In general, neoliberalism is strong at liberalization, less government restrictions, I wrote "economical liberalization" to be more precise, which is turned to for example free trade.
If Im wrong about what neoliberalism, pls explain to me what it is, Im all ears and want to get more educated on the issue.
The credit that I DO want to give to Hillary, and why I don't necessarily follow the comparisons to Obama's run (and even Bernie's run), is that I really don't know, even now, how you run a positive campaign against someone like Trump. Lets not act like Hillary WANTED to run a negative campaign. Despite the delicate feelings of the Bernie diehards, Hillary spent very little time attacking Bernie (hell, she ignored him for the final half of the primaries). And there were several moments in the general where you could see the Clinton campaign trying to shift away from Trump. But when the sole focus of your opponent's campaign is attacking you, and you're dealing with a media less focused on your policy and more focused on the latest thing Trump said about you, how do you counter that? How do you not make white supremacy a focus when the cornerstone of your opponent's strategy is stirring up the alt right?
This is not the kind of battle Sanders, or Obama had to wage. So I don't want to credit them with doing some obvious thing that Hillary simply neglected. Well, other than actually doing more visible campaigning.
The only thing I can think of is getting a candidate with a lot less hooks for a reckless opponent like Trump to hang attacks on.
Yeah that's a good point. It's very possible Obama/Sanders/Whoever could have ran on her same message and won because they didn't have her baggage and their populism would have felt more genuine than hers did.
Literally all of those are part of the Trump platform except for trade and... I guess non-economic liberalization, but that's a weird ass thing to group under there. One of his campaign promises was to force lawamakers to get rid of 2 old regulations for every new one they produced, for crying out loud.
Meanwhile, Clinton was pro-regulation and anti-austerity. All she had going against her was trade and, yes, that we should treat brown and LGBT people like people.
What you're describing isn't an anti-neoliberalism vote, it's a Nationalism vote.
Literally all of those are part of the Trump platform except for trade and... I guess non-economic liberalization, but that's a weird ass thing to group under there. One of his campaign promises was to force lawamakers to get rid of 2 old regulations for every new one they produced, for crying out loud.
Meanwhile, Clinton was pro-regulation and anti-austerity. All she had going against her was trade and, yes, that we should treat brown and LGBT people like people.
What you're describing isn't an anti-neoliberalism vote, it's a Nationalism vote.
The credit that I DO want to give to Hillary, and why I don't necessarily follow the comparisons to Obama's run (and even Bernie's run), is that I really don't know, even now, how you run a positive campaign against someone like Trump. Lets not act like Hillary WANTED to run a negative campaign. Despite the delicate feelings of the Bernie diehards, Hillary spent very little time attacking Bernie (hell, she ignored him for the final half of the primaries). And there were several moments in the general where you could see the Clinton campaign trying to shift away from Trump. But when the sole focus of your opponent's campaign is attacking you, and you're dealing with a media less focused on your policy and more focused on the latest thing Trump said about you, how do you counter that? How do you not make white supremacy a focus when the cornerstone of your opponent's strategy is stirring up the alt right?
This is not the kind of battle Sanders, or Obama had to wage. So I don't want to credit them with doing some obvious thing that Hillary simply neglected. Well, other than actually doing more visible campaigning.
The only thing I can think of is getting a candidate with a lot less hooks for a reckless opponent like Trump to hang attacks on.
*nods* People can criticize many things about Hillary's campaign if they want, but they've got to be able to see that no part of her campaign wanted so much negativity to occur. The Alicia Machado oppo drop at the end of the first debate was meant to destabilise Trump, I would guess for a day maybe, and get Hispanics, women and feminists on her side. The latter was the main point, I'm sure. It was not meant to draw five days of the press cycle into Trump ranting about fatties, which also meant the Clinton campaign couldn't talk about women's rights (which they probably wanted to piggy-back on the oppo drop).
I would have literally just ignored Trump. I've said that a lot of times before, I criticized Hillary for not doing it on all the debate commentaries. He feeds on attention. Just ignore him. Talk about your own plans, dreams, and hopes.
There isn't any need to point out how awful he is, if the stuff you're saying is great. The comparison draws itself.
Is populism something wrong? or the wrong thing with it is that we have allowed the GOP to use it and benefit from it? Cause populism to me seems to be a resource that can be used to push a lot of benefits to minorities and workers by directing their anger to the elites that exploit them to erode their hold in the political institutions and participants.
