Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

Wow, those poll results are really interesting! Thanks for linking.

Surprising to see making Election Day a holiday was the most opposed policy listed. The Voter Empowerment policy also had high opposition numbers. I'm curious if a subset of people felt their voting power threatened by those ideas?

 

The argument you're making is a valid one. It's just one I have some reservations about. For one, Bernie is the singular example we've seen on a national stage that hints at supporting your hypothesis in recent memory. However, running for president is much different than running for a state or federal legislative seat. I feel like the publicity and following Bernie developed may not be as easy to come by for a downballot candidate.

 

For instance, Rob Quist was a Berniecrat that ran for Ryan Zinke's open at-large Congressional seat in June. You might remember his opponent, Greg Gianforte, as a business magnate and literal journalist assaulter (who then lied about it). Even so, Gianforte won the race by 6+ points. This illustrates how hard tribalism and partisanship are to overcome.

 

Gianforte had plenty of money dumped into his race by big GOP donors. Progressives, especially this new wave, seem to eschew SuperPAC and big donor money on principle. I'm worried that tribalism, partisanship and the mountains and mountains of money they'll have spent against them to smear them as insane leftists will bury these type of candidates in conservative areas.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Wow, those poll results are really interesting! Thanks for linking.

Surprising to see making Election Day a holiday was the most opposed policy listed. The Voter Empowerment policy also had high opposition numbers. I'm curious if a subset of people felt their voting power threatened by those ideas?

 

The argument you're making is a valid one. It's just one I have some reservations about. For one, Bernie is the singular example we've seen on a national stage that hints at supporting your hypothesis in recent memory. However, running for president is much different than running for a state or federal legislative seat. I feel like the publicity and following Bernie developed may not be as easy to come by for a downballot candidate.

 

For instance, Rob Quist was a Berniecrat that ran for Ryan Zinke's open at-large Congressional seat in June. You might remember his opponent, Greg Gianforte, as a business magnate and literal journalist assaulter (who then lied about it). Even so, Gianforte won the race by 6+ points. This illustrates how hard tribalism and partisanship are to overcome.

 

Gianforte had plenty of money dumped into his race by big GOP donors. Progressives, especially this new wave, seem to eschew SuperPAC and big donor money on principle. I'm worried that tribalism, partisanship and the mountains and mountains of money they'll have spent against them to smear them as insane leftists will bury these type of candidates in conservative areas.

Having reservations is healthy in an any debate. Gianforte probably wasn't hurt much by the journalist assault because it happened the night before the election and there was a lot of spin surrounding it - either way, Quist lost. But if we're looking at the Dems, then you'd have to look at Hillary losing to Trump by 20% as compared to Quist losing by 6%.

 

I'm not sure if the tactic of refusing big money donations is going to work, but I know that it's very, very likely to get my vote. As always it's going to come down to individual campaigns and candidates.

[zoogs]

Thread: 

Fighting false impressions -- especially those deliberately spread -- is very important.

 

 

[TGHusker]

http://observer.com/2017/08/draft-bernie-sanders-new-party-petition/

 

An article that tells the story of progressives wanting Bernie to head up a new Progressive Party (can of soup will be the mascot - oh, that is Progresso)

Let's say this happens.  What will be the affect on the Dem party? It seem it will take the heart and soul of the party - the real activists. 

 

quote

 

Even though Sen. Bernie Sanders has embraced his role of outreach chair for the Democratic Party since the 2016 election, many of his supporters have joined a movement to draft him to lead a new political party. Led by Sanders’ former national political director, Nick Brana, who experienced how entrenched the Democratic Party is in corporate money and influence while lobbying superdelegates as part of Sanders’ campaign, developed an organization called Draft Bernie in February 2017. Since the organization’s founding, Brana has organized volunteers and staff across the country to gather signatures for a petition to give to Bernie Sanders that insists he starts a new party.

In April 2017, Dr. Cornel West formally endorsed and joined the Draft Bernie movement. “I was blessed to spend some time on the inside of the Democratic Party looking at the ways in which we could come up with some vision. And I was convinced that the Democratic Party was milquetoast, moribund. It lacks imagination, gusto, doesn’t have enough courage. It’s too tied to big money. The duopoly stands in the way of democracy,” Dr. West said in an interview with Democracy Now on why he supports the movement.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

http://observer.com/2017/08/draft-bernie-sanders-new-party-petition/

 

An article that tells the story of progressives wanting Bernie to head up a new Progressive Party (can of soup will be the mascot - oh, that is Progresso)

Let's say this happens.  What will be the affect on the Dem party? It seem it will take the heart and soul of the party - the real activists. 

