh, can't imagine why the Democratic Party might be interested in someone who is instead.

[Pan]

bugleyman wrote:

Pan wrote:

Problem with the "vote dems and get some of what you want" is its no longer enough. Folks want change and they want some progressives at the table. You cant hold their vote hostage any longer with "but the other guys be racist" thats what folks are trying to tell yall about the next battle.

And what we're trying to tell you is that holding your breath until you turn blue because you can't get 100% of what you want is at least part of what got us President Trump. You cut off your nose to spite your face. Congratulations?

100%, you must be joking. By all means plug your ears and keep screaming lalalalalalala.

[Guy Humual]

bugleyman wrote:

And what we're trying to tell you is that holding your breath until you turn blue because you can't get 100% of what you want is at least part of what got us President Trump. You cut off your nose to spite your face. Congratulations?

Right, keep blaming Bernie supporters for losing the election, and democrats were doing so well before Bernie ran in the primaries. You think it was Bernie that lost Clinton all those swing states? Maybe stop looking to blame someone else for Clinton's loss. She had a chance to reach out to Americans and she blew it. Yes Sanders fans were disappointed, but a bunch of them still voted for Clinton, and so when you're trying to unify the party maybe stop blaming the people who didn't lose the election.

[Sharoth]

I know that the wife and I voted for Clinton, despite being Berine supporters (the wife much, much more than I).

Edit - I do not agree with everything that Bernie says or stands for, but his heart seems in the right place and he understands that he has to work with others and compromise.

[Knight who says Meh]

I respected Sanders a lot more before the election than I did afterwards.

[Vidmaster7]

getting a little hostile need to bring it down a bit.

[Sharoth]

Sorry. I will behave.

[thejeff]

Guy Humual wrote:

So what do you got to win the next election then? Because the not Trump ticket lost. Regardless of if the single most popular politician in the US would have won against the most hated is indeed useless speculation at this point. The obvious fact that Sanders is popular because his positions are popular seems lost on them. They seem to be looking for that Sander's charm to rub off on them, when all they need to do is start adopting some of his policies, but unfortunately a number of them are restricted by their donors, and so hanging out with Bernie, getting pictures with him, that's not going to make Sanders supporters like you.

Well, the "single most popular politician" couldn't beat the "second most hated" in the primary. (And don't talk about "backstabbing". It's part of politics. If he couldn't handle the relatively mild DNC tricks, how could he face what Republicans would have pulled?)

If popularity is what you're focused on, perhaps the simplest approach is to run a candidate who's basically never faced a harsh negative campaign rather than one who's been demonized for decades.
OTOH, since the least popular one won, maybe popularity in general isn't such a big deal?

[Kjeldorn]

I think this thread, currently, show the actual problem facing the democratic party.
The marriage, between democrats and progressives, is in a rough patch right now, because of a long list of reasons - the last election being one of them - and the question is, do they separate or do they stay together?
There are pros and cons to both options, and a lot of difficult questions, like who gets the dog or the house.

[thejeff]

Kjeldorn wrote:

I think this thread, currently, show the actual problem facing the democratic party.

The marriage, between democrats and progressives, is in a rough patch right now, because of a long list of reasons - the last election being one of them - and the question is, do they separate or do they stay together?
There are pros and cons to both options, and a lot of difficult questions, like who gets the dog or the house.

If they separate, even as much as in 2016, the Republicans get the dog and the house.

And then they beat the dog and burn the house to the ground.

[Fergie]

thejeff wrote:

(And don't talk about "backstabbing". It's part of politics. If he couldn't handle the relatively mild DNC tricks, how could he face what Republicans would have pulled?)...

I think the correct term these days is "Sneak Attack".

[Pan]

thejeff wrote:

Kjeldorn wrote:

I think this thread, currently, show the actual problem facing the democratic party.

The marriage, between democrats and progressives, is in a rough patch right now, because of a long list of reasons - the last election being one of them - and the question is, do they separate or do they stay together?
There are pros and cons to both options, and a lot of difficult questions, like who gets the dog or the house.

