That would be really unprecedented given the usual trends of midterms, especially with a GOP that's not really doing anything, and a controversial and unpopular president.
There's way more forces at work here than Bernie voters throwing temper tantrums.
Not to mention young people have been dumb and not understood anything about how politics have worked basically since forever and Democrats have still managed to win elections under favorable circumstances.
Before anyone asks, no I don't think whatever is a "game changer" that causes all the rules to be thrown out.
It's interesting to me to compare the contentiousness w Dems now compared to 2005. Dean pretty quickly took over the DNC and while some of the Clinton institutionalists weren't thrilled, there wasn't some pitched bitterness between Dean and Kerry factions.
I imagine the big difference was that Dean quit the primary early. So there was more sustained support of Kerry, and less investment in having fought an unwinnable primary. It probably helped that Dean didn't do as well as Sanders, and that both had more support among everyday Dems.
CNN said that some breaking news that the EU is saying that the US has agreed to continue the Iran nuclear deal. Trying to find anything with an actual source.
Like I mentioned in the other thread, the current incarnation of the Democrats are the results of the Watergate Babies casting out the New Dealers and restructuring the party around their own ideology. They changed the primary process, they cast out the old leadership, and within a couple terms they were running their own candidates.
Obviously these people aren't really in power en masse yet, but the 'Trump Babies' will probably start getting elected and running for office in 2018 and then use their new power to change the party the same way the Watergate Babies did. I don't see why we should get mad about that, unless you're just ideologically a centrist and dislike conviction populism, in which case it's probably fair to be unhappy about it.
It's interesting to me to compare the contentiousness w Dems now compared to 2005. Dean pretty quickly took over the DNC and while some of the Clinton institutionalists weren't thrilled, there wasn't some pitched bitterness between Dean and Kerry factions.
I imagine the big difference was that Dean quit the primary early. So there was more sustained support of Kerry, and less investment in having fought an unwinnable primary. It probably helped that Dean didn't do as well as Sanders, and that both had more support among everyday Dems.
I don't think Dean was nearly as ideologically different from Kerry, and I don't think the total despair toward the party establishment and elites was felt the same way in 2004 as it is right now. People were mad about Iraq but it was more popular then than it would be for a couple years, so the anger at Democrats for getting us involved was there but hadn't reached its full potential yet.
CNN said that some breaking news that the EU is saying that the US has agreed to continue the Iran nuclear deal. Trying to find anything with an actual source.
CNN said that some breaking news that the EU is saying that the US has agreed to continue the Iran nuclear deal. Trying to find anything with an actual source.
Of course they are. I mean, for one, we have zero leverage. The strength the sanctions came from the other nations in the deal, not us. Also, I think at this point the Trump administration is getting gunshy about manufacturing yet another crisis.
Considering that the establishment Democrats (a term I can't believe I've come to start using) failed so spectacularly at what should have been an easy win in 2016, I no longer have any faith in their ability to win elections and maintain liberal momentum. There is no new blood in the Democratic Party and you will not get the attention of legitimately liberal young people with failing and ailing politicians who keep trying to play by the rules that no longer exist.
The far left is a rejection of centrist politics. Centrism only benefits conservatives and Republicans. This is what young people have witnessed their entire adult lives. It is no wonder the far left is demanding reinvention of the Democratic Party. Democrats would do well to listen. Republicans have redefined the center as a right-wing norm and things that progressives want - like health care and civil rights - are now fringe politics. This is insane.
The far left is an asset that the reigning Democrats should not squander. It is the future of their base. You could even argue it's their base now. The far left, for whatever that means, wants the same things other progressives want. They're just tired of baby steps and having the rug pulled out from under them by unchecked opposition.
There is no better way to lose more elections than to not acknowledge the unrest and the fever among progressive voters who are pissed that they trusted the status quo and lost their country in the process.
How are there reports about everyone in the White House being exhausted already? It's been three fucking weeks with no external crises! What about when a fucking hurricane happens or NK tests a nuke?
Considering that the establishment Democrats (a term I can't believe I've come to start using) failed so spectacularly at what should have been an easy win in 2016, I no longer have any faith in their ability to win elections and maintain liberal momentum. There is no new blood in the Democratic Party and you will not get the attention of legitimately liberal young people with failing and ailing politicians who keep trying to play by the rules that no longer exist.
The far left is a rejection of centrist politics. Centrism only benefits conservatives and Republicans. This is what young people have witnessed their entire adult lives. It is no wonder the far left is demanding reinvention of the Democratic Party. Democrats would do well to listen. Republicans have redefined the center as a right-wing norm and things that progressives want - like health care and civil rights - are now fringe politics. This is insane.
