Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[GwynnInTheHall]

It's on the Healthcare Now site, it was published this weekend, but it may be a reboot from last June. I'm checking it out now.

From what I can gather, it's a repub of last years DNC vote, but outside the comment section no mention of the date expect for the one at the top of the page July 2 , 2017.


After a bit more looking, the DNC has yet to consider new platforms planks this year--I can't confirm yes or no, but this article looks like a reprint. from last year's committee vote.

My bad, I should have been more careful.

[Hornsby]

It's on the Healthcare Now site, it was published this weekend, but it may be a reboot from last June. I'm checking it out now.

From what I can gather, it's a repub of last years DNC vote, but outside the comment section no mention of the date expect for the one at the top of the page July 2 , 2017.


After a bit more looking, the DNC has yet to consider new platforms planks this year--I can't confirm yes or no, but this article looks like a reprint. from last year's committee vote.

My bad, I should have been more careful.

No sweat...I just thought that it was a bit strange that I hadn't seen anything on my feeds about it. And given the mood around healthcare now, I think that proposing a single payer plank is going to be pretty much a done deal the next time around.

[GwynnInTheHall]

No sweat...I just thought that it was a bit strange that I hadn't seen anything on my feeds about it. And given the mood around healthcare now, I think that proposing a single payer plank is going to be pretty much a done deal the next time around.

I'm on their newsfeed (Healthcarenow) this came up so i followed the link, it does look like a repub, but they presented it as new.

I hope you're right, they need to move to the left and single payer is a big step in keeping the Sanders faction in camp.

[onejayhawk]

You're right. They need to move left and embrace Bernie and Co. Single payer is not the way to do that now that ACA has poisoned the well. However, getting away from the Clinton and Obama machines will do the party enormous good.

Has there ever been a more nakedly avaricious couple than Bill and Hillary Clinton? Not in politics anyway. Obama brought the Chicago machine with him, and all the money ties as well. Remember when the Republicans were the party of rich fat cats? Not lately.

J

[Don Quixote]

You're right. They need to move left and embrace Bernie and Co. Single payer is not the way to do that now that ACA has poisoned the well. However, getting away from the Clinton and Obama machines will do the party enormous good.

Has there ever been a more nakedly avaricious couple than Bill and Hillary Clinton? Not in politics anyway. Obama brought the Chicago machine with him, and all the money ties as well. Remember when the Republicans were the party of rich fat cats? Not lately.

J

Bill was a great actor. He could fake the sincerity bit as well as anyone I've ever seen. But as an acting teacher, he's been a complete failure. Neither Fat Al nor Hillary could fake compassion, concern, or empathy even 10% as well. Her "I'll Fight for You!" (with that damnable, interminable finger-wagging, like we're all a bunch of misbehaving 4th graders) was some of the worst acting I've ever seen. Anyone with a working brain knew she wasn't fighting for anyone except herself and maybe Chelsea.

(And I still voted for her, or rather against Trump)

Now while I agree that the Dems need to move on, the problem is that neither the Clintons nor President Obama did much in the way of grooming replacements, in HRC's case because she probably feared an "upstart" taking her place like Obama did in 2008. The Republicans may be in even worse shape; after all, look what won the nomination last year. Both parties have this problem--Who takes over when the current comparatively old group shuffles off this mortal coil? Look at the age on the people at the top. Who are the "young leaders", beyond the uncharismatic Paul Ryan?

[chancellor]

Now while I agree that the Dems need to move on, the problem is that neither the Clintons nor President Obama did much in the way of grooming replacements, in HRC's case because she probably feared an "upstart" taking her place like Obama did in 2008. The Republicans may be in even worse shape; after all, look what won the nomination last year. Both parties have this problem--Who takes over when the current comparatively old group shuffles off this mortal coil? Look at the age on the people at the top. Who are the "young leaders", beyond the uncharismatic Paul Ryan?

Anyone who claims they know is fooling themselves. However, given state and federal legislature turnover in both houses, the GOP has a lot more options that may come out as strong candidates. I'm quite aware that "more" does not equal "will" relative to finding a strong candidate. That being said, I'd say the odds are pretty well stacked in the GOP's favor, but readily concur that doesn't necessarily mean there'll be a candidate that will be able to beat Trump in a primary, nor be good enough to beat a decent Dem in the general.

I mean, seriously, who really predicted Obama would be successful early on? It's like someone claiming they'd know Aaron Judge was going to be a $50 player this year.

[baldgriff]

I would have said that Tulsi Gabbard could may have been lining herself up as a possible candidate, but Im not sure anymore.

[Redbirds Fan]

I would have said that Tulsi Gabbard could may have been lining herself up as a possible candidate, but Im not sure anymore.

Be sure. Her fifteen minutes only lasted six minutes.

[nots]

Be sure. Her fifteen minutes only lasted six minutes.

