Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[The Feral Slasher]

We should try to steer some the DNC banter from the Trump thread to here-

My question for Sanders supporters who don't want to support the democrats is to read the platform of the DNC published last summer and say what they agree and disagree with it

It is long but maybe perusing the table of contents could be enough to start

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

I meant to respond to this post earlier since I do appreciate someone asking the question and actually thinking about this topic.

I don't think the lack of support has anything to do with the party platform. 99% of Americans don't know (or probably care) what is in there. For me it is a matter of their actions, not their promises. Other than the the hard core life-long Democrats I just don't think anyone believes that Democrats are the party of the working and middle class anymore (I'm too lazy to look up stats, but I think they would support my assertion). I believe the perception is that they are the party of the well educated elite. I've included a couple links below that might be help illustrate that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/why-donald-trump-win-walt-disney

http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters

Anyway, I don't intend to argue about whether or not Democratic policies are actually good or better than Republican ones. What I'm trying to show is that there are reasons that people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. If progressives want to keep believing that their policy and candidate had nothing to do with their loss, and it was all because of racism, sexism, Russians or whatever I am fine with that, I just think they should look at this as an opportunity to make a better party.

EDIT: I realize that the links are focused on Trump supporters, not Sanders...but I think there are a probably a lot of common beliefs

[DMT]

The Democrats are certainly to blame for losing their economic populist roots, but they deserve some credit that things don't look much worse, as the Republicans are going to make painfully clear.

[The Feral Slasher]

The Democrats are certainly to blame for losing their economic populist roots, but they deserve some credit that things don't look much worse, as the Republicans are going to make painfully clear.

I don't disagree with that at all... but if they hadn't supported Nafta, TPP or other issues that hurt the middle class they would probably have won the last election.

Edit: Plus this is supposed to be about the Dems and what they can do to earn Sanders supporters votes. So what are your thoughts on that ?

[GwynnInTheHall]

I don't disagree with that at all... but if they hadn't supported Nafta, TPP or other issues that hurt the middle class they would probably have won the last election.

I wish they'd had a candidate who opposed those.....................

[DMT]

I don't disagree with that at all... but if they hadn't supported Nafta, TPP or other issues that hurt the middle class they would probably have won the last election.

Edit: Plus this is supposed to be about the Dems and what they can do to earn Sanders supporters votes. So what are your thoughts on that ?

I think they need to do a better job communicating their values and committing to an agenda that reflects those values. Hillary's 'evolving' views on TPP were so phony it's incredible they thought people were going to buy it.

They need to stop supporting unjust wars when their guy is in charge. Stop hiding behind the false fantastical oxymoron of 'Humanitarian Intervention.'

They need to rebuild it from the bottom up by getting more progressive candidates elected at the local levels. Channel the passion of the youth demographic that Trump continues to galvanize.

I'm just not sure the Democratic Party is ready to ween itself from the corporate teat. Too many people are doing too well under the current set-up to motivate them to radically alter it.

Besides, as has been said by others, they can't veer too far left for risk of losing moderates. The Republicans can veer hard right and get rewarded, but I doubt the left would be similarly treated.

[baldgriff]

Besides, as has been said by others, they can't veer too far left for risk of losing moderates. The Republicans can veer hard right and get rewarded, but I doubt the left would be similarly treated.

This is exactly their problem! They have a large group of "classical liberals" that are falling into discontent.

[Teenwolf]

Supposing the left went further to the left, adopting even more of Sanders' platform, ending Democrat acceptance of campaign funding from Super Pac's and other corporate influence, etc.... and I believe the danger in turning away "moderate" voters would be heavily outweighed by the influx of galvanized folks that sat out 2016.

Why are we learning nothing from Hillary?! Putting up centre-right folks like Clinton/Kaine failed hard. Time to go the opposite route next election, and I believe the far-left are primed to take over the majority of the electorate for 2020. If Cory Booker or whoever tries to run as the corporate-backed candidate, they will get crushed just like Hillary did. The electorate will see this in advance, and won't allow it to play out again.

By the way, to those who said Bernie's free college idea was insane and a total pipedream... the cost of that plan was roughly $86 Billion. Trump's military increase is $60 Billion. Both seem crazy... but at least Bernie's plan included tax increases to rich people to fund it. Trump is on his usual bankruptcy plan.

[Redbirds Fan]

Supposing the left went further to the left, adopting even more of Sanders' platform, ending Democrat acceptance of campaign funding from Super Pac's and other corporate influence, etc.... and I believe the danger in turning away "moderate" voters would be heavily outweighed by the influx of galvanized folks that sat out 2016.

Why are we learning nothing from Hillary?! Putting up centre-right folks like Clinton/Kaine failed hard. Time to go the opposite route next election, and I believe the far-left are primed to take over the majority of the electorate for 2020. If Cory Booker or whoever tries to run as the corporate-backed candidate, they will get crushed just like Hillary did. The electorate will see this in advance, and won't allow it to play out again.

By the way, to those who said Bernie's free college idea was insane and a total pipedream... the cost of that plan was roughly $86 Billion. Trump's military increase is $60 Billion. Both seem crazy... but at least Bernie's plan included tax increases to rich people to fund it. Trump is on his usual bankruptcy plan.

I am open to pretty much any ideas that would put Democrats back in elected offices. But why do we think there would be an influx of people who sat out 2016? Or far-left people who would take over the majority of the electorate? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, I just haven't seen anything that would make that seem likely.

