Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[Redbirds Fan]

Obviously, I'm not a Dem, but this post is simple and fantastic. So true and well said.

I grew up a few miles from Louisiana.

Staunch conservatives are convinced that Dems waste money on welfare for lazy black people. This notion has grown stronger and stronger since Reagan's "welfare queen" trope. The truth is, according to the most recent study I could find (2010), that 90% of entitlement spending goes to the elderly, disabled and working households.

As for abortion, more Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" than "pro-life". A strong majority do not wish to see Roe v. Wade overturned. So when you hear conservative politicians talk about wanting SCOTUS to do the will of the people, take it with a grain of salt.

I think the Party needs to stay true to its core principles of civil rights, including the right of a woman to choose. And I think we need to stay true to our historic positions of support to working families and union labor. The Democratic Party took the position that union labor made this country great, by bettering wages and conditions, making it possible for everyday Americans to buy their own homes and live the American dream. As unions have declined since the early 70s, income inequality has skyrocketed, and wages have stagnated by comparison.

I've spent a lifetime on the fringe, but what now passes as the far left of the Democratic Party is far different that what is has been before. The Party needs to change, but careening to the left without clear purpose is a reaction, not a strategy, and it will not regain those working class voters who have been lost over the last 20 years.

[The Feral Slasher]

And I think we need to stay true to our historic positions of support to working families and union labor. The Democratic Party took the position that union labor made this country great, by bettering wages and conditions, making it possible for everyday Americans to buy their own homes and live the American dream. As unions have declined since the early 70s, income inequality has skyrocketed, and wages have stagnated by comparison.

I've spent a lifetime on the fringe, but what now passes as the far left of the Democratic Party is far different that what is has been before. The Party needs to change, but careening to the left without clear purpose is a reaction, not a strategy, and it will not regain those working class voters who have been lost over the last 20 years.

I don't think it is clear that the Democratic Party can "stay true to our historic positions of support to working families and union labor" - as you note in the part I bolded income inequality has skyrocketed and wages have stagnated. If the Democratic Party was effectively supporting working families this shouldn't have happened.

Regarding your last paragraph, are you equating Bernie and his supporters to the "far left" ? You just referenced skyrocketing inequality and wage stagnation-- but then you don't think the party should veer left ?

It really seems like you think the Democratic party has no reason to change and should just keep on making "progress". Did I misunderstand your position ? Do you not think the Neo-Liberal positions and corporate ties are something to be concerned about ?

[Hornsby]

I agree that they need a clear message, and I think to get that message they need to figure out what the party stands for and what they want to be. Pretty much the only message from the Democrats the last 6-8 months is -- "Donald Trump is a racist/bigot/idiot". It must have been about 90% (or more) of what was on Liberal media, the Sportsbar and so on. In the end I don't think it helped them and I don't think it is a reasonable strategy going forward.

They need a standard bearer more than anything else, someone who'll pull the party together rather than divide it into factions again. And funny about that message regarding Trump, it's likely to be the only thing that the Dems will need in the next 2 elections if the administration continues like this. I think that the traditional Democratic ideals of equality for all and fairness in income will ring even more true in the next few years.

The funny thing was that Clinton was accused of being a wonk, having a position and a paper for just about everything. People didn't care, they didn't like the messenger, so they ignored the message.

I wish that Joe Biden was 10 years younger...but he's not. I can see someone like Cory Booker making a legitimate run, he's making all the right noises now.

[Erik]

They need to create a narrative and use policy positions to supplement it, not have the policy positions be the narrative. They win when they do that (Bill Clinton, Obama). They lose when they don't. (Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton.)

[The Feral Slasher]

They need a standard bearer more than anything else, someone who'll pull the party together rather than divide it into factions again. And funny about that message regarding Trump, it's likely to be the only thing that the Dems will need in the next 2 elections if the administration continues like this. I think that the traditional Democratic ideals of equality for all and fairness in income will ring even more true in the next few years.

The funny thing was that Clinton was accused of being a wonk, having a position and a paper for just about everything. People didn't care, they didn't like the messenger, so they ignored the message.

