Democrats pick Tom Perez as DNC Chair (1 Viewer)

[Conservative]

You have to separate Obama from the left. Obama and Clinton are right wingers to me. Liberals haven't been in power since Lyndon Johnson. Democrats are the party of the 1% as much as the Republicans are nowadays. Trump also demonstrates he pays lip service to "jobs" but, rolls with the 1%. You like how he appointed Goldman Sachs to run his economy? Trump spent his entire life stiffing, conniving, and weaseling working people. Why change now? He's a rich guy enriching himself, nothing more, nothing less. He does not care for anyone who is not a rich, white, billionaire, winner. As long as the rich, white, billionaire, winners, win, the middle class can win in their shade. But, one thing that can not happen, is the middle class will not be allowed to win, if the 1% is not winning by larger margins.

Look, you can believe what you want and nothing is going to change your mind so keep believing that. the reality is Obama and Clinton both are left of anything the Republicans have put on the ballot and both had their asses handed to them in the Congressional elections and that is what matters.

This country is a mess, one that has been created by politicians very few of whom are in the Trump cabinet so let's see if actual business people can get us out of the mess the politicians have created. Trump will be judged on his performance and results, when those results are generated you are going to see the final nail in the coffin of the leftwing radicals that want control of our country.

Trump isn't taking a salary, Trump is donating his foreign profits to the Treasury, Trump is beholden to no one. You are stuck in the past, stuck with your stereotypes, and stuck trying to defend the indefensible of Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Warren and the rest of the nuts who have taken over a once great party. I am quite happy that you believe you are in the majority in spite of the results to the contrary, Keep thinking that.

 

[Winston]

Look, you can believe what you want and nothing is going to change your mind so keep believing that. the reality is Obama and Clinton both are left of anything the Republicans have put on the ballot and both had their asses handed to them in the Congressional elections and that is what matters.

This country is a mess, one that has been created by politicians very few of whom are in the Trump cabinet so let's see if actual business people can get us out of the mess the politicians have created. Trump will be judged on his performance and results, when those results are generated you are going to see the final nail in the coffin of the leftwing radicals that want control of our country.

Trump isn't taking a salary, Trump is donating his foreign profits to the Treasury, Trump is beholden to no one. You are stuck in the past, stuck with your stereotypes, and stuck trying to defend the indefensible of Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Warren and the rest of the nuts who have taken over a once great party. I am quite happy that you believe you are in the majority in spite of the results to the contrary, Keep thinking that.

Don't lump Bernie Sanders in with those establishment Democrats. They conspired to torpedo his campaign. Clinton in my view is a center-right candidate. Trump is a far right candidate. The fact that he's president shows how far off the deep end people on a fox news diet are. If anything the mess we're in is a total repudiation of neoliberalism. It is the failure of Clintonian politics symbolized.

The establishment by and large does not care if Democrats or Republicans are in office. What they do care about is Bernie Sanders getting in office. The media included ~ They got word from DC ~ Torpedo Bernie Sanders ~ Elevate Donald Trump. That's what the DC insiders wanted and it was proven in the wikileaks. CNN would show empty Trump podium's while Bernie Sanders was speaking to the largest crowds of any candidate, Trump included. And Bernie drew crowds because progressive platforms are massively popular.

Basically there's one party in this country. The business party. And of the business party you have two factions, neoliberal Democrats and Republicans. Both are in bed with special interests, specifically Wall St. Both are lethal to your interests as an everyday person. If you wanted a different legacy for Obama. He would've been a true progressive. he would've listened to Dennis Kucinich on pasing the public option with an all blue congress. He was bound by the insurance lobby to oppose the public option.

What has happened in this country is the establishment has tricked conservatives like you, into thinking that the Democrats are socialist crackpots who hate freedom, because Republican politics have always been pro 1%. So, the establishment doesn't mind if the country goes far right. From there, they had to infiltrate the Democratic Party that has historically stuck up for workers, and consume it from the inside, to fracture support, as well as control the only opposition to their money party. When people see this, they will wake up and vote for progressives whose policies allow people more educational, economic, and social freedom in their own lives

 

[Surrealistik]

Look, you can believe what you want and nothing is going to change your mind so keep believing that. the reality is Obama and Clinton both are left of anything the Republicans have put on the ballot and both had their asses handed to them in the Congressional elections and that is what matters.