The 18-29 Sanders supporter were passionate and vocal, but the voter participation rate for that demographic has remained stagnant over the last four presidential elections. And although Hillary won the demo, Trump bested her 48% to 43% among white voters 18-29.

Of course, Trump won white men and white women, the latter group by about 10%. But, based upon what has happened since the election, and looking particularly at the Women's Marches and the various town halls, there appears to be some movement in white women voter sentiment which would help a non-Hillary candidate.

Given the actual numbers from the 2016 election, and the current trajectory of the administration, there is an argument to be made for keeping the current base plus adding some disenchanted white women. Against that backdrop, what is the case for believing that relying upon 2016 non-voters would be a more viable strategy?

I agree with you 100% about on the college/military issue, and think that should be addressed by in the Democratic platform, regardless of any other stragegies the Party decides to embrace. I'm so sick of the "I've got mine" sentiment, which only serves to cement class and race discrimination.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I am open to pretty much any ideas that would put Democrats back in elected offices. But why do we think there would be an influx of people who sat out 2016? Or far-left people who would take over the majority of the electorate? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, I just haven't seen anything that would make that seem likely.

The 18-29 Sanders supporter were passionate and vocal, but the voter participation rate for that demographic has remained stagnant over the last four presidential elections. And although Hillary won the demo, Trump bested her 48% to 43% among white voters 18-29.

Of course, Trump won white men and white women, the latter group by about 10%. But, based upon what has happened since the election, and looking particularly at the Women's Marches and the various town halls, there appears to be some movement in white women voter sentiment which would help a non-Hillary candidate.

Given the actual numbers from the 2016 election, and the current trajectory of the administration, there is an argument to be made for keeping the current base plus adding some disenchanted white women. Against that backdrop, what is the case for believing that relying upon 2016 non-voters would be a more viable strategy?

I agree with you 100% about on the college/military issue, and think that should be addressed by in the Democratic platform, regardless of any other stragegies the Party decides to embrace. I'm so sick of the "I've got mine" sentiment, which only serves to cement class and race discrimination.

That segment which remained stagnant was some of the reason Hillary lost. I know my daughter, 18, did not vote because after Bernie lost she because disinterested. I'm sure there are many people in this group as well as others who stayed home too. The mainstream Dems will vote for whatever nominee with a D is placed in front of them regardless. they feel it's their duty, so why not appease the far left (which they need) and count on the moderates to "do what is right for the party" ?

I think some of Sanders platforms ere extreme, but it's his passion, his track record of doing what he believes for decades with no "ëvolution" necessary that appeals to me, possibly others as well.

I've always favored the Aim for the Stars and you still get the moon way of doing things rather than the, don't ask for more than what you THINK you can get.

Traditionalists, I get it, but like everything else--things change and they have.

Shit I;ve been in the poker industry for decades and the style of play is completely different today than it was back when players like Unger and Doyle ruled the roost. You adapt or die. THAT'S where I see the party, it's time to get with it or get steppin.

We'll see their direction pretty soon because Sanders, Ellison and Warren will let us know if it's same ol same ol or a new direction......

[onejayhawk]

This is one of the big problems the Democrats have. Make that two of them. First, it is a fact that immigration laws are routinely evaded or ignored. Second, the press that is supposed to call them out for it hasn't.

[Teenwolf]

This is one of the big problems the Democrats have. Make that two of them. First, it is a fact that immigration laws are routinely evaded or ignored. Second, the press that is supposed to call them out for it hasn't.

Why is it that you haven't posted in the Republican thread of the same title, and it's been there for weeks now? You just can't stop trolling. SAD.

[Redbirds Fan]

Trump enforces some laws. It's obviously a different matter when it comes to the EPA or consumer protection or voter rights. His priorities are clearly only those of his "base", rather than the interests of the entirety of citizens he was elected to serve.

This is a substantial blind spot with those who see Trump as some type of "law and order" President. He likes what he likes.

[The Feral Slasher]

Booker's vote with regard to prescription drugs rubs me the wrong way.

Before that, I had always like him.

Not sure how much of this was based on criticism from liberals/progressives...but seems like good news

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2017/02/27/slammed-left-booker-join-sanders-drug-imports/98495840/

Pilloried by his party’s left wing for voting in January against a non-binding measure with a similar goal, Sen. Cory Booker is joining Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday to unveil a bill to allow the importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada and other countries.

Booker, who has been mentioned as a potential 2020 presidential candidate, came under fire on social media and liberal blogs as too beholden to special interests after he and 12 Democratic colleagues, including fellow New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, voted against a drug-importation amendment to the 2017 budget resolution.

[onejayhawk]

Why is it that you haven't posted in the Republican thread of the same title, and it's been there for weeks now? You just can't stop trolling. SAD.

The Republicans are not dissolving into an internal war like the Democrats are.

How is it trolling? The Democrats have a massive credibility problem and the cartoon illustrates it. The media side is secondary but also spot on.

Trump enforces some laws. It's obviously a different matter when it comes to the EPA or consumer protection or voter rights. His priorities are clearly only those of his "base", rather than the interests of the entirety of citizens he was elected to serve.

This is a substantial blind spot with those who see Trump as some type of "law and order" President. He likes what he likes.

That would be a good thread to start. You see it as non-enforcement. Others see it as rolling back over-reach. Another good battleground is in education.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

The Republicans are not dissolving into an internal war like the Democrats are.

How is it trolling? The Democrats have a massive credibility problem and the cartoon illustrates it. The media side is secondary but also spot on.


That would be a good thread to start. You see it as non-enforcement. Others see it as rolling back over-reach. Another good battleground is in education.

J

Tea Party