If they separate, even as much as in 2016, the Republicans get the dog and the house.

And then they beat the dog and burn the house to the ground.

Problem is progressives are always asked to give it up to stop Cruella Deville. Folks are tired of it. Before long their will be a "freedom caucus" on the left sabotaging the dems when they get power back. Fun times ahead.

[thejeff]

Pan wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Kjeldorn wrote:

I think this thread, currently, show the actual problem facing the democratic party.

The marriage, between democrats and progressives, is in a rough patch right now, because of a long list of reasons - the last election being one of them - and the question is, do they separate or do they stay together?
There are pros and cons to both options, and a lot of difficult questions, like who gets the dog or the house.

If they separate, even as much as in 2016, the Republicans get the dog and the house.

And then they beat the dog and burn the house to the ground.

Problem is progressives are always asked to give it up to stop Cruella Deville. Folks are tired of it. Before long their will be a "freedom caucus" on the left sabotaging the dems when they get power back. Fun times ahead.

Not a good thing when a minority on one side tries to sabotage those they're largely in agreement with. On the left or the right.

[bugleyman]

Pan wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Pan wrote:

Problem with the "vote dems and get some of what you want" is its no longer enough. Folks want change and they want some progressives at the table. You cant hold their vote hostage any longer with "but the other guys be racist" thats what folks are trying to tell yall about the next battle.

And what we're trying to tell you is that holding your breath until you turn blue because you can't get 100% of what you want is at least part of what got us President Trump. You cut off your nose to spite your face. Congratulations?

100%, you must be joking. By all means plug your ears and keep screaming lalalalalalala.

Nope.

Like it or not (I don't), on November the 8th, one of two people was going to be elected president.

[Pan]

bugleyman wrote:

Pan wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Pan wrote:

Problem with the "vote dems and get some of what you want" is its no longer enough. Folks want change and they want some progressives at the table. You cant hold their vote hostage any longer with "but the other guys be racist" thats what folks are trying to tell yall about the next battle.

And what we're trying to tell you is that holding your breath until you turn blue because you can't get 100% of what you want is at least part of what got us President Trump. You cut off your nose to spite your face. Congratulations?

100%, you must be joking. By all means plug your ears and keep screaming lalalalalalala.

Nope.

Like it or not (I don't), on November the 8th, one of two people was going to be elected president.

I realize some folks keep dropping by to rehash 2016, but i'm not one of them. I am trying to avoid it all over again.

[bugleyman]

Pan wrote:

Problem is progressives are always asked to give it up to stop Cruella Deville. Folks are tired of it. Before long their will be a "freedom caucus" on the left sabotaging the dems when they get power back. Fun times ahead.

...and now we have president Cruella Deville. So again...congratulations?

[bugleyman]

Pan wrote:

I realize some folks keep dropping by to rehash 2016, but i'm not one of them. I am trying to avoid it all over again.

And that's fine. Great, even. But my point is that as long as we have the system we do, pulling the lever to vote "not Cruella Deville" remains the only rational choice. Therefore, beating on people who did, because the "don't get it" is counter-productive.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I'm having a hard time figuring out the differences between Heath Mello and Tim Kaine on abortion rights and what substantive differences there could be between rallying behind the former for mayor of Omaha and the latter for vice-president of the United States.

That being said, more anti-Bernie than I've ever been.

[Kjeldorn]

Pan wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Kjeldorn wrote:

I think this thread, currently, show the actual problem facing the democratic party.

The marriage, between democrats and progressives, is in a rough patch right now, because of a long list of reasons - the last election being one of them - and the question is, do they separate or do they stay together?
There are pros and cons to both options, and a lot of difficult questions, like who gets the dog or the house.

If they separate, even as much as in 2016, the Republicans get the dog and the house.

And then they beat the dog and burn the house to the ground.

Problem is progressives are always asked to give it up to stop Cruella Deville. Folks are tired of it. Before long their will be a "freedom caucus" on the left sabotaging the dems when they get power back. Fun times ahead.

I think it's a bit too late for that. There already is a "freedom caucus" of the left, and to the democrats horror, last election it decided to make that official.