The far left is an asset that the reigning Democrats should not squander. It is the future of their base. You could even argue it's their base now. The far left, for whatever that means, wants the same things other progressives want. They're just tired of baby steps and having the rug pulled out from under them by unchecked opposition.
There is no better way to lose more elections than to not acknowledge the unrest and the fever among progressive voters who are pissed that they trusted the status quo and lost their country in the process.
How are there reports about everyone in the White House being exhausted already? It's been three fucking weeks with no external crises! What about when a fucking hurricane happens or NK tests a nuke?
At the rate they're trying to cut parts of the federal govn't off, I'd be more afraid that they'd have no one ready to mobilize in case of a genuine Katrina type emergency.
I guarantee you that like ten people outside reddit even know who Gabbard is.
The "far-left" has some incredibly popular positions in the US. Every ballot initiative related to the minimum wage passed (or failed if they tried to lower it, which happened in South Dakota), which includes two state Trump won, Arizona and South Dakota. Similarly, in South Dakota the public campaign finance initiative passed, such that the legislature called the emergency session just to stop it. Legal weed is becoming an increasingly winning argument in many states.
The craziest thing is apparently there were a few minutes of absolute silence that were too long to upload on twitter for this interview.
It's so fucking awkward, from the interviewer looking nervous as hell, Spicer looking bored to tears and the camera man insisting on using the highest levels of zoom to look at the interviewer's face. Breitbart wtf
Any who says the the "far left" needs to take over the Democratic party has literally no concept of politics in this country or overall sentiment of the nation's populace. Obama spent 8 years getting called a radical leftist when he was at best a centrist. Roughly 20% of the country wanted someone more liberal than him. When the Democratic party tried to become more liberal during the late 60s/70s, they went on to lose 5/6 Presidential elections, 4 of them in epic landslides. It wasn't until the Clintons showed up that they started winning elections again and turning the country more leftward. You can criticize their politics all you want, but their brand of liberalism actually won elections, while the "far left" has never won shit.
Considering that the establishment Democrats (a term I can't believe I've come to start using) failed so spectacularly at what should have been an easy win in 2016
When are we going to get off this talking point? This is such a lazy assessment of not just the election, but of how sharply partisan -- both ideologically and geographically -- the country is. The election was never going to be an easy win, even with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. It is historically very difficult for any party occupying the White House to win a third consecutive term; it has happened only once since WWII ended. Even the Clinton campaign said repeatedly, publicly and privately, for months that they always anticipated a close race, even against Trump.
Considering that the establishment Democrats (a term I can't believe I've come to start using) failed so spectacularly at what should have been an easy win in 2016, I no longer have any faith in their ability to win elections and maintain liberal momentum. There is no new blood in the Democratic Party and you will not get the attention of legitimately liberal young people with failing and ailing politicians who keep trying to play by the rules that no longer exist.
The far left is a rejection of centrist politics. Centrism only benefits conservatives and Republicans. This is what young people have witnessed their entire adult lives. It is no wonder the far left is demanding reinvention of the Democratic Party. Democrats would do well to listen. Republicans have redefined the center as a right-wing norm and things that progressives want - like health care and civil rights - are now fringe politics. This is insane.
The far left is an asset that the reigning Democrats should not squander. It is the future of their base. You could even argue it's their base now. The far left, for whatever that means, wants the same things other progressives want. They're just tired of baby steps and having the rug pulled out from under them by unchecked opposition.
There is no better way to lose more elections than to not acknowledge the unrest and the fever among progressive voters who are pissed that they trusted the status quo and lost their country in the process.
I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseum but if Hillary won (with PA, WI, MI) we would've probably gotten 49 seats (McGinty) and still had lost the senate right?
Considering that the establishment Democrats (a term I can't believe I've come to start using) failed so spectacularly at what should have been an easy win in 2016, I no longer have any faith in their ability to win elections and maintain liberal momentum. There is no new blood in the Democratic Party and you will not get the attention of legitimately liberal young people with failing and ailing politicians who keep trying to play by the rules that no longer exist.
