Democrats

[Phoebe]

I can't figure out if the Democrats are victim of some kind of outside forces meddling in an attempt to destroy them internally, or if they're just that hopeless and ineffective. The one person I can see as a viable candidate in 2020 is Al Franken, and he says he doesn't want to run.

I don't know any real live Democrats who are actually still fighting about Clinton versus Sanders except for one. Yet you would think from the media that this is the only thing Democrats are concerned about. My husband is a Democrat and he's pretty pleased by Sanders, though he voted for Hillary. From his perspective Sanders isn't really a Democrat anyway so the Democrats were entitled to do whatever the hell they pleased to either encourage or discourage his candidacy, and both Sanders and Clinton had monetary deals with the national party so it's not like one or the other of them having such a deal was an inherently bad thing, and moreover he thinks that the Clinton campaign just like any other campaign should have done whatever it could do to vigorously contest its primary opponent, including trying to enlist the national party in its aid, especially given the obvious truth that this primary was very damaging to her.

In short, all this nonsense is just nonsense that's going to damage the Democrats unless they can shut it up and focus around good new candidates. Personally I can't understand it. I blame other outside interests for stirring this pot - note that one of the first things Trump did in response to recent Brazile stories was write a false tweet about them. I can't believe that any of the powerful Democrats want this to be happening.

Someone I know who works a lot for the Democratic party locally is scaring me because of reports that it isn't all just media nonsense, but that some wings of the party nowadays, mainly Bernie supporters and younger voters but some others too, really are going all-in for identity politics. This is the worst possible thing they could do in my opinion. I'm not saying anybody should pander to the conservative voters who seem to be truth-challenged racists, but many people not just in the middle but on the left are totally alienated by this hostile identity politics rhetoric. What possible purpose does it serve? It's so pointlessly destructive that it feels like the work of some external foes of the left. Except people on the left buy it, repeat it, etc.???

[Stan]

One of the problems with identity politics is its inflexibility. Positions that will get a Democrat elected in California are not the same as those that would work in Nebraska. So Dems could be a minority happy in their purity.

But,given that some of the Russian social media was aimed at creating disharmony in the party, meddling wouldn't be surprising.

[poorpete]

I find people on twitter going at it, but not much elsewhere.

It's fighting early 2016 all over again. And let's remember it was about three things:
"Bernie had momentum" and "Clinton's a crook and about to be indicted" and "DNC is in the bag for Clinton"

First was false, second was false, the third was probably true. But the idea that the third was the reason Bernie's momentum stopped or proof that Clinton was a crook is not evident. So you're left with the dysfunctioning DNC, which, I'll let you know, other than the 1992 GOP and the 2006-2008 DNC, the parties are dysfunctional is the rule not the exception.

Maybe this is all parties. Libertarians and Greens saw 2016 as a great opportunity, and they both shat the bed. Libertarians' convention was notably loony, when all they had to do was show competence. The Greens were stuck on the early-2016 messaging ("Clinton's a crook!").

Huh, all parties had a momentous chance in 2016 and they all shat the bed. Even the winners barely won, and with a disastrous candidate they didn't want and still don't want and the public never wanted.

[FlameBlade]

How much is Russia trying to color our perceptions of Dems, and thus driving the divide?

[Mike]

Look, we all agree that the Russians worked to divide us and influence our attitudes and behaviors. And It worked for them, because obviously all the Trumper/MAGA folks were stupid enough to fall for it... but clearly, we're all way too smart for that, and suggesting that somehow all of that may have somehow influenced US is, frankly, rather insulting. Falling for cheap psychological manipulations is something that only happens to other people.

[Stan]

[Phoebe]

We all fall for it, sure, but then comes a question about truth or values or whatever else is at issue, and some people answer it and others don't. When you are a staunch pre-Reagan Republican who spent your whole life in cold-war mentality, and now you find yourself saying Lock Her Up rather than taking seriously the possibility that current Republican engagement with Russians we already know as fact is deeply unethical and bad, well... something much deeper and freaky is at work there beyond the hidden exploitation of resentments about Clinton/Sanders. It's a disturbing flight from reality, and yeah, mostly Republicans guilty of it. There's no real equivalence here. People have totally lost a grip.

[Bonefish]

Honestly, I'm going to be impressed if Democrats can make headway next year.

While republicans are batshit crazy, they have a monolithic base to appeal to, which means they keep their message simple and direct, and it keeps the base motivated. Democrats have a disparate base that has conflicting interests, and their message has to be complex, and runs the risk of alienating one sector or another. So, uh, good luck guys.

And I'm sure there's plenty of time for another nutjob to kill somebody and fire-up the gun control debate, at which point democrats will promptly torpedo their own ship by jumping on a topic that has been a consistent loser for them.