Is populism something wrong? or the wrong thing with it is that we have allowed the GOP to use it and benefit from it? Cause populism to me seems to be a resource that can be used to push a lot of benefits to minorities and workers by directing their anger to the elites that exploit them to erode their hold in the political institutions and participants.
I would have literally just ignored Trump. I've said that a lot of times before, I criticized Hillary for not doing it on all the debate commentaries. He feeds on attention. Just ignore him. Talk about your own plans, dreams, and hopes.
There isn't any need to point out how awful he is, if the stuff you're saying is great. The comparison draws itself.
For certain people that would work. But look at the debates. Four and a half hours of Trump word salad, verbal abuse, a declaration that he may not abide by the election, pouting, Isis, email-bleaching... Hillary laid out her plans, and how experienced she was.
If there were any justice in the world, that would've been enough to sink Trump.
But what we saw was not the same as what other saw, obviously.
For us, the comparison draws itself. For more uneducated people? I think they saw strength in Trump's ranting. Or maybe it was just sexism. Or both.
Is populism something wrong? or the wrong thing with it is that we have allowed the GOP to use it and benefit from it? Cause populism to me seems to be a resource that can be used to push a lot of benefits to minorities and workers by directing their anger to the elites that exploit them to erode their hold in the political institutions and participants.
Well, how do we convey this? There's a lot of work to be done and is one of the key issues for the DNC in my opinion. This message has to be clear, simple and effective coming from a candidate that can be genuine when conveying it.
The part where Yglesias raises the possibility of Trump replacing Janet Yellin next year with a toady who runs the federal reserve to goose the economy in election years is disturbingly plausible. Same with going all in on drilling to give the economy a short-term boost. And if Ryan gives Trump an infrastructure bill and maybe a nominal minimum wage increase, or family leave, I think Trump could wind up being incredibly successful and popular. Easy for him let his successor take the fall when the pain of having eviscerated the social safety net catches up.
Is populism something wrong? or the wrong thing with it is that we have allowed the GOP to use it and benefit from it? Cause populism to me seems to be a resource that can be used to push a lot of benefits to minorities and workers by directing their anger to the elites that exploit them to erode their hold in the political institutions and participants.
Is populism something wrong? or the wrong thing with it is that we have allowed the GOP to use it and benefit from it? Cause populism to me seems to be a resource that can be used to push a lot of benefits to minorities and workers by directing their anger to the elites that exploit them to erode their hold in the political institutions and participants.
IN a democracy, you want to appeal to the voter. You can have the best plan in the world, if it doesn't appeal, you won't get to implement it.
The "problem" with populism historically is that it's usually guys like trump that promise heaven and earth to his voters, gives them a few morsels after the election and then proceeds to take advantage of his power to do all kinds of other shit. It also tends to eliminate all nuance from issues or diverts blame to minorities, "elites" or what have you. Just as long as it's an easy (and small) group to blame for everything.
A bit of populism is necessary, but i understand the fear of the (very real) possibility to loose sight of what you actually stand for. Winning election is important, but not at all costs. Not all populist movements end in a shit though.
The Obama to Trump voters should live in pain and never be able to sleep again for the rest of their lives.
The morning after the election, Sadia Jalali, a therapist, was called in to speak at her childrens Islamic school in Houston.
Emergency counselling.
She told the kids about the checks and balances confronting an American president, about the difference between politicians campaign rhetoric and behaviour in office. They were unconvinced, and they were terrified.
One asked, she said, Can he make us leave? Another: What country would we go to? And then, afterward, from a wide-eyed little boy: Can he kill us?
i'm basically just wondering how much of that ~10% shift among ~*The Economically Distressed*~ is due to racism and how much is due to, uh, clinton barely setting foot outside highly populated areas
or, in other words, i want to apply empiricism to this, because i still think data can play a huge role in elections even if it failed miserably here
if a lot of it's that second thing? then 2020 becomes somewhat less herculean.
I think it is going to be close to impossible to ID the difference, but I think everyone can accept on principle that the marginal "get" is greater than zero. Even if there are cheaper marginal votes in Philly/Pitts, Detroit/Ann Arbor, Milwaukee/Madison. The systemic weakness of democratic party infrastructure in rural areas in unsustainable. I don't want to abandon the party's principles, I want multiculturalism to flourish, I don't want to lose again. I beleive that better economic messaging has a role to play. But, I want more blue dogs, for real. We need to make a substantial investment as a party. The depth of republican reach, institutionally, in non-election years is profound and we are at such a disadvantage. Even marginal competition here is important. Maybe blue dogs were annoying when we had our majorities but they were so much better than the alternative.