One of my lessons from 2016, and I've been more convinced this was the case as time has passed since the election, is that the GOP and Trump ran a much more effective operation than anyone gave them credit for. From the Koch network's downballot GOTV, to Cambridge Analytica, to Trump's ability to play the media, to fake news to Russia to Comey and beyond, the absurdity of Trump and the extent to which he was hated on the left very successfully masked the real effectiveness of the GOP's operation. I think people look at 2016 as a case of missed opportunities (which it was) or a case of a death by a thousand cuts (which it was). But it was also an extremely effective deployment of a four year plan to not let 2012 happen again, which worked perfectly. From the hilarious Florida turnout to the cockblocking in WI and NC.
All of that said, I am thrilled with the energy in the Democratic base right now and I have no doubt that it will lead to a party that looks very different in just a few short years. Not just in the case of the ideological makeup of the party, but also in terms of the institutional limitations of governance. I think things are moving in a positive direction in the party overall.
My biggest worry is that the effort to galvanize opposition and move the party left will take out allies like Manchin in the process, and overlook the importance of the Blue Dogs in the 2006/2008 wins. I think the idea that Obama and the 111th are getting thrown under the bus as centrists (and somehow pissed off the Democratic base more so than the Iraq war did) is really upsetting. The 111th got shit done. The problems were Lieberman, who we nearly got rid of in 2006, and Ben Nelson, who frankly we were lucky to have at all in Nebraska.
I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseum but if Hillary won (with PA, WI, MI) we would've probably gotten 49 seats (McGinty) and still had lost the senate right?
If she only gained the few votes she lost by then probably but I think in a scenario where Hillary wins the electorate is pretty different and we would probably pick up WI and maybe even NC
even if she didn't though, it would be enough just to have her keeping the seat warm while obama's policies continue
I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseum but if Hillary won (with PA, WI, MI) we would've probably gotten 49 seats (McGinty) and still had lost the senate right?
Kanter lost by 2.8 points so there's a decent chance he would have won also if Hillary had a 5 point margin instead of 2, maybe even with a 4 point margin.
When are we going to get off this talking point? This is such a lazy assessment of not just the election, but of how sharply partisan -- both ideologically and geographically -- the country is. The election was never going to be an easy win, even with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. It is historically very difficult for any party occupying the White House to win a third consecutive term; it has happened only once since WWII ended. Even the Clinton campaign said repeatedly, publicly and privately, for months that they always anticipated a close race, even against Trump.
It's a talking point that remains unresolved for a lot of voters, including avid Bernie-turned-Hillary supporters like me. And I really came around to Hillary Clinton, I was firmly with her. I trusted her, and I trusted the campaign and Democrats in general, and I have come to agree that various elements of the campaign were mismanaged and mismessaged.
Because what burns me still is that we were supposed to have every asset and every advantage. We had party support, we had experience, we had the famous ground game, we had all the data, we were supposed to be so comfortably ahead. We lost to the guy who didn't believe in campaign ads. That is very hard to accept and reconcile. It makes me skeptical to trust these strategies ever again. They feel so old.
Perhaps it does not, which is the trouble with the label. I think a lot of people, like me, feel disregarded as radicals. I was as faithful of an HRC supporter as anyone and a loyal and loud Democrat. When we lost, I wanted to see things done differently in the future. I didn't want to rely on the same strategies HRC lost with. But when I say this, I am told to stop watching so much TYT.
A show, for that matter, I have never watched.
I am not trying to start a left vs left war here. But as more and more young liberals express their distress over the state and direction of the Democrats, I don't think it is wise to dismiss them and explain how stupid we are for not considering the political climate of the 1960s. Please understand where I am coming from, here. We want the same things.
CNN has learned that Elliott Abrams will not get the number two position at the State Department, according to Republican sources.
President Donald Trump met with Abrams and the sources said that the meeting went well but when the President learned that Abrams had criticized him during the campaign, the President nixed Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State, according to the sources.
Any who says the the "far left" needs to take over the Democratic party has literally no concept of politics in this country or overall sentiment of the nation's populace. Obama spent 8 years getting called a radical leftist when he was at best a centrist. Roughly 20% of the country wanted someone more liberal than him. When the Democratic party tried to become more liberal during the late 60s/70s, they went on to lose 5/6 Presidential elections, 4 of them in epic landslides. It wasn't until the Clintons showed up that they started winning elections again and turning the country more leftward. You can criticize their politics all you want, but their brand of liberalism actually won elections, while the "far left" has never won shit.
I don't know that I'd really agree with that reading of the Democratic Party during that era.
Humphrey (1968) was basically a traditional New Deal Democrat, very much in line with the mainstream of the party as it existed at the time.
McGovern (1972) won the nomination in large part because he understood the effects of the reforms to the primary process better than his rivals. The party establishment at the time was pretty hostile to him. One can argue that his vision for the party ultimately won out to a certain extent, but it had little impact in the short term.