While folks in the DNC might not like her, she is beloved in the state of Hawaii. With the gov being term limited, she will either be the next Gov or Senator from Hawaii, depending on what job Schatz wants. Please bookmark this post--you literally couldnt be more wrong about her six minutes of fame

[B-Fly]

I'm not sure it's worth its own thread so I'm bumping this one. As a relatively mainstream Democratic primary voter yesterday in New Jersey, I was unhappy, and I wasn't alone. Despite having no credible challenger with any party support or funding to speak of, Bob Menendez lost around 38 percent of the primary vote to a crackpot and who knows how many write-ins or non votes in the Senate primary. On the heels of a gubernatorial race that had several high-quality mainstream Democrats battle to replace Chris Christie, the Party powers-that-be were still so untroubled and unmoved by Menendez's ethics censure and corruption charges that they made no effort whatsoever to encourage, nurture or support a credible, qualified Democratic challenger to Menendez who was less ethically compromised. I see some pundits describing this as a progressive protest vote against Menendez, but I don't see it that way at all. I'm hardly in the progressive wing of the party and neither are many of the of the other Democrats with whom I discussed the race. Many of us mainstream or even moderate Democrats would have supported Jim Johnson, Steve Wisniewki, Ray Lesniak, John Wisniewski, Barbara Buono or Steve Fulop (all basically mainstream, play-by-the-rules Democrats with reasonable high in-state profiles), but we weren't given such a choice, so we voted for crackpot McCormick, stayed home, or like me, wrote-in (my mother). Ultimately, I am perfectly fine with Menendez's legislative record from a policy and voting perspective, and clearly prefer him to the Republican nominee, Bob Hugin. So depressingly, Menendez will get my vote in November, but he won't get my money or my enthusiasm.

[nots]

I'm not sure it's worth its own thread so I'm bumping this one. As a relatively mainstream Democratic primary voter yesterday in New Jersey, I was unhappy, and I wasn't alone. Despite having no credible challenger with any party support or funding to speak of, Bob Menendez lost around 38 percent of the primary vote to a crackpot and who knows how many write-ins or non votes in the Senate primary. On the heels of a gubernatorial race that had several high-quality mainstream Democrats battle to replace Chris Christie, the Party powers-that-be were still so untroubled and unmoved by Menendez's ethics censure and corruption charges that they made no effort whatsoever to encourage, nurture or support a credible, qualified Democratic challenger to Menendez who was less ethically compromised. I see some pundits describing this as a progressive protest vote against Menendez, but I don't see it that way at all. I'm hardly in the progressive wing of the party and neither are many of the of the other Democrats with whom I discussed the race. Many of us mainstream or even moderate Democrats would have supported Jim Johnson, Steve Wisniewki, Ray Lesniak, John Wisniewski, Barbara Buono or Steve Fulop (all basically mainstream, play-by-the-rules Democrats with reasonable high in-state profiles), but we weren't given such a choice, so we voted for crackpot McCormick, stayed home, or like me, wrote-in (my mother). Ultimately, I am perfectly fine with Menendez's legislative record from a policy and voting perspective, and clearly prefer him to the Republican nominee, Bob Hugin. So depressingly, Menendez will get my vote in November, but he won't get my money or my enthusiasm.

I guess I don’t understand this point of view. I don’t know a thing about Bob Hugin, but I do know Menendez went on trial for corruption, received a bipartisan rebuke from the Senate ethics committee (strongest possible outcome that committee can provide), and being from NJ, I am sure you are well aware of the even worse rumors about his plane shenanigans. It seems to me you are saying, anything goes as long as the guy has D after his name. Which is all well and good I guess, but it certainly makes your criticism of Trumps moral failings ring hollow.

[B-Fly]

I guess I don’t understand this point of view. I don’t know a thing about Bob Hugin, but I do know Menendez went on trial for corruption, received a bipartisan rebuke from the Senate ethics committee (strongest possible outcome that committee can provide), and being from NJ, I am sure you are well aware of the even worse rumors about his plane shenanigans. It seems to me you are saying, anything goes as long as the guy has D after his name. Which is all well and good I guess, but it certainly makes your criticism of Trumps moral failings ring hollow.

What I'm saying is that in an election with two possible outcomes, I feel I have to weigh the legislative/policy impact of those two possible outcomes against my moral misgivings about Menendez and feel compelled, unhappily, to vote for Menendez over someone whose policies I strongly oppose and whose voting record I would almost certainly abhor. If a Christie Todd Whitman or Tom Kean clone were on the other side, I could find myself voting for the Republican over Menendez, but not Bob Hugin. The time to jettison Menendez should have been the primary, and I'm pissed at the Democratic powers-that-be for not only missing but actively precluding that opportunity.

With respect to any Trump analogy, I'm far more upset/befuddled at Republicans for giving him their nomination than I am for them choosing him over Hillary Clinton when it came down to a two-possible-outcomes scenario. I get holding your nose and voting for what you think will lead to better policies from your own political/ideological perspective. I hope Republicans of conscience and influence will work hard to take out Trump in the 2020 primaries. If so, I'll give them far more credit than I'm giving the Democratic leadership in NJ right now.

[nots]

With all due respect, that is a disappointing answer. To say you abhor a Republicans policies more than you abhor a corrupt Democrat isn’t a good look in my opinion. The guy is fully on the take for himself let alone the Roy Moore type rumors that have floated out there for years. No hard feelings though—I greatly appreciate your thoughts here in the Bar and am very glad you’re back. This just seems uncharacteristic to me.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, I have no idea why Menendez was supported by the party. I agree that it would have been far better for them to support a credible challenger for him in the primaries. Very disappointing that the DNC seems to still not have learned its lessons on this.

I also agree with your take on Trump. All I ever hear is why people voted for him over HRC, but no one answers why the Republican party chose him in a crowded field of far more qualified candidates.

[The Feral Slasher]

I also agree with your take on Trump. All I ever hear is why people voted for him over HRC, but no one answers why the Republican party chose him in a crowded field of far more qualified candidates.

I credit Hillary and her Pied Piper strategy