The problem with both Obama and Clinton is they were rightly perceived as bought and corrupt. When people are frustrated and desperate, the centre tends to hollow out as any political scientist will tell you, displaced to towards the right and left, which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history and the present. Trump won largely off the back of the perception of relative purity and economic populism, and frustration with status quo corporatism (which is by no means progressivism or progressive policy which polled well with the general populace).

This country is a mess, one that has been created by politicians very few of whom are in the Trump cabinet so let's see if actual business people can get us out of the mess the politicians have created. Trump will be judged on his performance and results, when those results are generated you are going to see the final nail in the coffin of the leftwing radicals that want control of our country.

Presumptuous, aren't we? Especially given Trump's approval ratings. His cabinet is about equally popular. It's far too early to say how Trump's presidency will turn out, whether good or bad, but thus far, it hasn't been reassuring.

Trump isn't taking a salary, Trump is donating his foreign profits to the Treasury, Trump is beholden to no one. You are stuck in the past, stuck with your stereotypes, and stuck trying to defend the indefensible of Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Warren and the rest of the nuts who have taken over a once great party. I am quite happy that you believe you are in the majority in spite of the results to the contrary, Keep thinking that.

Legitimately curious: when was the Democratic party great to you exactly? When FDR ran it per a vision that Sanders, who you malign, presently embodies?

 

[Winston]

Look, you can believe what you want and nothing is going to change your mind so keep believing that. the reality is Obama and Clinton both are left of anything the Republicans have put on the ballot and both had their asses handed to them in the Congressional elections and that is what matters.

This country is a mess, one that has been created by politicians very few of whom are in the Trump cabinet so let's see if actual business people can get us out of the mess the politicians have created. Trump will be judged on his performance and results, when those results are generated you are going to see the final nail in the coffin of the leftwing radicals that want control of our country.

Trump isn't taking a salary, Trump is donating his foreign profits to the Treasury, Trump is beholden to no one. You are stuck in the past, stuck with your stereotypes, and stuck trying to defend the indefensible of Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Warren and the rest of the nuts who have taken over a once great party. I am quite happy that you believe you are in the majority in spite of the results to the contrary, Keep thinking that.

Check out how not popular progressive candidates are:

 

[eohrnberger]

Republicans posting in a Democratic thread trying to sow discontent with Bernie voters! Who would have guessed ?

Gee Whizz Nimby. I didn't know that there had to be 'safe spaces' threads for some. :lamo

There's nothing in the title that would indicate anything about 'alternative opinions stay out - this is a liberal declared safe space'.

Had there been, I might not have bothered to enter, read, and contribute.

 

[Conservative]

Don't lump Bernie Sanders in with those establishment Democrats. They conspired to torpedo his campaign. Clinton in my view is a center-right candidate. Trump is a far right candidate. The fact that he's president shows how far off the deep end people on a fox news diet are. If anything the mess we're in is a total repudiation of neoliberalism. It is the failure of Clintonian politics symbolized.

The establishment by and large does not care if Democrats or Republicans are in office. What they do care about is Bernie Sanders getting in office. The media included ~ They got word from DC ~ Torpedo Bernie Sanders ~ Elevate Donald Trump. That's what the DC insiders wanted and it was proven in the wikileaks. CNN would show empty Trump podium's while Bernie Sanders was speaking to the largest crowds of any candidate, Trump included. And Bernie drew crowds because progressive platforms are massively popular.

Basically there's one party in this country. The business party. And of the business party you have two factions, neoliberal Democrats and Republicans. Both are in bed with special interests, specifically Wall St. Both are lethal to your interests as an everyday person. If you wanted a different legacy for Obama. He would've been a true progressive. he would've listened to Dennis Kucinich on pasing the public option with an all blue congress. He was bound by the insurance lobby to oppose the public option.

What has happened in this country is the establishment has tricked conservatives like you, into thinking that the Democrats are socialist crackpots who hate freedom, because Republican politics have always been pro 1%. So, the establishment doesn't mind if the country goes far right. From there, they had to infiltrate the Democratic Party that has historically stuck up for workers, and consume it from the inside, to fracture support, as well as control the only opposition to their money party. When people see this, they will wake up and vote for progressives whose policies allow people more educational, economic, and social freedom in their own lives

You really have drank the Sanders Kool-Aid, what exactly do you know about him, apparently not much. Any idea how a socialist became a multi millionaire? He made people like you support him, buy his rhetoric, and support someone from the state of Vermont? What has happened is the left has spent money in the name of compassion yet never getting compassionate results but rather creating a dependent class that keeps people in power and makes career politicians.