So if neither side want counseling, maybe its better to separate, divide up the "assets", and try to make the best out of the situation?
Maybe the time is right, for the U.S, to move past the current "Big-Tent political parties"?

[thejeff]

Kjeldorn wrote:

Pan wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Kjeldorn wrote:

I think this thread, currently, show the actual problem facing the democratic party.

The marriage, between democrats and progressives, is in a rough patch right now, because of a long list of reasons - the last election being one of them - and the question is, do they separate or do they stay together?
There are pros and cons to both options, and a lot of difficult questions, like who gets the dog or the house.

If they separate, even as much as in 2016, the Republicans get the dog and the house.

And then they beat the dog and burn the house to the ground.

Problem is progressives are always asked to give it up to stop Cruella Deville. Folks are tired of it. Before long their will be a "freedom caucus" on the left sabotaging the dems when they get power back. Fun times ahead.

I think it's a bit too late for that. There already is a "freedom caucus" of the left, and to the democrats horror, last election it decided to make that official.

So if neither side want counseling, maybe its better to separate, divide up the "assets", and try to make the best out of the situation?
Maybe the time is right, for the U.S, to move past the current "Big-Tent political parties"?

Well, how do you plan to change the Constitution to make that work? Cause with our current first past the post system, we're pretty much stuck with 2 major parties.

[Pan]

bugleyman wrote:

Pan wrote:

I realize some folks keep dropping by to rehash 2016, but i'm not one of them. I am trying to avoid it all over again.

And that's fine. Great, even. But my point is that as long as we have the system we do, pulling the lever to vote "not Cruella Deville" remains the only rational choice. Therefore, beating on people who did, because the "don't get it" is counter-productive.

Well Im trying to tell you I'm past the election I'm talking about the path forward for the democratic party. If they cant bring folks together they can enjoy what the repubs have right now when they regain power. You can talk rational decisions all you like, its not working anymore to ensure votes.

[Kjeldorn]

thejeff wrote:

Well, how do you plan to change the Constitution to make that work? Cause with our current first past the post system, we're pretty much stuck with 2 major parties.

Snarky answer: Well the last revolution was a succes.....

Only ever so slightly more "realistic" answer: An article 5 convention maybe?

Truthful answer: Probably not going to happen.

Which mean that the abusive marriage will be kept together by sheer necessity.....can I at least get the dog?

[thejeff]

Kjeldorn wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, how do you plan to change the Constitution to make that work? Cause with our current first past the post system, we're pretty much stuck with 2 major parties.

Snarky answer: Well the last revolution was a succes.....

Only ever so slightly more "realistic" answer: An article 5 convention maybe?

Truthful answer: Probably not going to happen.

Which mean that the abusive marriage will be kept together by sheer necessity.....can I at least get the dog?

An Article 5 Convention is possible. Bear in mind that in such a convention, the governments of the various states control both the process and the ratification. Currently Republicans hold control of enough states to call one and control the outcome and nearly enough to ratify whatever results they come out with.

Any talk of a Constitutional Convention at this point should be terrifying.

And no, you can't keep the dog. :)
If we split up, we both lose everything.

[bugleyman]

Pan wrote:

Well Im trying to tell you I'm past the election I'm talking about the path forward for the democratic party. If they cant bring folks together they can enjoy what the repubs have right now when they regain power.

No, I get it. I just believe you're kinda ignoring the fact that as long as we're stuck with a two-party system, "bringing folks together" is much easier said than done. If you move left, you lose people on the right.

Pan wrote:

You can talk rational decisions all you like, its not working anymore to ensure votes.

And it's your position that's a problem with the party? ;-)

[Guy Humual]

thejeff wrote:

Well, the "single most popular politician" couldn't beat the "second most hated" in the primary. (And don't talk about "backstabbing". It's part of politics. If he couldn't handle the relatively mild DNC tricks, how could he face what Republicans would have pulled?)

