Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

To say the Dems haven't done anything other than try to oppose the GOP over the past four years is just not true.

 

The Clean Power Plan was a rather comprehensive effort to curb CO2 emissions. That was from the Obama EPA. Some Dems support fracking because their constituents have varied interests. If you call for a ban on fracking in a centrist district you're going to get labeled an out-of-touch hippie who hates the economy. Like it or not, a full on ban is objectively a far-left policy plank at this point.

 

He also created a task force that gave many recommendations for criminal justice reform, which will go mostly ignored.

 

Congressional Dems plead for some type of reasonable gun control measures after every mass shooting in this country, and those pleas continue to fall on deaf ears.

 

Every Democrat I've heard give a position on the subject supports raising the minimum wage.

 

These are all policy pieces I feel they support not to stick it to the GOP, but because they think it is what's best for the country. By comparison, the GOP either ignores or is actively hostile to these measures.

 

As I said before, it is important to differentiate between actual policy and rhetoric. I've said I think the GOP excels at the latter but fails handily at the former. They are good at messaging passionately, which rallies people to their side in elections. But that doesn't mean their policy is good.

 

The same test could apply to the Democratic party itself. Just because they take a populist position passionately doesn't make it good policy. Take minimum wage. Sanders supports a $15/hr federal minimum wage. That is sure to be very popular with working people and rally them to support him. I don't think it's particularly good policy to enact a blanket $15/hr minimum wage.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that the policy is really there. I think they should focus on stop being so polite/proper and improve the way they market themselves. But the last thing I'd want them to do is become skilled salespeople without a lick of policy to back it up. That's how you wind up with an angry, ineffectual GOP in charge of everything.

[zoogs]

Yes! Republican policies are empty. Not all of them; some are just disagreeable. But, for example, Sam Brownback? Grover Norquist? etc. I think there's an ideology and then an attempt to throw something together to serve it.

 

I can make a counter-argument for fracking: it replaces coal and it's got a way lower CO2 footprint. We don't want to rely on it forever, but there's this "bridge" theory as we transition from non-renewables to renewables; fracking affords the space necessary to do this. Something like that -- it's been years since I've read much about shale gas. There's another side to this too, of course.

 

Now, granted, maybe you're right and I'm wrong, but I think there's a reasonable policy argument that includes (or is at least reasonably friendly to it). I don't think it's so clear cut, nor do I think it can't fit into a realistic climate policy. To use your frame of reference, "Burning oil is CO2 emissions; we must stop burning oil now" must also apply. In each case there are practical reasons to compromise as we work towards the goal. Which brings us full circle to your conclusion: how practicality guides policy that is able to steer us towards goals, rather than simply enforce numerous issues stances as tests of legitimacy.

[RedDenver]

To say the Dems haven't done anything other than try to oppose the GOP over the past four years is just not true.

 

The Clean Power Plan was a rather comprehensive effort to curb CO2 emissions. That was from the Obama EPA. Some Dems support fracking because their constituents have varied interests. If you call for a ban on fracking in a centrist district you're going to get labeled an out-of-touch hippie who hates the economy. Like it or not, a full on ban is objectively a far-left policy plank at this point.

 

He also created a task force that gave many recommendations for criminal justice reform, which will go mostly ignored.

 

Congressional Dems plead for some type of reasonable gun control measures after every mass shooting in this country, and those pleas continue to fall on deaf ears.

 

Every Democrat I've heard give a position on the subject supports raising the minimum wage.

 

These are all policy pieces I feel they support not to stick it to the GOP, but because they think it is what's best for the country. By comparison, the GOP either ignores or is actively hostile to these measures.

 

As I said before, it is important to differentiate between actual policy and rhetoric. I've said I think the GOP excels at the latter but fails handily at the former. They are good at messaging passionately, which rallies people to their side in elections. But that doesn't mean their policy is good.

 

The same test could apply to the Democratic party itself. Just because they take a populist position passionately doesn't make it good policy. Take minimum wage. Sanders supports a $15/hr federal minimum wage. That is sure to be very popular with working people and rally them to support him. I don't think it's particularly good policy to enact a blanket $15/hr minimum wage.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that the policy is really there. I think they should focus on stop being so polite/proper and improve the way they market themselves. But the last thing I'd want them to do is become skilled salespeople without a lick of policy to back it up. That's how you wind up with an angry, ineffectual GOP in charge of everything.

I agree with what you're saying. Good examples. I think we're mostly saying the same things. My challenge to the Dems would be to campaign on those policies. Gun control and minimum wage are the two policies Dems have talked about frequently that I remember.

 

Sorry my fracking example was unclear, I was wrangling the kids last night while posting. What I was trying to say is that regardless of whether I think fracking is a good or bad idea, be pro-fracking if that's your plan, but explain to us why and how it's going to help us. Don't be silent/evasive so you don't have to answer difficult questions about climate change.

 

And if the Clean Power Plan is great, then get out there and campaign on it. But it has to be more than just keeping the status quo - propose something additional. And that's part of where I think the Dems get stuck: supporting the status quo. If the majority of Americans thought things were just fine, they wouldn't have a problem, but people want change. They have to find things to fix and tell the American people how they're going to fix them.

[RedDenver]

Yes! Republican policies are empty. Not all of them; some are just disagreeable. But, for example, Sam Brownback? Grover Norquist? etc. I think there's an ideology and then an attempt to throw something together to serve it.