Clinton's message absolutely was the problem; and not enough Americans did feel like it would help them. As a test, in this thread I've asked lots of HillGAF what exactly they plan to do about the Rust Belt. Like, even supposing you did win without them, we still have a moral obligation to look after people. So what do you do? And the generalized response I've been has been: "There's nothing we can do."; which implicitly says: "Let them die."
I think that is an incomplete read of the thread, but I am enormously appreciative of your efforts on this point. Dems need better internal party infastructure and rural outreach, and need to make generation-lasting investments in this, for starters. Emphasize infrastructure and construction. Spend more time talking about the dignity and importance of work. Talk up subsidies for IT and energy production and how that can create good rural jobs.
Also, recognize that this was a marginal loss from someone who didn't make an effort to win these votes, against someone whose campaign was ONLY about winning these votes. Don't burn it down.
You lost. Lost lost lost. Don't tell me "it was close" when you lost to Donald Trump. Even a shallow win would have been fucking terrifying. There are smarter, slicker demagogues than Donald Trump.
If you act like this was just a close loss to a worthy opponent, and decide to keep fundamentally the same message but stick Booker in charge because reasons, you're going to get Kerry'd.
Yes, it's terrifying. "Fundamentally the same message" is wrong. Messaging can be better. Lots of things can be better. I want to push back aggressively on the idea that this is a rejection of the platform, however. That is a strained read.
I understand that you're trying to wake people up, but this is so unhelpful. Please please please keep in mind who your friends are right now. We are the ones living in the nightmare.
You'll have to forgive me some dark laughter at this point, because you didn't know what people thought a week ago. Do you want me to find your post history on Clinton as a candidate?
Humility is called for from everyone. Given your thoughts on Gore, you don't want to play this "dig up your post history" game.
EVERYONE needs be open minded to the possibility that they are wrong. Anyone claiming to have a crystal ball who can't back it up deserves to be called a charlatan. I am not calling you a charlatan, of course, because you have been making a lot of good points. But the strident confidence of the "bernie in charge now" crowd is unwarranted and several steps too fast.
This "turn" happened from a democratic process. If someone wants to put forth a democratic platform that is better than Trump, I will support it and not even poison the well dragging out the process, no questions asked.
Primaries happen when primaries happen. Democrats now need two courses of action. Short term (good 2018 candidate recruitment) and long term (invest in rural political infrastructure). 2018 is even probably a good chance to explore the relative performances of the Kanders and the Teachouts of the world. Both will run. Both deserve to run.
He may have done that in other states, but in the Rust Belt he didn't. It was about NAFTA and TPP. There just isn't many illegal immigrants in the upper Midwest.
Not a single Trump supporter I spoke to, even at the Rust Belt rallies, brought up protectionism....I honestly think Trump might have done just as well with these folks had he never mentioned NAFTA and simply promised, in his vague way, to get the economy humming again. His campaign was in no way about policy. It was the singer, not the song.
This loss isn't about just this election. It was the culmination of a systemic failure of Democrats not having a true ground operation and understanding of the electorate over the years and decades.
This is a misdiagnosis. The democrats have a great understanding of the electorate! That's why more people voted for them, despite Comey, Putin, media insanity, an uphill "fundamentals" election, and a relatively weak candidate.
The problem is that American democracy has systemically disenfranchises the democratic base. It is what it is, we need to operate within the system that exists, but it should also be called what it is. In order to operate in the system that exists, Democrats need to win over more rural and exurban voters, full stop. This can't be the result of a 2006 wave, and it can't depend on the next Obama. We need to make massive investments to empower sustained competitiveness by blue dog democrats.
I'm appalled at how many democrats or left leaning people I've seen in this thread, OT, and elsewhere that think we lost because we focused on racial issues, instead of the feelings of "white working class" voters. Factory jobs are never coming back, you can't ban machines and robots from factories, what the fuck are democrats supposed to promise here?
We literally had a racist and bigot as our opponent, and you wanted Hillary to ignore that and focus on the feelings of his supporters?
Nah, I'm out if we're going to start tolerating racism and bigotry just to cuddle some voters to (maybe?) win elections.
This is the hardest part of the election for me. I don't want to call racism anything else. I don't want to reward it. I think people dismissing it are being horrifyingly naive. But more than anything, I want to win next time. Because those same values depend on it.