I wish that Joe Biden was 10 years younger...but he's not. I can see someone like Cory Booker making a legitimate run, he's making all the right noises now.

It seems strange to me that the Democratic Party has been described as a "smoking pile of rubble" after the recent elections and you don't see a need for significatnt change or re-assessment. I think Democrats will likely win the next Presidential election, but it seems silly to consider it a foregone conclusion. And there are state and local elections to consider. And I don't know why Democrats wouldn't take this as an opportunity to improve.

How do you see someone unifying the party (besides Trump, he might take care of that), it seems there are some pretty big divisions.

Regarding Clinton, she just wasn't believable, as you yourself noted in a post about her TPP position. And having policy positions isn't an effective message. Anyway, it should be interesting, and clearly I'd like to see a lot more changes than you and Lucky.

[Hornsby]

It seems strange to me that the Democratic Party has been described as a "smoking pile of rubble" after the recent elections and you don't see a need for significatnt change or re-assessment. I think Democrats will likely win the next Presidential election, but it seems silly to consider it a foregone conclusion. And there are state and local elections to consider. And I don't know why Democrats wouldn't take this as an opportunity to improve.

How do you see someone unifying the party (besides Trump, he might take care of that), it seems there are some pretty big divisions.

Regarding Clinton, she just wasn't believable, as you yourself noted in a post about her TPP position. And having policy positions isn't an effective message. Anyway, it should be interesting, and clearly I'd like to see a lot more changes than you and Lucky.

It depends on who called it a "smoking pile of rubble", because I certainly don't see it that way. It's a party that has fought internally for decades, Will Rogers said " I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat". And it's unlikely to change anytime soon. People overreact to the most recent events, and this election loss is just that, an overreaction.

Does it need help? Yeah, but what it needs more than anything else is a good leader who's under 70...gotta get young blood in there, and listen to them. A common enemy is the great uniter, and Trump and the GOP are as big an enemy as the Dems have seen since the Reagan years.

And change for changes sake is not really productive, you need to have a goal, a plan, and an idea of how to accomplish it.

[The Feral Slasher]

It depends on who called it a "smoking pile of rubble", because I certainly don't see it that way. It's a party that has fought internally for decades, Will Rogers said " I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat". And it's unlikely to change anytime soon. People overreact to the most recent events, and this election loss is just that, an overreaction.

Does it need help? Yeah, but what it needs more than anything else is a good leader who's under 70...gotta get young blood in there, and listen to them. A common enemy is the great uniter, and Trump and the GOP are as big an enemy as the Dems have seen since the Reagan years.

And change for changes sake is not really productive, you need to have a goal, a plan, and an idea of how to accomplish it.

It was Matty Iglesias from Vox

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-smoking-pile-rubble

[Redbirds Fan]

I don't think it is clear that the Democratic Party can "stay true to our historic positions of support to working families and union labor" - as you note in the part I bolded income inequality has skyrocketed and wages have stagnated. If the Democratic Party was effectively supporting working families this shouldn't have happened.

Regarding your last paragraph, are you equating Bernie and his supporters to the "far left" ? You just referenced skyrocketing inequality and wage stagnation-- but then you don't think the party should veer left ?

It really seems like you think the Democratic party has no reason to change and should just keep on making "progress". Did I misunderstand your position ? Do you not think the Neo-Liberal positions and corporate ties are something to be concerned about ?

Income inequality has gotten worse as tax policy has favored business and the wealthy, and as unions have lost power. A renewed focus on these issues would be a return to traditional Democratic policies. My statement was that we shouldn't careen left as a careen left. We shouldn't "veer" either, as a sudden change in direction is not a strategy to rebuild our base. I don't think Bernie is "far left". I voted for him in the primary. But when he lost I didn't get mad take my toys home. And I don't want to blow up the system.

Slasher's last sentence (actually a question) suggests there is something wrong with "corporate ties". This is just sloganeering. Everybody on this board has corporate ties. They either work for one, or they own stock in one, or they have a bank loan, or some relationship with a corporation, unless they are agrarians living out in a National Park. Without context it's meaningless. Here's an example. I heard many Bernie fans say would vote for Trump before Hillary because of her corporate ties. Let that sink in a minute, and then think about Trump's cabinet appointments.