 

I can make a counter-argument for fracking: it replaces coal and it's got a way lower CO2 footprint. We don't want to rely on it forever, but there's this "bridge" theory as we transition from non-renewables to renewables; fracking affords the space necessary to do this. Something like that -- it's been years since I've read much about shale gas. There's another side to this too, of course.

 

Now, granted, maybe you're right and I'm wrong, but I think there's a reasonable policy argument that includes (or is at least reasonably friendly to it). I don't think it's so clear cut, nor do I think it can't fit into a realistic climate policy. To use your frame of reference, "Burning oil is CO2 emissions; we must stop burning oil now" must also apply. In each case there are practical reasons to compromise as we work towards the goal. Which brings us full circle to your conclusion: how practicality guides policy that is able to steer us towards goals, rather than simply enforce numerous issues stances as tests of legitimacy.

Sorry if I was unclear about fracking, as I mentioned above.

 

The case you're making for fracking is a reasonable one. (There's evidence that fracking isn't any cleaner or a better bridge than coal, but let's or ignore that for now.) But the Dems would then have to answer tough questions about how that actually helps fight climate change. What they need is a policy that goes beyond a vague, "We don't want to rely on it forever," and instead have a policy that describes how we're going to get off natural gas too. Or I suppose they could go the other route and say that we're not getting off NG, but that belies their stance on fighting climate change. Either way they need to get out front and own their policy and their message whatever it is.

[zoogs]

I'm summarizing very generally from what I read when I was learning about shale gas. AFAIK, the academic community isn't in unison but have developed various ideas that fit every metric of 'policy' and 'substance' regarding how to transition, or why using shale as a bridge is a good idea/bad idea, etc. I don't think on this topic there's anything lacking from a Democratic Party that is receptive to experts. It's a tough question because you run up against not only industry, but national energy needs and security needs. So I'd challenge the idea that all of this can be written off as vague or even inconsistent. Getting off NG isn't on the horizon; we have much more basic and immediate policy fights to hash out over climate change and have been trying our darnedest just to elevate the experts and advance their voices where the most consensus exists.

[zoogs]

Something maybe of interest: https://www.recode.net/2017/7/3/15904484/pincus-hoffman-linkedin-zynga-clinton-win-the-future-democrats-dnc-trump

[RedDenver]

Something maybe of interest: https://www.recode.net/2017/7/3/15904484/pincus-hoffman-linkedin-zynga-clinton-win-the-future-democrats-dnc-trump

Interesting.

 

I can't remember if this has been mentioned, but the Justice Democrats are also trying to take over the Democratic Party from within.

[Danny Bateman]

I agree we were in agreement on 90% of that stuff Red. I agree that they often do a lousy job marketing their product. Clinton had plenty of policy available, but you had to seek it out yourself online. She largely did a poor job selling it because she got sucked into attacking Trump so much.

 

zoogs, that certainly is an interesting concept. I like the idea of direct democracy and allowing people to directly participate in voicing what important policy planks are. Like anything else on the internet, we'll have to see how vulnerable to manipulation it is after it rolls out.

 

I thought this was pretty pertinent to the discussion. It seems the leadership has gotten the message that simply being anti-Trump isn't going to cut it.

 

Dems’ new pitch to voters: A ‘Better Deal’

Democratic leaders plan to roll out a new economic agenda and messaging strategy for the 2018 campaign after deciding that simply running against Trump won’t cut it.

[RedDenver]

Dems divided on Trump attack strategy for 2018

[Landlord]

^ Bill Pascrell is right, imo. There should be no Democratic attack strategy against Trump. Trump is impulsive, childish, and completely incapable of getting out of his own way - let him destroy himself. I know people can look at the Republicans anti-Obama or anti-Obamacare rhetoric and say that they think that works, but I don't think it works the same way both directions.

 

 

If you keep trying to attack Trump, you just cause people who disagree with you (even if they don't agree with him), to react defensively at even the slightest hint of an overstep like Rachel Maddow's tax return blunder. You only hurt yourself by doing that.

 

 

Not that any of these politicians really care about people at all, but they do care about themselves and their power and their advancement, and the most effective way to gain that is by offering the people something the people want. Give them a worthwhile and better alternative and they'll give you the power to give it to them.

[RedDenver]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Hillary Clinton looks for her role in midterms

[BigRedBuster]

Wait....I thought the Dems didn't use "class warfare."

 

[zoogs]

I don't think 'class warfare' is being used quite the way you think here. It seems like there's at least a touch of irony in it. Perhaps class consciousness is a better term. To the extent a war has been waged, it's top down and to my knowledge there's nothing here to indicate any desire for actual 'war' in the opposite direction. Again, it's always been a convenient specter, though.

 

I suppose Vox is just leaning in to the term, with this tweet.

 

I'm not so opposed.

[TGHusker]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342431-dem-donors-buzzing-about-kamala-harris

 

Rising Star: Kamala Harris - is she the Dem's secret weapon for 2020? This is the direction the Dems need to go. And they have a perfect opportunity. She'd be a big contrast to Trump. That is why the Repubs would need to think hard about running Trump again- they too need a new, younger face. This would set up well for the Dems if it is her vs Trump.

The way Congress is going this year - the newer the face the better. Perhaps a governor as Senate Repubs will have the stain of this do nothing congress and the mess that is repeal and replace.

[zoogs]

TG, it'd be great to see you a former GOP'er support Kamal Harris. I do think she's one of the rising stars in the Democratic party. It could be a very promising campaign.