Democratic (Party) Direction

tbf i was a bit disappointed that Sanders agreed to function as a sort of inaugural prop for Mayor de Blasio, whose progressive bonafides are very flimsy until he gets me a cheaper apartment.

wtf is happening in the tone of that newsweek bernie tweak, is that breitbartian breathlessness actually how they write now

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/trump-make-america-great-again-mount-airy-germantown-will-bunch-20180104.html

Lol, surely a $700 jacket can't seriously be extravagant by Capitol Hill standards?

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:42 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a gift from his step-son who works at the company in vermont which makes the jackets.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/if-you-want-to-know-whos-running-in-2020-watch-capitol-hill-not-iowa/

From the late 1980s to 2016, neoliberal ideas held hegemonic sway among the Democratic elite. But the economy created by this ideology — and the ensuing crises — is a major reason why Clinton lost to Trump and the party is completely out of power today. This obvious failure has provided an ideological opening that the American left has been eager to fill.

Yet even the left-wing is divided about the best way forward. Should it follow Elizabeth Warren's lead and promise a return to the trust-busting ways of the early 20th century? Or should it emulate the more sweeping, Nordic-style politics of Bernie Sanders? Or perhaps the Democratic Socialists of America are right and something even more extreme is needed.

i like cooper, this'll be a decent series

http://theweek.com/articles/725419/decline-fall-neoliberalism-democratic-party

Well organized summary thx- very shareable for some relations who need it.

It's really good, especially including an analysis of the seventies crisis. I need to read more than that, since that's obviously what created the opening for Neo-liberalism. Slightly marred by the typical problem, that it only allows agency to Dems and none to the GOP. Wondering why Dems 'doubled down' on neoliberalism after neoliberal GOP crushed them in 2010 is for example an amazingly stupid trope which is repeated over and over and over.

pumped to read the rest of the series. this, however:

Now, it must be admitted that Obama is a magnificent political talent, the finest national politician in terms of raw ability since FDR. As long as he was at the top of the party, his sheer charisma and moderately good policy record allowed him to get re-elected — especially against a tone-deaf aristocrat like Mitt Romney, who had advocated that Detroit be allowed to go bankrupt.

But Hillary Clinton, by her own admission, is not very good at retail politics. She has neither the cool, effortless charisma of Obama, nor the warm human touch of her husband. Worse, she is accurately perceived as being firmly ensconced in the political and economic elite — made worse still by a (partly unfairly) awful relationship with the press, and a lingering miasma of scandal and corruption. But fundamentally, Clinton — virtually handpicked by the party elite, and promising to continue and build on the accomplishments of Obama — was the candidate of Democratic Party neoliberalism, for better and worse. And she lost to Donald Trump.

All this has profoundly discredited neoliberalism within the Democratic Party.

has it? i hope they're right, but you could also argue that neoliberalism was profoundly discredited back in late 2008/early 2009. and yet it seemed to bounce back, with predictably dismal consequences.

I think it's too early to know that for certain but it does seem like potential candidates have been getting a harder time for even appearing to be more of the same

Afaict Neoliberalism mostly bounced back because the GOP long ago married it to racism, and therefore benefited from the racist backlash to Obama.

Dems lost in 2010 cos when they finally had the car keys they proved to just be hot air and not give a shit about equality when it comes to actually making policy. the ACA had no public option. they did little to help with the banking/housing crisis. the foreclosure crisis in fact removed struggling voters from the voter rolls, so there's another instance where they shot themselves in the foot by not actually helping the people they are always going on about helping.

and on foreign policy front by 2010 Obama had proved that he either really couldn't do anything about drones/gitmo/etc. or he could and he just didn't care, both of which are pretty demoralizing

I feel like people are forgetting that the Republicans had the votes to prevent any more meaningful health reform. In some now-long-gone post Karl broke down the whole sordid history of the 2000's that resulted after Kennedy died, the Dems never had the votes so blaming them for "no public option" seems off.

Dems lost in 2010 because of a massive tea party backlash against perceived 'overreach'. They lost because they did too much, not too little. That they still should have done much much more is true, but let's not distort history.

well they didn't actually do 'too much,' that was just the perception of tea party people. 'too much' = electing a black president. they should've recognized early on that compromise would be impossible and just be craven about it as the GOP are doing now

idk about Obama being "magnificent" either

nor the warm human touch of her husband.

#ustoo

he either really couldn't do anything about drones/gitmo/etc. or he could and he just didn't care

Or still worse, which is that he was actually really into extrajudicial murder abroad as a solution

All this has profoundly discredited neoliberalism within the Democratic Party.

This is, at best, a half truth. To the extent that the party is led by its activists, forward-thinkers and theorists, then it has more than a grain of truth. But as soon as you add in the long term office holders and the older cohorts of theorists and activists who rose to prominence during the era of neoliberalism, this 'profound discrediting' no longer applies and the party leadership splits apart.

To the extent that the party consists of the tens of millions of voters who identify as Democrats, this assertion becomes even less true. Most of those voters adhere to the party because of a general sense that the party if 'for ordinary people and against injustice', or some such broad formulation. Most would not even recognize the word neoliberalism, let alone be able to define it in terms of theory or policy. Those voters just need the assurance that the party is trying to make their lives better, however that looks to them.

As proved by the republicans, it is not even necessary to actually make the lives of voters better in order to retain their allegiance; all that is required is a plausible story connecting your politics to some outcome your voters want. When you fail to achieve your promises, you blame 'the enemy'. Since there is an element of truth in the 'blame the enemy' formula, it can be used indefinitely. Tbf, the neoliberal elements of the Democratic party have used this same playbook for a long time, but rather less effectively than the republicans.