Not a big fan of Matty Iglesias. I think his articles on Bernie were little more than hit pieces. And to me he has very little cred based upon his lack of experience in the real world. Since getting his philosophy degree, he has done nothing but write. He has paid no dues so far as I can tell.

Slasher, I think changes must be made. Changes are necessary if the Party is to survive. The question is what should they be? I believe they must be consistent with historic Democratic values and restore the relationship the Party has with the working men and women of America. If that means moving left this much, fine. If it means moving this much, fine. If it means moving this much, fine.

[The Feral Slasher]

Slasher's last sentence (actually a question) suggests there is something wrong with "corporate ties". This is just sloganeering. Everybody on this board has corporate ties. They either work for one, or they own stock in one, or they have a bank loan, or some relationship with a corporation, unless they are agrarians living out in a National Park. Without context it's meaningless. Here's an example. I heard many Bernie fans say would vote for Trump before Hillary because of her corporate ties. Let that sink in a minute, and then think about Trump's cabinet appointments.

Not a big fan of Matty Iglesias. I think his articles on Bernie were little more than hit pieces. And to me he has very little cred based upon his lack of experience in the real world. Since getting his philosophy degree, he has done nothing but write. He has paid no dues so far as I can tell.

I happen to think the power of the large corporations in America is probably the biggest problem facing the middle class. And the relationship between the large corporations/monied interests and politicians is a huge concern for me. I suspect most Sanders supporters feel the same way and the influence of corporations in the Democratic Party could be an issue in attaining party unity. Maybe my phrasing wasn't the best. Yes, everyone has corporate ties, not everyone receives millions of dollars from the ultra wealthy and then tries to pretend they are a hero of the working class.

Not a fan of Iglesias either, in fact I don't even recall reading the article, just remember the headline.

[Redbirds Fan]

I happen to think the power of the large corporations in America is probably the biggest problem facing the middle class. And the relationship between the large corporations/monied interests and politicians is a huge concern for me. I suspect most Sanders supporters feel the same way and the influence of corporations in the Democratic Party could be an issue in attaining party unity. Maybe my phrasing wasn't the best. Yes, everyone has corporate ties, not everyone receives millions of dollars from the ultra wealthy and then tries to pretend they are a hero of the working class.

Not a fan of Iglesias either, in fact I don't even recall reading the article, just remember the headline.

So you don't think people with a lot of money can be good Democrats? If I won the Lotto tomorrow, would you be ready to toss me out?

[umjewman]

So you don't think people with a lot of money can be good Democrats? If I won the Lotto tomorrow, would you be ready to toss me out?

That's absurd. I think Powerball draws on Wednesday...

[chancellor]

So you don't think people with a lot of money can be good Democrats? If I won the Lotto tomorrow, would you be ready to toss me out?

Reminds me of the Bloom County comic strip that ends with Opus saying "Hit me again and put it in that guy's tab"

[baldgriff]

My take is that the Democratic Party cant tell you what there "core" platform is anymore. They have spent far too much time pandering and trying to integrate various special interest groups. Take Sanders as an example. He is not a Democrat - he is further left. Without the DNC playing shenanigans the Dems would have been taken over very similarly to what Trump has done to the Republicans.

When you spend more time redefining yourself in order to accommodate the minority of your party you tend to lose messaging with a portion of the majority.

Guys like Dave Rubin - who is a married gay man - cant identify with the party because of the identity politics it plays and the inability of the party to speak directly.

[cardboardbox]

Guys like Dave Rubin - who is a married gay man - cant identify with the party because of the identity politics it plays and the inability of the party to speak directly.

that was very good video.

[Redbirds Fan]

that was very good video.

This guy cracks me up. He decided to no longer be a "progressive" once the tide had turned in the bloody fight for gay men to marry.

The video is more sloganeering by the right. He's no more a 'classic liberal' as he claims than my wife's morkie. Peel back the veneer and you can see what he's selling. A defense of hate speech. The idea that religious liberty means imposing Christian values on others. He's Tomi, but not as shrill.