There is the advantage of money and fame though. As a underfunded unknown from a tiny state vs the extremely well known, former secretary of state, flush with cash, Sanders shouldn't have won. That's basically how these elections and primaries are set up. The fact that Sanders nearly got a tie against Clinton should have been a warning sign. People didn't know who Sanders was for most of the primaries (media blackout and all) and so the simple fact that the race was so close kind of gave us a preview of what would happen in the national election. Obviously, hindsight being 20/20, I don't think many of us could have predicted that Americans in swing states would have picked the worst choice, but I think the warning signs were there.

thejeff wrote:

If popularity is what you're focused on, perhaps the simplest approach is to run a candidate who's basically never faced a harsh negative campaign rather than one who's been demonized for decades.

OTOH, since the least popular one won, maybe popularity in general isn't such a big deal?

Well ideally you'd have equal media coverage for all major candidates so at the very least people could make an informed decision. Course running a candidate that was currently under and FBI investigation might also have been a mistake. Yes, I do believe that the majority of the investigations against Clinton were bullshit, and yes, I feel it was unfair to persecute her, but if she'd been fired up, gave us a sense that she was running for some specific reason other then making cash the political machine, maybe she could have won those swing states? You may remember you asking me in a previous thread what I thought were important issues, and then you linked some of the issues I'd touched on from her campaign site? The problem was I don't recall her addressing any of these issues, during the primaries she'd often react to Sanders, but in the general election against the most unpopular politician to ever run for office, she didn't really show what she was for, rather she ran on who she was against.

Now we've been over this ad nauseam, I'm not going to say that Sanders would have beaten Trump, I suspect that he would have, but there's no way to prove that. What I'd like to see is Clinton supporters stop blaming Sanders for her loss. His name wasn't on the ballot, hers was, and he didn't lose those swing states, she did. The fact is this thread is about what the party should do going forward and I think that Sanders should have a strong role in that. It has nothing to do with the 2016 election. I just think he's proposing the more popular policy at the moment. Perhaps you feel differently? That's fine, let's discuss, but here I'm talking about the next election and you're still going back to the 2016 election despite asking me to stop bringing it up earlier.

[Kryzbyn]

I believe Stothert is going to trounce Mello in the Omaha mayoral race.
There was another candidate in the primary that got 16k votes, who has endorsed her. Assuming all of those votes go with her, it won't even be close.

[Guy Humual]

bugleyman wrote:

Here's one thing we do know, though: Progressive infighting helps the GOP.

Then kick them out of the party. Get rid of them. If it's their fault that the GOP is winning then why try to court them?

[thejeff]

Guy Humual wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Here's one thing we do know, though: Progressive infighting helps the GOP.

Then kick them out of the party. Get rid of them. If it's their fault that the GOP is winning then why try to court them?

I wouldn't say it's progressive's fault. I'd say it's the infighting, whether it's progressives or not. Kick progressives out and we all lose. Progressives stay in, but work to tear down the party, we all lose. If the party tears down the progressives we still lose.

Politics is compromise. If progressives aren't strong enough to win on their own, they need to cooperate. As does the rest of the party.

[bugleyman]

Guy Humual wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Here's one thing we do know, though: Progressive infighting helps the GOP.

Then kick them out of the party. Get rid of them. If it's their fault that the GOP is winning then why try to court them?

I don't think it is "their fault." In fact, I consider myself a progressive. But I also appreciate the need for pragmatism.

Personally, I'm hoping we nominate Warren (assuming she's willing to run) in 2020 or 2024. But if we don't, I'm not going to take my ball and go home.

[Guy Humual]

thejeff wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Here's one thing we do know, though: Progressive infighting helps the GOP.

Then kick them out of the party. Get rid of them. If it's their fault that the GOP is winning then why try to court them?

I wouldn't say it's progressive's fault. I'd say it's the infighting, whether it's progressives or not. Kick progressives out and we all lose. Progressives stay in, but work to tear down the party, we all lose. If the party tears down the progressives we still lose.

Politics is compromise. If progressives aren't strong enough to win on their own, they need to cooperate. As does the rest of the party.

What would you say is the base of the democratic party?