 

quote

 

Even though Sen. Bernie Sanders has embraced his role of outreach chair for the Democratic Party since the 2016 election, many of his supporters have joined a movement to draft him to lead a new political party. Led by Sanders’ former national political director, Nick Brana, who experienced how entrenched the Democratic Party is in corporate money and influence while lobbying superdelegates as part of Sanders’ campaign, developed an organization called Draft Bernie in February 2017. Since the organization’s founding, Brana has organized volunteers and staff across the country to gather signatures for a petition to give to Bernie Sanders that insists he starts a new party.

In April 2017, Dr. Cornel West formally endorsed and joined the Draft Bernie movement. “I was blessed to spend some time on the inside of the Democratic Party looking at the ways in which we could come up with some vision. And I was convinced that the Democratic Party was milquetoast, moribund. It lacks imagination, gusto, doesn’t have enough courage. It’s too tied to big money. The duopoly stands in the way of democracy,” Dr. West said in an interview with Democracy Now on why he supports the movement.

I'm torn on this one. I think splitting off from the Dems is probably the long-term solution, but until one or the other is killed off, it's going to help the Repubs especially in the presidential race.

[TGHusker]

25 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm torn on this one. I think splitting off from the Dems is probably the long-term solution, but until one or the other is killed off, it's going to help the Repubs especially in the presidential race.

Red - I'm on the other side of the fence but in a similar situation. I would love to see Evan McMullin or Rand Paul lead the way out of the Repub party and form a more Libertarian/Moderately Conservative party.   I don't like the neocons that have taken over the repub party, I don't want the far righters to lead it but I see the party without leadership currently.  Trump surely isn't the leader nor does he deserve to be.  Paul Ryan and McConnel have failed miserably.  Too many in the party have a narrow mantra of ideas: cut taxes, make war, cut govt.  No genuine inspiring leadership.   I think both parties kind of suck right now.   I do think that the Mod Dems and Mod Repubs have more in common with each other than they do wt the progressive and more conservative  wing of their respective parties.

[zoogs]

I'm all for splitting off; then the Democrats can become the party of pro-business centrists which is not all that far (if any different) from what it has been. Maybe then they'll draw off enough Republicans so as to reduce the present day GOP to the margins of the racist, anti-science, and xenophobic.

 

But this is a fantasy, because those motivated (or at least swayed by) by racial resentment and white nationalism, they aren't some dismissable minority. Not yet.

[Danny Bateman]

On 8/18/2017 at 3:38 PM, RedDenver said:

Having reservations is healthy in an any debate. Gianforte probably wasn't hurt much by the journalist assault because it happened the night before the election and there was a lot of spin surrounding it - either way, Quist lost. But if we're looking at the Dems, then you'd have to look at Hillary losing to Trump by 20% as compared to Quist losing by 6%.

 

I'm not sure if the tactic of refusing big money donations is going to work, but I know that it's very, very likely to get my vote. As always it's going to come down to individual campaigns and candidates.

 

I meant to pick up this discussion but I never got around to it. I think we'd need to get more data points in the Berniecrat vs. centrist Dem case study before we can make a judgment one way or the other. For instance, Ossoff ran an incredibly expensive campaign in the special election in GA-06 for Tom Price's old seat against a pretty poor candidate and still turned a Trump +2 district into a 3 point loss. Ossoff ran as a fiscal conservative to appeal to the moderate district.

So it may be that running a populist, progressive, anti-dark money candidate could play in even dark red districts better than a centrist. I still hedge towards running a candidate that suits the district, personally, but I'll be interested to keep an eye on the populist candidates moving forward. Thus far, Berniecrats haven't had much success from what I've seen.

 

As far as my argument against rejecting PAC/dark money, I think the downside is similar to that of the split of progressives and Dems we are discussing above - namely, it's going to drastically help Republicans for some indeterminate amount of time. If we're going to ask the American left to make any of these changes for the eventual betterment of our political system, we're going to have to accept that as a potential outcome.

[RedDenver]

16 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

 

I meant to pick up this discussion but I never got around to it. I think we'd need to get more data points in the Berniecrat vs. centrist Dem case study before we can make a judgment one way or the other. For instance, Ossoff ran an incredibly expensive campaign in the special election in GA-06 for Tom Price's old seat against a pretty poor candidate and still turned a Trump +2 district into a 3 point loss. Ossoff ran as a fiscal conservative to appeal to the moderate district.

So it may be that running a populist, progressive, anti-dark money candidate could play in even dark red districts better than a centrist. I still hedge towards running a candidate that suits the district, personally, but I'll be interested to keep an eye on the populist candidates moving forward. Thus far, Berniecrats haven't had much success from what I've seen.