Given the margins, strategic mistakes, and external factors involved in this last election, I see no reason to believe that Democrats cannot do better while holding true to their values.
Also, for a thread that is trying to argue that Sanders purity tests would screw the Democrats over, arguing that the Trump voter is a single homogeneous racist block is cognitively dissonant.
I don't think that people are arguing Trump voters are a single homogenous racist block at all. I certainly haven't and haven't rad anyone else that way. I do desperately want people to recognize that racism was an incredibly important part of this election.
The data is still coming in so its hard to analyze it yet, but it seems to me that the Obama coalition has stayed mostly in tact, with 2 exceptions, union whites specifically in the midwest moving toward Trump, and those who moved away from Clinton and voted third party ie: millennials. Before people start shouting we need a Bernie Sanders style candidate to win(ie: populist driven, ideologue), we don't we need an Obama style candidate. That is, someone who can maintain both a populist AND pragmatic message. Clinton was that candidate although she stumbled hard with both favorable rating, shit like emails, and being unable to maintain a populist message.
So i have to ask poligaf: Who is that candidate? Someone who can be both populist and pragmatic at the same time, ready for 2020?
I would like to see some public polling done on how much of America is now living in fear of racial violence, sexual assaults and everything the Trump campaign tried to normalize. I want to know if the everyperson has basically become a shut in outside of work hours.
For certain people that would work. But look at the debates. Four and a half hours of Trump word salad, verbal abuse, a declaration that he may not abide by the election, pouting, Isis, email-bleaching... Hillary laid out her plans, and how experienced she was.
If there were any justice in the world, that would've been enough to sink Trump.
But what we saw was not the same as what other saw, obviously.
For us, the comparison draws itself. For more uneducated people? I think they saw strength in Trump's ranting. Or maybe it was just sexism. Or both.
Honestly, I don't care about experience. If I look at my list of top presidents vs. worst presidents, there's no correlation between their experience and their performance. I didn't want Clinton to talk about her experience. I wanted her to talk about her values. And she spent her time talking about Trump's instead.
The data is still coming in so its hard to analyze it yet, but it seems to me that the Obama coalition has stayed mostly in tact, with 2 exceptions, union whites specifically in the midwest moving toward Trump, and those who moved away from Clinton and voted third party ie: millennials. Before people start shouting we need a Bernie Sanders style candidate to win(ie: populist driven, ideologue), we don't we need an Obama style candidate. That is, someone who can maintain both a populist AND pragmatic message. Clinton was that candidate although she stumbled hard with both favorable rating, shit like emails, and being unable to maintain a populist message.
So i have to ask poligaf: Who is that candidate? Someone who can be both populist and pragmatic at the same time, ready for 2020?
The message doesn't matter to these fickle voters that jumped Trump or third party from Obama. Just need someone people like and can trust. It's that simple.
The data is still coming in so its hard to analyze it yet, but it seems to me that the Obama coalition has stayed mostly in tact, with 2 exceptions, union whites specifically in the midwest moving toward Trump, and those who moved away from Clinton and voted third party ie: millennials. Before people start shouting we need a Bernie Sanders style candidate to win(ie: populist driven, ideologue), we don't we need an Obama style candidate. That is, someone who can maintain both a populist AND pragmatic message. Clinton was that candidate although she stumbled hard with both favorable rating, shit like emails, and being unable to maintain a populist message.
So i have to ask poligaf: Who is that candidate? Someone who can be both populist and pragmatic at the same time, ready for 2020?
The data is still coming in so its hard to analyze it yet, but it seems to me that the Obama coalition has stayed mostly in tact, with 2 exceptions, union whites specifically in the midwest moving toward Trump, and those who moved away from Clinton and voted third party ie: millennials. Before people start shouting we need a Bernie Sanders style candidate to win(ie: populist driven, ideologue), we don't we need an Obama style candidate. That is, someone who can maintain both a populist AND pragmatic message. Clinton was that candidate although she stumbled hard with both favorable rating, shit like emails, and being unable to maintain a populist message.
So i have to ask poligaf: Who is that candidate? Someone who can be both populist and pragmatic at the same time, ready for 2020?
That's easy. Elizabeth Warren is the only one who fits this description. She is no Obama in terms of speaking but she knows how to ride a populism wave pretty well while also knowing how to work within the legislature. She would also never abandon minority rights.
