Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[baldgriff]

Seriously Lucky - such a deflection. Why cant you get a Jew or Mexican on the ballot? Why does it HAVE to be African-American?

nots response was more accurate and unfortunately true - as another political step to rally a specific voting block.

[The Feral Slasher]

What I said was that if a flat tax is to be applied to individuals and businesses it would never happen. It is regressive for individuals and would constitute a substantial increase for really big businesses. Yes, I think really big businesses have a lot of drag in the House (which is where tax legislation is required to originate) and the Senate, too. This comes both from lobbying and campaign contributions. I think House members are the most susceptible to this, as their geographical bases are generally much smaller, campaign coffers generally much more easily impacted, and terms much shorter. Plus, I think they tend to be even bigger goobers than out Senators are. For the most part, a bunch of corrupt a**holes. But then, I live in the state which sends Louis Gohmert to Washington.

And now you are changing your wording to "corporate money influence in politics" rather than what it was..."money in politics". Not exactly moving the goal posts, but at least moving the ball towards the hash marks. I'm a hard no on Citizens United. I agree that corporations have too much influence in our politics. Unless you have some ideas about how to fix it, they are just words. Yes, sloganeering.

I know how to fix Citizens United. Overturn it. End of story. Had Hillary been elected, I believe it would be a dead letter by the end of her first term. Now I believe we will be stuck with it for at least the rest of my life.

Give me a break. In post 17 I mentioned "corporate ties" and you then gave me a lecture about how everyone has "corporate ties". My response is below:

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.

So you claim that I'm just now talking about corporate money or influence and apparently trying to move the goal posts. After implying earlier that I would think someone who wins the lotto can't be a good Democrat because they are wealthy.

I think I've been very clear for a long time that I think corporations are too powerful and that their money is corrupting in politics and that the Democrats should try to do something about this. But again that is probably just sloganeering since I am only speaking words and haven't provided a solution for the Democratic party.

[baldgriff]

By the way - it is legitimate to point out a specific issue of concern - even if you dont have the means or idea to fix it.

It would have been good if some had said 'maybe the idea of making blimps commuter vehicles is a bad idea'.

[Redbirds Fan]

Seriously Lucky - such a deflection. Why cant you get a Jew or Mexican on the ballot? Why does it HAVE to be African-American?

nots response was more accurate and unfortunately true - as another political step to rally a specific voting block.

Hey, I wasn't in on the minority ticket discussion. I don't think Martin O'Malley is the guy to lead us in 2020. I don't think we need to decide in advance that we need a minority on the ticket. I think we need to see what happens between now and then. It is a long time off, and many things may happen in the party. That's why I didn't jump in.

I'm not really familiar with Hmong-Americans, but I looked them up and found them to be a very interesting group of people. There are about 250,000 of them, many of them refugees. As a group, they are beset by problems of poverty, lack of education, and poor mental health. Although there are no prominent politicians among them, I am sure there are some who would make much better presidents than Donald Trump. Nonetheless, I sensed that your reference to them was mean. My post in response was to point that out, not to deflect anything.

[cardboardbox]

Nonetheless, I sensed that your reference to them was mean.

[baldgriff]

My reference to them - or all of the other X-Americans was to ask why it had to be a specific X-American. You're not that dense to think I was picking on Hmongs.

Nice try.

[DMT]

Why does it have to be an African American? What about someone who is Jewish, Mexican-American, Hmong-American, Japanese-American?

Booker is clearly a rising star in the party and thus would be a logical nominee. I don't think an African-American has to be on the ticket, as long as it's someone who doesn't have a history of supporting policies that harm African-Americans (like both Clinton and O'Malley).

[In the Corn]

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

Before that, I had always like him.

[DMT]

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

Before that, I had always like him.

Yep, that's gonna haunt him if he decides to run.

[Redbirds Fan]

Give me a break. In post 17 I mentioned "corporate ties" and you then gave me a lecture about how everyone has "corporate ties". My response is below:

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.

So you claim that I'm just now talking about corporate money or influence and apparently trying to move the goal posts. After implying earlier that I would think someone who wins the lotto can't be a good Democrat because they are wealthy.

I think I've been very clear for a long time that I think corporations are too powerful and that their money is corrupting in politics and that the Democrats should try to do something about this. But again that is probably just sloganeering since I am only speaking words and haven't provided a solution for the Democratic party.

Those are some good points. I don't mean to lecture, and I apologize for that.

I have no love for corporations. I started my career working for them, called bullshit on that, and went into public service. When you do that, you pretty much say goodbye to the idea of making a lot of money and hello to dealing with bureaucrats and the public and the mind-numbing minutiae that comes with it. But you can do a lot of good, too. But you never get over your distaste for corporate greed.

How does that relate? In this last election, I supported Bernie. But once he was out, there was in my mind only one choice. Not a great one, but only one. But what I saw was people, including so many of the Bernie supporters, who argued against Hillary because of her "corporate ties". So they voted for Stein (inconsistent on the few positions she took, and a one-person corporation), Johnson (a Republican governor who was confused about everything except the fact that he really likes weed), Trump (the epitome of corporate greed and corruption of the 80s and 90s)...or they just stayed home. They pointed to her campaign contributor list. But among the biggest contributors were unions and other business entities we don't think of as evil corporate giants.

So it seemed to me that many of the people who were the most committed to lessen the influence of corporations actually ended up helping to strengthen the grip of corporations by putting Trump in office. As someone who went through the whole Nader/Florida deal, it freaks me out to think about those 100,000 votes in three states which put Trump in the White House, especially when Stein and Johnson got massively more votes than they did in 2012 while running the same campaigns.

Anyway, my bad.