Carter (1976) was basically a reaction to Watergate, and he won the nomination less on ideological grounds than on the idea that he was an outsider. If anything, he was seen as relatively conservative, and in 1980 had to beat a primary challenge from the left.
Mondale (1984) was in many ways a throwback to an earlier era. He was basically the last attempt by the party to nominate a New Deal Democrat, and much of his support came from the old guard party establishment. That he failed so spectacularly was the nail in the coffin for this faction.
Dukakis (1988) could be seen as an attempt by the party to try and find something new. His campaign was not particularly based on ideology, but more based on positioning himself as a technocrat who got results (the "Massachusetts Miracle").
Because what burns me still is that we were supposed to have every asset and every advantage. We had party support, we had experience, we had the famous ground game, we had all the data, we were supposed to be so comfortably ahead. We lost to the guy who didn't believe in campaign ads. That is very hard to accept and reconcile. It makes me skeptical to trust these strategies ever again. They feel so old.
It has become clear that these advantages were never really material. By that I mean, Trump had an amateur hour campaign for much of the cycle, and was famously dismissive of data/GOTV, which caused people to overlook the serious efforts which were being made on his behalf.
Even party support among Republicans was very strong, thanks to Scalia's seat. I am certain that Dems had more defections.
Considering that the establishment Democrats (a term I can't believe I've come to start using) failed so spectacularly at what should have been an easy win in 2016, I no longer have any faith in their ability to win elections and maintain liberal momentum. There is no new blood in the Democratic Party and you will not get the attention of legitimately liberal young people with failing and ailing politicians who keep trying to play by the rules that no longer exist.
The far left is a rejection of centrist politics. Centrism only benefits conservatives and Republicans. This is what young people have witnessed their entire adult lives. It is no wonder the far left is demanding reinvention of the Democratic Party. Democrats would do well to listen. Republicans have redefined the center as a right-wing norm and things that progressives want - like health care and civil rights - are now fringe politics. This is insane.
The far left is an asset that the reigning Democrats should not squander. It is the future of their base. You could even argue it's their base now. The far left, for whatever that means, wants the same things other progressives want. They're just tired of baby steps and having the rug pulled out from under them by unchecked opposition.
There is no better way to lose more elections than to not acknowledge the unrest and the fever among progressive voters who are pissed that they trusted the status quo and lost their country in the process.
We're in a tug of war, and no matter how unhappy the other side is, they always unite and pull together. Whereas on our side there are guys who let go of the rope and refuse to play because they don't get 100% of what they want. The end result is the center keeps moving towards the other side. The tug of war has changed the establishment of positions, and it keeps going rightward. Because the far left is too far up their ass to wade into the mud and dare to get themselves dirty for the causes they supposedly support.
The far left haven't seen shit. They've taken for granted a lot of the good things that the Silent Generation established for the US, and are excessively self-centered and overly prone to personality over policy. They aren't the future, the reasonable left and moderates are. The reason they want a reinvention of the party is because they want power, and they are unable to build it in a party of their own.
Any who says the the "far left" needs to take over the Democratic party has literally no concept of politics in this country or overall sentiment of the nation's populace. Obama spent 8 years getting called a radical leftist when he was at best a centrist. Roughly 20% of the country wanted someone more liberal than him. When the Democratic party tried to become more liberal during the late 60s/70s, they went on to lose 5/6 Presidential elections, 4 of them in epic landslides. It wasn't until the Clintons showed up that they started winning elections again and turning the country more leftward. You can criticize their politics all you want, but their brand of liberalism actually won elections, while the "far left" has never won shit.
Dukakis was basically a much less charismatic Bill Clinton who didn't brag about murdering black inmates, not sure that means the centrism was the key winning ingredient. There's actually a decent argument that Slick Willie and Bush 41 were actually the closest ideologically of any two party nominees, ha. I'd also say LBJ is probably the farthest left a president has been, both on his fight against poverty and on Civil Rights relative to the median position at the time.
This is also a misunderstanding of how we got where we were, I highly recommend everyone read How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul. I made a thread about it but no one responded, sad! It also assumes that people vote on a one dimension left-center-right scale and ignores a lot of factors. Tom Perriello's recent podcast with New Republic also highlights much of the current issues in the Democratic Party and how the populists feel. Jason Kander, if you can find his Keepin' It 1600 interview, largely talks about the same thing.