Anyone that votes for a progressive is someone who cannot compete in society and is looking for equal outcome This country was built on equal opportunity but NOT equal Outcome. You, my friend are out of touch with reality

 

[Linc]

Gee Whizz Nimby. I didn't know that there had to be 'safe spaces' threads for some. :lamo

There's nothing in the title that would indicate anything about 'alternative opinions stay out - this is a liberal declared safe space'.

Had there been, I might not have bothered to enter, read, and contribute.

Anything on trumpistanis FLAILING away at FAILING to sow discontent with Bernie voters, eohrnberger ?

 

[Conservative]

The problem with both Obama and Clinton is they were rightly perceived as bought and corrupt. When people are frustrated and desperate, the centre tends to hollow out as any political scientist will tell you, displaced to towards the right and left, which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history and the present. Trump won largely off the back of the perception of relative purity and economic populism, and frustration with status quo corporatism (which is by no means progressivism or progressive policy which polled well with the general populace).



Presumptuous, aren't we? Especially given Trump's approval ratings. His cabinet is about equally popular. It's far too early to say how Trump's presidency will turn out, whether good or bad, but thus far, it hasn't been reassuring.



Legitimately curious: when was the Democratic party great to you exactly? When FDR ran it per a vision that Sanders, who you malign, presently embodies?

I couldn't care less what Trump's approval ratings are for if I believed the media and leftwing bull**** I wouldn't like him either but he has been in office 5 weeks, his EO's are the first step in keeping his campaign promises and when he delivers the results you are going to wonder what the hell happened to your progressive party. Sanders is NO FDR and FDR was elected at a different time than we have today. You weren't alive during FDR so don't have a clue but he created the entitlement mentality we have today. How do you feel about FDR creating SS for retirement supplement at 65 when life expectancy was 62? Nice Ponzi scheme we have today thanks to LBJ and liberalism that create the unified budget. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid

I was a JFK Democrat, do some research and find out what JFK promoted

 

[Conservative]

Check out how not popular progressive candidates are:

Check how popular Sanders is when the people realize how much he is going to cost them? The rich people in this country are never going to fund Sanders socialism and you ought to know better than that

 

[Linc]

You really have drank the Sanders Kool-Aid, what exactly do you know about him, apparently not much. Any idea how a socialist became a multi millionaire? He made people like you support him, buy his rhetoric, and support someone from the state of Vermont? What has happened is the left has spent money in the name of compassion yet never getting compassionate results but rather creating a dependent class that keeps people in power and makes career politicians.

Anyone that votes for a progressive is someone who cannot compete in society and is looking for equal outcome This country was built on equal opportunity but NOT equal Outcome. You, my friend are out of touch with reality

I'm glad that you, Conservative, would trash Bernie to a Bernie supporter and give them a very small eyeful of how GOPs would have smeared Sanders in the general.

My first vote was against the crook Nixon in 1972 and I saw what the GOP did to another liberal, McGovern.

Thanks again for playing and teaching the young progressives what conservatives are really all about .

 

[eohrnberger]

Anything on trumpistanis FLAILING away at FAILING to sow discontent with Bernie voters, eohrnberger ?

Sorry to disappoint you, but sowing discontent with Bernie voters, or any other voters for that matter, was never my intent, so I'm afraid that I have nothing to add to your delusion.

 

[Winston]

You really have drank the Sanders Kool-Aid, what exactly do you know about him, apparently not much. Any idea how a socialist became a multi millionaire? He made people like you support him, buy his rhetoric, and support someone from the state of Vermont? What has happened is the left has spent money in the name of compassion yet never getting compassionate results but rather creating a dependent class that keeps people in power and makes career politicians.

Anyone that votes for a progressive is someone who cannot compete in society and is looking for equal outcome This country was built on equal opportunity but NOT equal Outcome. You, my friend are out of touch with reality

I understand that justification / rationale of these planks in the platform. That's not my question.

What I was asking about is if you thought that these planks would actually garner the votes needed to gain office, specifically.

I found an article proving I'm right. Democrats lost more votes to defected third party voters than Republicans picked up from Trump mania.

The far more important — and largely untold — story of the election is that more Obama voters defected to third- and fourth-party candidates

The math underlying that conclusion is incorrect (Mr. Trump picked up not “millions,” but only 784,000 white votes in the 10 battleground states he won by single digits). And it misses the bigger — and more fixable — problem of white Democratic defections to third- and fourth-party candidates.