The data is still coming in so its hard to analyze it yet, but it seems to me that the Obama coalition has stayed mostly in tact, with 2 exceptions, union whites specifically in the midwest moving toward Trump, and those who moved away from Clinton and voted third party ie: millennials. Before people start shouting we need a Bernie Sanders style candidate to win(ie: populist driven, ideologue), we don't we need an Obama style candidate. That is, someone who can maintain both a populist AND pragmatic message. Clinton was that candidate although she stumbled hard with both favorable rating, shit like emails, and being unable to maintain a populist message.
So i have to ask poligaf: Who is that candidate? Someone who can be both populist and pragmatic at the same time, ready for 2020?
In general, neoliberalism is strong at liberalization, less government restrictions, I wrote "economical liberalization" to be more precise, which is turned to for example free trade.
If Im wrong about what neoliberalism, pls explain to me what it is, Im all ears and want to get more educated on the issue.
The data is still coming in so its hard to analyze it yet, but it seems to me that the Obama coalition has stayed mostly in tact, with 2 exceptions, union whites specifically in the midwest moving toward Trump, and those who moved away from Clinton and voted third party ie: millennials. Before people start shouting we need a Bernie Sanders style candidate to win(ie: populist driven, ideologue), we don't we need an Obama style candidate. That is, someone who can maintain both a populist AND pragmatic message. Clinton was that candidate although she stumbled hard with both favorable rating, shit like emails, and being unable to maintain a populist message.
So i have to ask poligaf: Who is that candidate? Someone who can be both populist and pragmatic at the same time, ready for 2020?
We literally shouldn't even be talking about this yet. This is what the primaries are for. We need a dozen people to run in the primary and the one that convinces the most people wins. We need to stop obsessing over the presidency.
Right now we only should be talking about rebuilding across the lower levels and preparing for 2018.
How is that a negative ad? By Trump's own words, and by the words of his own party, nuclear war is a very real fear.
Not running a negative campaign doesn't mean all sunshine and rainbows. When I think negative campaigning, I think shit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuqwgvpVIYc
The Obama to Trump voters should live in pain and never be able to sleep again for the rest of their lives.
The morning after the election, Sadia Jalali, a therapist, was called in to speak at her children’s Islamic school in Houston.
Emergency counselling.
She told the kids about the checks and balances confronting an American president, about the difference between politicians’ campaign rhetoric and behaviour in office. They were unconvinced, and they were terrified.
One asked, she said, “Can he make us leave?” Another: “What country would we go to?” And then, afterward, from a wide-eyed little boy: “Can he kill us?”
Honestly, I don't care about experience. If I look at my list of top presidents vs. worst presidents, there's no correlation between their experience and their performance. I didn't want Clinton to talk about her experience. I wanted her to talk about her values. And she spent her time talking about Trump's instead.
She spoke about her values, too, and what she believed in.
This is what's frustrating - read everything about the campaign, and then watch her campaign ads, and then watch the debates, and then read about her talking about her faith. She ran such a complete campaign. There's more that she could have done, yes, we know that now. But arguing that what you wanted wasn't there? I don't see it, unless you're a rural or WWC voter (and even that, it was messaging). Though, I suppose that's what it comes down to - someone shouldn't have to look at everything through a campaign to judge a candidate? In a perfect world, voters would educate themselves, but it's obvious that people don't do that, for one reason or another.
The part where Yglesias raises the possibility of Trump replacing Janet Yellin next year with a toady who runs the federal reserve to goose the economy in election years is disturbingly plausible. Same with going all in on drilling to give the economy a short-term boost. And if Ryan gives Trump an infrastructure bill and maybe a nominal minimum wage increase, or family leave, I think Trump could wind up being incredibly successful and popular. Easy for him let his successor take the fall when the pain of having eviscerated the social safety net catches up.
Yellen is up in 2018. Sheeeeit. He could, you know, rig the economy for 2020.
Oh man I have been thinking through all the scenarios but if Trump actually governs like more of a pragmatist I don't see how Dems have a shot at anything in 4-8 years.
We literally shouldn't even be talking about this yet. This is what the primaries are for. We need a dozen people to run in the primary and the one that convinces the most people wins. We need to stop obsessing over the presidency.
Right now we only should be talking about rebuilding across the lower levels and preparing for 2018.
of course. I was referring to what went wrong in this presidential election and what needs to go right in the next, but you are absolutely right that the focus is on 2018 right now.
The reason why i was focusing on the presidency is because for us to win in 2018 we need to be united as a party and I am worried that Democrats will make the wrong analysis from this election and we will not move in the right direction for 2018 and 2020. My point still stands though, the party should be lead by people who can balance populism and pragmatism.