This means that Republicans, while waiting for their alternative to congeal, have already set in motion the disintegration of the current health-insurance market. Its worse than the dog who caught the car, said Jesse Ferguson, a strategist advising Democrats on health care. Its the dog who somehow is now driving the car.
I've been lurking Poligaf for a while now and am starting to feel better about the show of incompetency of this administration and the GOP in general. I would rather not have an incompetent admin but I'll take it.
We're in a tug of war, and no matter how unhappy the other side is, they always unite and pull together. Whereas on our side there are guys who let go of the rope and refuse to play because they don't get 100% of what they want. The end result is the center keeps moving towards the other side. The tug of war has changed the establishment of positions, and it keeps going rightward. Because the far left is too far up their ass to wade into the mud and dare to get themselves dirty for the causes they supposedly support.
The far left haven't seen shit. They've taken for granted a lot of the good things that the Silent Generation established for the US, and are excessively self-centered and overly prone to personality over policy. They aren't the future, the reasonable left and moderates are. The reason they want a reinvention of the party is because they want power, and they are unable to build it in a party of their own.
Let me share with you something I wrote in November:
It is in these people, the bystanders and the disaffected, that I am most disappointed. Politics is a great tug of war in a field of mud. As progressives rallied to keep their vision of America alive, tugging and heaving with a might that should have defined a generation, bystanders watched us fall in the slop. Now we will all be dragged across the threshold of filth. If you did not have your hands on the rope, you did nothing to keep it off all of our necks.
The consequences are not clear. They will be as immense as they are unknowable. Human rights and liberties we have taken for granted will be challenged. World views we thought had disintegrated will be invigorated. People who thought twice before projecting their prejudices will be emboldened. This is not the fault of the people who voted. Its the fault of the people who didn't.
Which is the problem that keeps coming up. For its critics, the "far-left" seems to contain only the disaffected populists who didn't vote and threw a temper tantrum. Who, to be quite clear, I resent and despise.
I was not one of these people. I will never be one of these people. I want a lot of the things the far left wants. I want a populist party focused on the middle-class. I want higher minimum wage and health care and civil liberties and regulations and checks that prevent the upper class from curb-stomping people into poverty. I want an end to private prisons and modern slavery and for war to be a last resort and not something we seek to justify. I want an overhaul of the public education system and more affordable university solutions. None of these things are radical or extreme. None of these things are fringe.
But here I am being called a far-leftist who wants to co-opt the party.
And maybe this fundamental misunderstanding of what the "far-left" is, both to people who oppose it and people who feel part of it, is what we need to overcome. Because in the wake of the election, I guarantee you that lots of regular-old liberals are identifying with the supposed far-left because they see it as a faster and more dramatic tug on the political rope.
Tom Periello and Jason Kander are the candidates I want to see more and more of. Instead of compromising and whittling down, they stand up for their values and go on the attack. That's the model for building electoral success without selling out. (FWIW, I think both Perez and Ellison get this).
I think Hillary's biggest single mistake was reversing on the TPP. No one found it credible on any side of the issue, and moving in that direction made her look weak and weasely rather than soothe anyone worried about trade. If she just stood her ground, bragged on the labor and environmental protections, talked about alliances, or focused on the threat of automation and pivoted to her revitalization plans...Well, at least maybe you score some points for candor. Certainly it doesn't look any worse.
Tom Periello and Jason Kander are the candidates I want to see more and more of. Instead of compromising and whittling down, they stand up for their values and go on the attack. That's the model for building electoral success without selling out. (FWIW, I think both Perez and Ellison get this).
I love Jason Kander. He liked one of my tweets recently. It felt great. His loss was one of the hardest for me to take. I'm more invested in Jason Kander than I am the politicians from my own state.
I feel like maybe I'm in the young NYC bubble of knowing actual communists but Sanders et al don't really feel like the far left, just the leftest a reasonable politician could be and still have some vague general appeal. Plus Gabbard doesn't seem very left at all.
Given that the country has majority popular support for free trade and that it clearly had the support it needed in congress, I don't find it that hard to envision an alternative scenario.
Given that the country has majority popular support for free trade and that it clearly had the support it needed in congress, I don't find it that hard to envision an alternative scenario.
I think they are making the calculus to block the next one as hard as possible since it could be after they regain more seats or possibly closer to 2018 and people will remember it more when 2018 comes around. They are not hedging their bets on getting 51 in the senate in 2018. It is a republican advantage in more ways than one.
The court is also dysfunctional as is. The next person is probably just going to retire than suddenly die so there will at least be "time" to block