Hillary Clinton lost the decisive states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,744 votes; the number of Democratic votes dropped significantly from 2012 levels, and the Republican total increased by about 440,000 votes. The third- and fourth-party surge, however, was larger than the Republican growth, with 503,000 more people choosing the Libertarian or the Green candidate than had done so in 2012. When you look at the white vote in those states, the picture is even more stark.

Democrats lost this election because they weren't progressives. If they would've ran Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would be your president right now. I am a part of this statistic as a Michigan voter who voted Green. If Bernie was our nominee, I would've not only voted for him but, campaigned for him. Looks like this article shows that if the Democrats can embrace progressive ideas they would win elections.

Conservative, rich people wouldn't be doling out half their paycheck to pay for healthcare. The middle class pays a 6.2% tax on income which works out to the middle class saving money versus what they pay private insurance currently. That big savings that single-payer gives you would then be spent back into the economy, generating federal revenue and stimulating business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html?_r=0

 

[j-mac]

I found an article proving I'm right. Democrats lost more votes to defected third party voters than Republicans picked up.






Democrats lost this election because they weren't progressives. If they would've ran Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would be your president right now. I am a part of this statistic as a Michigan voter who voted Green. If Bernie was our nominee, I would've not only voted for him but, campaigned for him. Looks like this article shows that if the Democrats can embrace progressive ideas they wouldn't have people defecting to third parties.

Conservative, rich people wouldn't be doling out half their paycheck to pay for healthcare. The middle class pays a 6.2% tax on income which works out to the middle class saving money versus what they pay private insurance currently. That big savings that single-payer gives you would then be spent back into the economy, generating federal revenue and stimulating business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html?_r=0

Sorry if this sounds like the old tried and true "it's not that our policies aren't good, it's just that we haven't been allowed to do enough of them"..... That's not a winning hand anymore.

 

[Winston]

Sorry if this sounds like the old tried and true "it's not that our policies aren't good, it's just that we haven't been allowed to do enough of them"..... That's not a winning hand anymore.

I don't know what you're talking about but..

eohrmberger asked me to show some data backing my claim that if Democrats want to win elections they should move left.

I found some in that article.

It shows that Democrats lost Obama voters to 3rd parties in greater numbers than Republicans picked up voters from Trump mania. Run a progressive and you pick up 3rd party voters that would've swung the election for Democrats. Not to mention all the people who stayed home because Hillary was nauseating.

 

[Greenbeard]

I am a part of this statistic as a Michigan voter who voted Green.

This is why the left can't have nice things. Rather than having in the White House an advocate for a Medicare buy-in and public options, we have to spend the next four years attempting to fend off the destruction of Medicare as we know it and the addition of 20+ million people to the ranks of the uninsured. The GOP is moving to end the Medicaid entitlement. There no "undo" switch on these actions.

We've already seen the executive branch starting its assault on clean water, net neutrality, Muslims, and epistemology itself, not to mention pushing for a massive buildup of defense spending to be paid for in part by massive cuts at State (oh, and virtually all other discretionary spending). All of which could've been avoided. Instead of the national conversation about education focusing on debt-free higher education, instead it's on whatever priorities Betsy DeVos decides to tackle.

I'm not sure how folks like you justify opening the door to dismantling virtually everything the American left has fought to build over the past eighty years. But I hope it was worth it.

 

[Surrealistik]

I'm glad that you, Conservative, would trash Bernie to a Bernie supporter and give them a very small eyeful of how GOPs would have smeared Sanders in the general.

My first vote was against the crook Nixon in 1972 and I saw what the GOP did to another liberal, McGovern.

Thanks again for playing and teaching the young progressives what conservatives are really all about .

#1: The implicit condescension of calling me 'young' when you don't know me at all beyond my affiliations and perceptions doesn't do you, or what you represent any favours.

#2: I don't need a dyed in the wool Republican partisan to figure out how they feel about Bernie. It's not a ****ing mystery man; these are the guys who called Obama a socialist unironically; it's pretty obvious what their opinions on Bernie are.

#3: That partisan Republicans obviously hate Bernie, and like him only in so far that they feel he can foment division and weaken the Democrats (despite being its strength and future at present) doesn't make me like the Dem establishment more.

I couldn't care less what Trump's approval ratings are for if I believed the media and leftwing bull**** I wouldn't like him either but he has been in office 5 weeks, his EO's are the first step in keeping his campaign promises and when he delivers the results you are going to wonder what the hell happened to your progressive party.