Yellen is up in 2018. Sheeeeit. He could, you know, rig the economy for 2020.
Oh man I have been thinking through all the scenarios but if Trump actually governs like more of a pragmatist I don't see how Dems have a shot at anything in 4-8 years.
Trump may want to run things like a pragmatist, but Pence, Ryan and Mcconnell? Pence is going to want to crack down on LGBTQ and women's rights, as will Ryan, and Mcconnell... Well, I think he'll screw the economy over, because that's the kind of person he is.
Oh, and then there's his cabinet... Foreign affairs and interior environment are both screwed. These are all issue that Dems come out for when they can be arsed to love a candidate.
I tend to err on the side of complete paranoia, but I feel like everyone should take the time and do some of the things listed in this article. 2FA and Signal at the very least. People honestly should have been doing this for awhile now.
Yellen is up in 2018. Sheeeeit. He could, you know, rig the economy for 2020.
Oh man I have been thinking through all the scenarios but if Trump actually governs like more of a pragmatist I don't see how Dems have a shot at anything in 4-8 years.
Yeah, worrying about whether we need to follow the Bernie blueprint or whether we've properly addressed Hillary's deficiencies is a lot less important to me now that I've started to think harder about Trump as president. Everything is way more in his hands than ours.
I have written a more extensive version for my friends -- I'll take the liberty of posting it here:
Recipe for total Trump success in one term and done. Essentially this is a pump and dump scheme, so let's call it Trump and Dump:
1) Replace Janet Yellin (retiring next year) with a toady to politicize monetary policy, and time things to goose the economy in election years and let inflation hit his successor.
2) Total drilling deregulation gets you a short-term economic boost as well. No one cares about global warming, and the EPA won't be around to say anything.
3) Use your internal GOP political capital to convince Paul Ryan to allow an infrastructure bill and a nominal minimum wage increase or a miniscule family leave. These will be hugely popular and will earn you the status of wise bipartisan conciliator with the media and history.
4) Structure total safety net evisceration (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, etc.) so the pain doesn't hit until 2021.
5) Structure abolition of progressive taxation so deficits don't explode until 2021.
5) Collude with Roberts so that most divisive supreme court decisions don't hit (like Roe v. Wade getting shitcanned) until 2021, too.
6) Claim all economic growth is due to tax cuts and deregulation.
7) Scapegoat liberal traitors and protesters for literally everything, beginning with the terrible way they rudely disrupted your inauguration.
Boom. New Reagan, 4 years and out so you get the glory with none of the headaches of reelection, governing, actually delivering to the country, etc. All problems that get noticed after you leave are your successor's fault. Sure, your successor (probably Vice President Pence) is fucked, but what do you care? The GOP will still have the Supreme Court, get to gerrymander the House for the next decade, and have another Reagan to idolize. If I were his people, this is what I'd be selling him on.
Conversely, if he just governs by passing the Paul Ryan plan, and building the wall, we have nothing to worry about since it's unpopular and won't work, and party unity, messaging, and candidates will all work themselves out naturally.
The message doesn't matter to these fickle voters that jumped Trump or third party from Obama. Just need someone people like and can trust. It's that simple.
of course. I was referring to what went wrong in this presidential election and what needs to go right in the next, but you are absolutely right that the focus is on 2018 right now.
The reason why i was focusing on the presidency is because for us to win in 2018 we need to be united as a party and I am worried that Democrats will make the wrong analysis from this election and we will not move in the right direction for 2018 and 2020. My point still stands though, the party should be lead by people who can balance populism and pragmatism.
I don't know that trying to read the populace four years from now is that useful. My point about the primaries is that in a big field, the person who strikes that balance the best will win. Especially if we let in independents to that part of the process as a rule (still ban caucuses because they disenfranchise working families though)
Leaders will emerge if we groom the process for them to become leaders. We aggressively find local candidates for state legislature and available house seats. Any national incumbents worth a damn will help lead their down ballot candidates in 2018, and the ones that shine in that process should be the ones we root for in 2020.
Is populism something wrong? or the wrong thing with it is that we have allowed the GOP to use it and benefit from it? Cause populism to me seems to be a resource that can be used to push a lot of benefits to minorities and workers by directing their anger to the elites that exploit them to erode their hold in the political institutions and participants.
Populism is historically inextricable from finding an "other" to vilify, weather that's a group inside your nation, xenophobia, or both. There was an excellent long piece someone linked me too that I'm trying to track down