 

As far as my argument against rejecting PAC/dark money, I think the downside is similar to that of the split of progressives and Dems we are discussing above - namely, it's going to drastically help Republicans for some indeterminate amount of time. If we're going to ask the American left to make any of these changes for the eventual betterment of our political system, we're going to have to accept that as a potential outcome.

I agree. Although I think not taking big donor/corporate money may be really helpful in the near-term while populism and political awareness is high and perhaps less so if the political climate becomes more sedate.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Danny Bateman]

7 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I agree. Although I think not taking big donor/corporate money may be really helpful in the near-term while populism and political awareness is high and perhaps less so if the political climate becomes more sedate.

 

I think one could make an argument that regardless of electoral ramifications, politicians should forego big-dollar donations out of principle. U.S. politics is absolutely awash in money at this point. Of course, it wouldn't be as expensive if campaigning wasn't a two year ordeal... but I digress.

 

If one wants to make the principle argument, I'm fine with that. My opinion during the Dem primary was to do whatever they thought gave them the chance to win (meaning PAC cash) and try to push for election finance reform once in power. Obviously it didn't work out that way, and neither Trump nor anyone else in the GOP is going to push that issue now. As far as they are concerned, the courts have spoken on election finance law, what we have now is fine and it is a settled issue.

 

So again, if Dems do choose to eschew big-dollar donor and PAC money out of principle, that is fine and even admirable. But I think if that's the case, we're going to have to expect a period of strengthening for Republican majorities in Congress, because they're absolutely not going to reciprocate and it will be unilateral disarmament. Perhaps this could be good in an accelerationist sense.

[Danny Bateman]

Compelling argument that the Democrats need to double down on populism as the approach to take back the White House in three years.

 

Donald Trump Is Not a Populist

 

Quote

The real populists today are Democrats—and not just Elizabeth Warren—but it’s not a story they’ve been successful in telling. They have to convince the country, especially the economically stressed who are struggling to pay their bills as they watch the rich get richer than ever, that they’re on their side. Saving Obamacare was a good and essential first step. There is not just a Better Deal, but another New Deal to be advanced—and effectively communicated.

 

The current and fashionable critique about Democrats and “cultural elitism” posits a false choice for the party. It cannot and should not downplay the cause of social justice—the fights for compassionate immigration reform, choice, women’s and LGBTQ rights, voting rights and criminal justice reform. They are all part of a seamless commitment to both social and economic justice that is the ground of the Democratic Party’s being.

 

So the imperative now is not to pose each against the other, but to shape and communicate a message that convincingly responds to the needs and hopes of so many pressured and anxious Americans in the heartland who also must be at the heart of our concerns. Never again should Democrats make the mistake of 2016, when, according to Lynn Vavreck at UCLA, only 9 percent of Clinton’s campaign ads focused on jobs, and often in the context of renewable energy. No wonder Clinton lost the decisive Michigan swing area of Macomb County, a bellwether for the country. Democrats have to get places like Macomb back, and they can—Trump offers voters there nothing other than resentment. Democrats, if they are true to their defining values, are the real populists; the challenge is to tell the voters.

 

Finally, FDR, like the Kennedys, illustrates another decisive reality here. There is nothing wrong with a leader who comes from privilege. Americans don’t care about where you come from, but where you stand—and whether you stand for them, for the many and not the few.

 

Trump fails that test, and in the end will not be saved by a perverted populism designed to appeal to the basest elements of his base. Tom Watson was swimming against the tides of history. So is Donald Trump.

 

The comparison to Watson is fascinating to me. I agree with him on many fronts in his diagnosis: The Dems suffer primarily from a messaging problem rather than a structural one, although introspection and soul-searching is needed in some regards. His plan of attack is exactly the one I would use on Trump: Expose him as a phony and a liar who only foments hatred. They just need a more likeable face to carry their torch and a stronger focus on economic concerns to upend him.

[TGHusker]

Something Old, Something New - what path should the Dems Choose

Article discusses if Dems should look at the elderly but well known (Biden, Warren, Sanders) or go

with youth but unknown.    I think youth - time to reinvent the party image. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/31/democrats-2020-sanders-warren-biden-242189

[TGHusker]

Clinton goes after Sanders in book.  She feels she was handcuffed by Obama in not attacking Sanders in the primary

while Sanders went after her.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html

 

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Clinton goes after Sanders in book.  She feels she was handcuffed by Obama in not attacking Sanders in the primary

while Sanders went after her.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html

 

Haven't we already learned it's everyone's fault but the Clinton campaign. /sarcasm

 

She should thank Sanders for not going after her for her emails, which was a mistake by the Sanders campaign. And Clinton was in no way was restrained in her campaign's attacks on Sanders. More "poor me" from Hillary.