No proof of that. Again, we'll see how history and the electorate judges him, but my guess is that it won't be favourable. The only good thing he's actually done thus far is kill the TPP (and even then I thought it should have been renegotiated).

Sanders is NO FDR and FDR was elected at a different time than we have today. You weren't alive during FDR so don't have a clue but he created the entitlement mentality we have today. How do you feel about FDR creating SS for retirement supplement at 65 when life expectancy was 62? Nice Ponzi scheme we have today thanks to LBJ and liberalism that create the unified budget. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid

I was a JFK Democrat, do some research and find out what JFK promoted

Sanders might've not had the oratory and charisma of FDR, but he had his vision, and his ideas are in line with the New Deal. FDR is obviously the closest historic parallel. As SS is concerned, why blame FDR for subsequent failures of other politicians to scale the program with rising life expectancies? FDR was a great wartime leader who got life expectancies and standards of living firmly in the direction of that enjoyed by those in Scandinavia and northern Europe for which he should be commended; it's a shame his example wasn't followed by either party since Nixon onward. Now expectancies are on the decline, as is the standard of living, and economic injustice is skyrocketing.

As JFK goes, the dude was economically fairly liberal and Keynesian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Domestic_policy

That he advocated reasonable tax rates scaled down to heights that I still consider fairly staggering (depending on deductions) isn't nearly evidence of him being some kind of fiscal conservative or moderate; dude is a far leftist by today's standards.

This is why the left can't have nice things. Rather than having in the White House an advocate for a Medicare buy-in and public options, we have to spend the next four years attempting to fend off the destruction of Medicare as we know it and the addition of 20+ million people to the ranks of the uninsured. The GOP is moving to end the Medicaid entitlement. There no "undo" switch on these actions.

Corporatism and the suffocating profusion of money in politics per Buckey v Valeo, and all its attendant corruption are actually why the left can't have nice things; because those with the money and power hate the left, and the idea of economic justice as they fear what it would cost them. Clinton ran a terrible campaign that deemphasized Bernie's popular policies and failed to play to the anti-establishment, populist zeitgeist essentially at their behest; that and the skullduggery at the DNC in support of her vision, or lackthereof, and political baggage/corruption per Wikileaks are what truly cost the Dems in turn out and support, and ensured the seminal blue wall would flip.

 

[j-mac]

I don't know what you're talking about but..

eohrmberger asked me to show some data backing my claim that if Democrats want to win elections they should move left.

I found some in that article.

It shows that Democrats lost Obama voters to 3rd parties in greater numbers than Republicans picked up voters from Trump mania. Run a progressive and you pick up 3rd party voters that would've swung the election for Democrats. Not to mention all the people who stayed home because Hillary was nauseating.

Oh, I misread....:lol: So, do you agree that libs are lurching left?

 

[Winston]

This is why the left can't have nice things. Rather than having in the White House an advocate for a Medicare buy-in and public options, we have to spend the next four years attempting to fend off the destruction of Medicare as we know it and the addition of 20+ million people to the ranks of the uninsured. The GOP is moving to end the Medicaid entitlement. There no "undo" switch on these actions.

We've already seen the executive branch starting its assault on clean water, net neutrality, Muslims, and epistemology itself, not to mention pushing for a massive buildup of defense spending to be paid for in part by massive cuts at State (oh, and virtually all other discretionary spending). All of which could've been avoided. Instead of the national conversation about education focusing on debt-free higher education, instead it's on whatever priorities Betsy DeVos decides to tackle.

I'm not sure how folks like you justify opening the door to dismantling virtually everything the American left has fought to build over the past eighty years. But I hope it was worth it.

The way I look at it, Democrats need to move left. How are you going to get Green voters to vote for your party if you can't even put anti-TPP in the party platform. Even Donald Trump had keener political sense than Obama and Clinton. He was anti TPP. The DNC is to thank for Trump. If there's a single person who holds most responsibility for Donald Trump, that person is DWS. She gaslighted us the entire primary and then got exposed and could not stop deflecting to "Russia!!!!" The American people respect honesty. She should've said, "Yes, I'm sorry. We put the thumb on the scale. We loved Hillary. We told the MSM to show empty Trump podiums rather than Bernie's speeches. yada yada.