[mimekiller]

Democrats can go back to the well and pull up mocha Jesus in form of Cory Booker

[mimekiller]

This IS pretty nuts tho. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 016-215774


also this https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... al-n817411

[mimekiller]

also 500,000 dollars in targeted adds online allegedly from Russia in a campaign that spent 2 billion dollars at the end of the day seems like a drop in the bucket.

[bralbovsky]

By the time we're done 500k will look like a Countrywide down payment. So perhaps it didn't matter which one the Dems picked.

Having said that, I always go back to Will Rogers: "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat." Still true.

The reason Bernie was so resonant was that he ran counter to that. You can't take billionaire money and be a millionaire and try to pretend to be ethical. We all know the best way to tell if a politician is lying is whether his lips are moving. Today's financial paradox makes it tough for anybody who's remotely sincere. Bernie at least, had thirty year old tape that said the same stuff he's saying now. I'm not sure what that says for his capacity to learn, but he gets points for not changing his tune depending on whom he's speaking to.

Is he too old? Probably.

It's too early to pick a name. The folks who have given hints, Cuomo, etc, are mobsters all. The folks whom we might like to have are really against running. At this point, it all depends on how many bad guys get indicted for either financial treason or political treason, and how that all plays for the mid-terms.

We live in a pendulum world, and can't seem to find or grab on to the center.

[Phoebe]

So I'm reading about PA-18 House election, in a mostly-urban or suburban Pittsburgh (?) district that in a previous iteration long ago barfed up Rick Santorum to national political life, and has been a Republican-controlled place for many years, ever since the election of the ass who pretended to be Pro-Life while asking his mistress to have an abortion. That one. Now that he's resigned, some media writers wonder if the district could be competitive, and if so, most of the nation could be.

Can you guess, my friends, how the D's are supposed to make this a competitive race? You got it: by appealing to WORKING CLASS BLUE COLLAR WHITES. At 55k per annum, this district's median income is the same as PA's median income in general, and is only very slightly lower than the US median. So on average, these people are doing fine. Nearly all of them are white people with at least a HS education, and a third have a college education. Guess who votes D, out of that group? The College Educated ones. And are those the most likely to be "working class" in this 55k median district? Probably not. So for some idiot reason, The Media (the ones that get published in national publications that good non-Republicans like me tend to read) concludes that Democrats in this district need to try very hard to appeal to the lower income white people of that district. Presumably because they want to lose? I mean, WTF?

It is absolute anathema among national Democrats to suggest that the Ds field a pro-life Catholic or Evangelical candidate to run in an R-dominated district like this, but white college-educated Democrats faced with a choice between a pro-life D and pro-life R are not going to suddenly vote R in a fit of pro-choice pique, so what exactly do they have to lose by running a pro-lifer who talks a lot about the baby Jesus? A pro-life, pro-Chamber-of-Commerce/business/cheap-immigrant-labor, pro-science candidate is exactly who the D's should run, while letting the blue-collar voters twist in the damn wind with Santorum II or whoever is nominated on the R side. The working class white vote is exactly what should be left to the Republicans. I don't understand why this is not THE obvious strategy. In cities or districts that aren't so heavily white, then you want a coalition of the wealthier, better-educated white voters and all of the non-white voters.

[Phoebe]

Also please no Bernie Sanders. Why are people even talking about having Bernie run? I'm glad we have people like him pushing the platform toward universal health coverage and investment in education and environmental protections and so on, but he is exactly the wrong person IMO to defeat Trump. I'm not quite sure who that person is, who would be my pick, but it's not Bernie.

[Cazmonster]

The last time a freshman senator from Illinois ran, he won. I want Tammy Duckworth to follow Obama's path to the White House.

[Phoebe]

I like her but I'm also not sure she's the one to take down Trump. As appalling as it seems to those of us who would not even want a man of such poor character to set foot on our doorstep, you can see why people find him very charismatic. His followers have really bought it all Hook Line & Sinker. I don't think we need a very charismatic person to appeal to this hopeless case set, but I do think we need one to provide a counterweight to the types of attacks they're sure to endure from him. And it can't be the low-key Uncle Joe kind of charisma, but someone who really appeals as a nice person, who represents all the things we imagine America is supposed to be. It needs to be someone who makes Trump look appropriately greasy next to them.

[Bonefish]

"we need someone who makes trump look bad" Have you tried Charlie Manson? I mean, seriously, Trump is fucking repulsive, and it's only the die hard reds keeping him afloat.

Ya'll NEED to make some serious inroads in the red states, with viable policy. Ain't gonna happen, because Democrats don't want to win.

[FlameBlade]

Yep. What Bonefish said. Build infrastructure of dems actually making good things happen locally.

Btw, Puerto Ricans aren't registering to vote in Florida. Hint.

[mimekiller]

I guarantee Dems circle the wagons for Northam now.

Dude figured out the only way to survive was to torch all his competitors and gambled that the Democrat party was so morally bankrupt they'd stick with him rather than lose their grip on power.

Watch him be right.

[Ronster]