[The Feral Slasher]

Those are some good points. I don't mean to lecture, and I apologize for that.

I have no love for corporations. I started my career working for them, called bullshit on that, and went into public service. When you do that, you pretty much say goodbye to the idea of making a lot of money and hello to dealing with bureaucrats and the public and the mind-numbing minutiae that comes with it. But you can do a lot of good, too. But you never get over your distaste for corporate greed.

How does that relate? In this last election, I supported Bernie. But once he was out, there was in my mind only one choice. Not a great one, but only one. But what I saw was people, including so many of the Bernie supporters, who argued against Hillary because of her "corporate ties". So they voted for Stein (inconsistent on the few positions she took, and a one-person corporation), Johnson (a Republican governor who was confused about everything except the fact that he really likes weed), Trump (the epitome of corporate greed and corruption of the 80s and 90s)...or they just stayed home. They pointed to her campaign contributor list. But among the biggest contributors were unions and other business entities we don't think of as evil corporate giants.

So it seemed to me that many of the people who were the most committed to lessen the influence of corporations actually ended up helping to strengthen the grip of corporations by putting Trump in office. As someone who went through the whole Nader/Florida deal, it freaks me out to think about those 100,000 votes in three states which put Trump in the White House, especially when Stein and Johnson got massively more votes than they did in 2012 while running the same campaigns.

Anyway, my bad.

I appreciate the response.

I can understand that some Democrats would be upset with Bernie supporters and blame them for the loss. I can also understand Bernie supporters blaming a party that endorsed Hillary as their candidate. Ultimately everyone has the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice and I try not to blame anyone for voting for who/what they think is best...even if that is hard sometimes.

I do think that there are a lot of eligible voters who don't turn out because they believe politicians are corrupt, and the right message/action from the Democratic party could yield results with them as well as with the Sanders supporters. I hope that after the last election, and the response to Sander's message, that Democrats will re-assess their party.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I appreciate the response.

I can understand that some Democrats would be upset with Bernie supporters and blame them for the loss. I can also understand Bernie supporters blaming a party that endorsed Hillary as their candidate. Ultimately everyone has the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice and I try not to blame anyone for voting for who/what they think is best...even if that is hard sometimes.

I do think that there are a lot of eligible voters who don't turn out because they believe politicians are corrupt, and the right message/action from the Democratic party could yield results with them as well as with the Sanders supporters. I hope that after the last election, and the response to Sander's message, that Democrats will re-assess their party.

If you take a really close look at this past election, you will have to come to the conclusion that the majority of voting Americans, votes for sweeping change over incremental politics. Add those people who voted Trump and Sanders in the Primaries and it tells you--People wanted change, Not the tiny steps of the Obama admin. or the status quo GOP or even Hillary's promise to maintain progressive gains--they wanted someone who was going to shake it all up and they really didn't care in which direction.

Trump voters didn't care if he'd possibly fuck it all up (as he seems to be doing) as long as it was movement. You can combat, fight against and see movement easier than incremental change, which is like watching an iceberg migrate and obviously easy progress to wipe away with the stroke of an EO pen.

Sanders voters for the greater part, stayed the party course, held their nose and voted Clinton, but others, such as myself, voted 3rd party or not at all and as Lucky stated, proved to be the margin, though so very slim, of defeat for the Democrats. Yes it was sanders supporters fault Hillary ;lost and trump is in the White House. I'd be very interested to see if those who didn't vote Clinton would change their votes knowing they'd made Trump president.

I know, I wouldn't. But that's easy for me to say as I knew Clinton would carry NV without my vote.

This thread was intended to find a path for the Democrats to regain their footing and what they should do going forward, well IF you really supported Sanders before--you should STILL be supporting him and those he's endorsed now. We've seen that Politics of incremental change can no longer win and that the Democratic party needs those sanders supporters lost in the general to regain seat in congress and the white House, yet I see people STILL advocating remaining centrist or saying they same crap about Warren (too far Left, Etc) that they ran out against Sanders, when most every poll shows Bernie would have beaten Trump handily.

All I can say is that after the election, my wife, my daughter and I all un registered as Democrats because we want to see what happens with the party before committing to one specific group.

I know there are many in here who disagree with me, that's cool, but to think the Democrats can continue to do what they've done in the recent past and oust the GOp who will no doubtedly run and actual adult next time, is folly.

But then again, some people just don't learn from history now do they (Nader)?

[revo]

Seriously Lucky - such a deflection. Why cant you get a Jew or Mexican on the ballot? Why does it HAVE to be African-American?

nots response was more accurate and unfortunately true - as another political step to rally a specific voting block.

It doesn't have to be African-American, but clearly, many stayed home rather than vote for Hillary. They make up 12% of the country, and are almost exclusively Democratic. Getting someone on the ballot who they would be excited about would get them to vote -- and vote Democratic.

Bernie's Jewish, but not sure he elicited too much excitement among Jews.

A Latino would also work well.

And really, isn't it evident why? Look who's in the WH -- a guy who claimed a Mexican judge couldn't be impartial; who wants to build a wall to keep out Latinos; who wants to ban Muslims from entering the country; who took weeks to finally acknowledge there is a serious anti-Semitic problem among his backers; and who thinks all blacks live in burning, crime infested ghettos. Quite frankly, he's the worst nightmare for most minorities in this country.

[Fresno Bob]

They wont rally the AA community

From a sheer numbers standpoint, isn't it better to rally the Hispanic community?

[Redbirds Fan]

I don't know much about the Hispanic community, but it appears to be very diverse internally, as well as very independent. They might be harder to project than the 'black vote' or even the 'white vote'. It does seem, however, that the current administration is going out of its way to piss off as many Hispanics as possible.