Bernie changed some of the dynamic by setting up the story along different lines, radically changing the promised benefits, and shifting the boundaries of who were the enemy, and he had some very good success. But HRC, using the older, more tired formula, still won more of the primaries and got the nomination. The discrediting of neoliberalism was accelerated by her loss in the general election, but it still has far to go before social democracy can claim ascendancy.

as soon as you add in the long term office holders and the older cohorts of theorists and activists who rose to prominence during the era of neoliberalism, this 'profound discrediting' no longer applies and the party leadership splits apart.

That's just the point, though--the only members of the Democratic Party who continue to believe "pragmatic" big enterprise-friendly centrism is a viable path forward in an era of widening inequality, failing infrastructure & temporary jobs are people who are, in the eyes of everyone else, discredited. Their continuing hold on the party apparatus is an artifact of their past success, not an indicator of their future sway.

I think there are millions and millions and millions of people who are basically on board with drone-driven US military adventurism and capitalism but who want abortion to be legal, want rich people to pay higher taxes, want vigorous enforcement of environmental laws, want gay people to be treated like everybody else, think immigration makes the US a stronger and better country, support stepdown of incarceration in general and pot legalization in particular, etc. Including a lot of young people.

Dems lost in 2010 because of a massive tea party backlash against perceived 'overreach'. They lost because they did too much, not too little. That they still should have done much much more is true, but let's not distort history.

― Frederik B, Monday, January 8, 2018 6:34 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

my lay persons opinion is they didn't do shit to the bankers who caused the financial meltdown and instead of giving anyone involved in flagrant misconduct a haircut they made them whole 100% and the taxpayer had to pay for the bailout. also fed the narrative of the 'rigged system' in 2016.

Their continuing hold on the party apparatus is an artifact of their past success, not an indicator of their future sway.

Until that apparatus is wrested away from them, they will hold sway within the party. The insurgence requires the same sort of purging of neoliberal, business-friendly, bank-friendly, pharma-friendly, big-agra-friendly centrists that the RRR imposed on the Republican party to evict so-called RINOs. For that outcome you need lots of candidates and plenty of dedicated volunteers behind them. It can be done, but it's early stages rn.

jingleberries otm

If Oprah runs for president I’m gonna put a gun in my mouth I might not pull the trigger but I’m definitely gonna see how it feels

— dasha (@nobody_stop_me) January 9, 2018

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dianne-feinstein-2

No

absolutely not

Wait, isn't she still the one that should be primaried?

ya i'm shocked she's not retiring wtf

Seriously quamsley wtf

i mean i get the gag she just released the Fusion GPS testimony everybody go say thank youuuu but nah i'm ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsa0c8lHv0

aw man i was hoping this guy was goin after capito or primarying manchin

Don't go after Manchin, don't primary incumbents in deep red states, that's about the stupidest thing to do. Take out centrists in blue states.

the b is for 'blåhund'

lol

The country would benefit from a Manchin that felt the need to adopt the populism that gave Bernie the state entire. I was there for an event he hosted at a food bank that was set to close soon after. The looks on people's faces there when they shared their stories, and said Manchin wasn't standing up for them, that's the heartbroken energy that powered's win.

People are desperate to feel seen by someone adjacent to power. Even if Manchin was the unicorn blue dog Dem that the state needed in 2010, and even though he's more popular than Trump (who won the state), his approval rating makes him vulnerable. The state's become deep red largely because of gerrymandering--it was Trump's disproven promises to save working class jobs that got him the state. Somebody like Swearingen isn't likely to beat Manchin in a primary because she won't have the war chest. But if it gets him understanding the electoral value of challenging Trump on his bullshit about coal jobs instead of being one of Trump's most valuable partners, it will be a primary worth the cost.

Also wait Fred are you Gabbneb

I'm pretty sure he is

It's all coming together

You can't gerrymander a presidential election, and West Virginia has voted GOP five times in a row. Donald Trump won the state +40%, a lot more than Manchin did in both 2010 and 2012. Actually, Mitt Romney won West Virginia by a larger margin than Manchin as well. And Manchin isn't one of Trump's most valuable partners, fivethirtyeight did an overview of which senators voted the least with Trump compared to their state, and Manchin made the top five: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ The ones who are to the right of their state are people like Feinstein, Schatz, Hirono, Cardin & Leahy.

they need to go hard. they were not progressive enough in 2010. they were not progressive enough in 2016. they need to put forth policies people want to vote for. this isn't rocket science. you cannot base a part on complaining about another party. i'm sorry, . Dems did little progressive enough to excite people to vote for them. they need to do more. Fred thinks Dems upset the Tea Party by doing too much. as if Obama should have compensated more with Republicans, this would have endeared them to him.

this is fucking laughable. and you are talking about distorting history?

I mean, Manchin is pretty much a Republican who just hasn't switched after the parties have realigned, but he's serving as a Dem senator in the reddest state in the nation, and has been following party lines on the biggest issues so far under Trump, and that's as good as it gets.

Obama should have pissed tea partiers off even more, but come on.

Are you seven years old since you can't remember 2010?

i do remember 2016 when you were a condescending asshole like this about Hillary obviously winning and you ended up being dead wrong

if your plan is Democrats to openly court the Tea Party vote i am fine with that. let's get some third parties going for real here. there is half the country out there waiting for someone to vote for.

reporting from south texas, i live in a solidly R us rep district (currently held by actual climate criminal against humanity lamar smith who is retiring). both state house and state senate are easy republican seats, too, and they often run opposed. but there are pretty good candidates running against all of em and they all have a progressive platform on healthcare, education, raising minimum wage, lgbt+ rights, etc. the one running in the state senate race is intriguing, a progressive army vet. i don't think they'll win but then again doug jones so fuck it.