[Knight who says Meh]

I saw a reporter on CNN mention that the majority of Trump supporters feel safer now because of Trump's Muslim travel ban.

I am not optimistic about 2020.

[thejeff]

Guy Humual wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Here's one thing we do know, though: Progressive infighting helps the GOP.

Then kick them out of the party. Get rid of them. If it's their fault that the GOP is winning then why try to court them?

I wouldn't say it's progressive's fault. I'd say it's the infighting, whether it's progressives or not. Kick progressives out and we all lose. Progressives stay in, but work to tear down the party, we all lose. If the party tears down the progressives we still lose.

Politics is compromise. If progressives aren't strong enough to win on their own, they need to cooperate. As does the rest of the party.

What would you say is the base of the democratic party?

It's an interesting question and I hesitated over using "progressive" there, since I don't actually think that's the right division. Likely bugley said, I'd consider myself a progressive. So maybe "infighting among progressives"? Whatever you want to cal that subgroup that's demanding to walk away if not sufficiently catered to.

Much of which is supposedly "independent" and thus not actually the Democratic base. Demographically, I'd certainly include blacks and other minorities.

[Rednal]

@Knight:

Quote:

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

...?

[Pan]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

I saw a reporter on CNN mention that the majority of Trump supporters feel safer now because of Trump's Muslim travel ban.

I am not optimistic about 2020.

Bill Maher was reading off some poll number about republican base. Just months before the election 20-30% said the economy was generally positive under Obama. Just a few months later when Trump took office that number jumped to 50-70% just like that.

[bugleyman]

Pan wrote:

Bill Maher was reading off some poll number about republican base. Just months before the election 20-30% said the economy was generally positive under Obama. Just a few months later when Trump took office that number jumped to 50-70% just like that.

Partisan irrationality, plain and simple. Unfortunately, we're all guilty of it to some degree.

On the other hand, I haven't seen a bunch of lefties claiming the economy is suddenly in the toilet...

[Guy Humual]

thejeff wrote:

It's an interesting question and I hesitated over using "progressive" there, since I don't actually think that's the right division. Likely bugley said, I'd consider myself a progressive. So maybe "infighting among progressives"? Whatever you want to cal that subgroup that's demanding to walk away if not sufficiently catered to.

Much of which is supposedly "independent" and thus not actually the Democratic base. Demographically, I'd certainly include blacks and other minorities.

I think the latest polling shows that the majority of Americans view themselves as independent, something like 42%, and democrats are at 30%, with the Republicans dipping to 26% under Trump. The reason I point that out is that it seems like that's a lot of independents up for grabs, and as of right now the two most popular politicians in the country seem to be Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren. Ignoring Sanders for the moment, Warren has a 48% favorable rating and a 32% unfavorable, which means she's got to liked by people who consider themselves independent. If we assume her favorability falls down party lines (which I'm sure it probably doesn't as there are democrats that don't like her), it would suggest that only 6% of independents hate her while 18% like her. If a party wants to win the general election they have to get support from those that call themselves independent. Independents seem to favor progressives at the moment.

Bernie has suggested opening the primaries up to independents. It would give the party a chance to get the support of independents early and would likely ensure their support in the general election. I think it's a good idea. Might be a way to bring more people into the big tent that the democrats used to be.

The reason I ask about what you feel the base of the party is, is 30% is only a bit better then half of what you need in the general (supposing you can get your supporters out that is), and if you can't excite that base you're going to have a very uphill battle to win elections. The corportists have been in control of the party for a while now, and they can't seem to win elections (now some of that is probably due to gerrymandering) and I'd argue that this is a sign that the majority of democrats and independents don't support the pro corporatism agenda and the compromises that this wing of the democratic party has had to make for donor money is what's hurting the democratic party.

[GM Niles]

Hey, I've read this thread off/on for a while now but I don't go back and read past pages so please forgive or ignore me.

I see a few peeps in the current discussion talking about Warren 2020 (I think Warren rubs quite a few people the wrong way and brings alot of the same baggage Clinton did) ...what's wrong with Cory Booker or Tulsi Gabbard in 2020?