I hear you on Trump's awfulness. the EPA is in jeopardy. Health care is in jeopardy. But, at some point Democrats HAVE to exorcise neoliberalism from their systems. If this election did anything, it showed that Democrats need to move left. Quit going after center right voters. Hillary was courting Jeb Bush's voters rather than being anti-TPP.. what a crock! How are progressives supposed to vote for someone actively giving progressives the finger and courting Jeb Bush voters. That is backwards. Like the article says, "Move Left, Democrats"

Unfortunately the Democrats selected Perez, and by all indications have no intentions of moving left.

 

[eohrnberger]

I found an article proving I'm right. Democrats lost more votes to defected third party voters than Republicans picked up from Trump mania.

Meh. What you have there is one person's opinion.

[h=3]The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor[/h] [h=1]Move Left, Democrats[/h] By STEVE PHILLIPSFEB. 21, 2017

So whether this means your (and the authors) assumption is correct, is still legitimately open for debate.

Democrats lost this election because they weren't progressives. If they would've ran Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would be your president right now. I am a part of this statistic as a Michigan voter who voted Green. If Bernie was our nominee, I would've not only voted for him but, campaigned for him. Looks like this article shows that if the Democrats can embrace progressive ideas they would win elections.

Hmm. Given population statistics, isn't the general rule of thumb that the further you move from center, the fewer the number in that population?

If you are right, I worry about that. It means that the electorate still hasn't grasped that every time socialism was tried and applied to reality a Venezuelan result is what happens. The electorate still hasn't grasped the truism that "There is rally nothing in life for free. Someone somewhere has to pay for it, if you get it for free".

Conservative, rich people wouldn't be doling out half their paycheck to pay for healthcare. The middle class pays a 6.2% tax on income which works out to the middle class saving money versus what they pay private insurance currently. That big savings that single-payer gives you would then be spent back into the economy, generating federal revenue and stimulating business.

Meh. Provided that the single payer government program isn't bankrupting those that have to pay for it, which is the middle class.

Do you, or do you not believe that: "There is rally nothing in life for free. Someone somewhere has to pay for it, if you get it for free"

Or doesn't it matter, as long as someone else is paying for it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html?_r=0

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Controversial opinion: it doesn't matter who the head of the DNC is when the GOP is trying to get rid of lunches for poor children.



Clinton won more votes than any white guy has in any election.

I don't think the Head of the DNC really matters at all. Could be a ham sandwich and people should rally.

As for business as usual (this is lifted from a twitter thread):

https://twitter.com/Shakestweetz/status/835855300641099776

• Let's take a look back at the 2016 campaign for a moment.
• The Dem primary saw a woman and a Jewish man take turns making history by being the first woman or Jewish person to win primaries/caucuses.
• The party eventually nominated the first female major party candidate in history.
• She then ran on the most progressive platform the Democrats have ever put forward.
• The Democratic convention was run by three Black women: Marcia Fudge, Donna Brazile, and Leah Daughtry.
• The breakout speaker at that convention was a Muslim man: Khizr Khan.
• That convention also featured the first ever trans speaker at a major party convention: Sarah McBride.
• Hillary Clinton's campaign had the most diverse campaign staff ever, including a gay campaign manager: Robby Mook.
• Eventually, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, getting more votes than any white male candidate ever.
• The DNC just elected the first Latino chair ever, Tom Perez.
• Had his strongest contender, Keith Ellison, won, the DNC would have elected its first Black Muslim chair.
• Ellison will serve as deputy chair of the DNC, so Dems will be led by a Latino and a Muslim.
• (Which is a fairly stark repudiation of Trump's domestic agenda.)
• All of this is being described as "business as usual."
• I don't know what political system you've been looking at, but that is not "business as usual."
• This is the perfidy of the argument that "identity politics" don't matter. It allows people to ignore and dismiss marginalized leaders.
• And the people whom they represent at the table. Many of whom have never had that sort of representation before.
• And to ignore and dismiss those leaders in a moment when a fascist president is elevating white supremacy.
• Thus we get incredible arguments that Democrats need to pander more to aggrieved white people *when we need to combat white supremacy*.
• And somehow pandering to aggrieved white people is positioned as *the opposite* of business as usual.
• That is exactly—and perilously—wrong.

The problem is that most of that "Hillary did" stuff, wasn't genuine to any degree and if you bothered to read the leaked emails, you'd understand that.
On top of that, the only people who actually give a rats rear end about how "diverse" and "progressive" her phony campaign was, are largely bourgeoisie Hillary voters.

Who the head of the DNC is more of a signal of business as usual or reform and reflection.
They've chose business as usual.

 

[Conservative]

#1: The implicit condescension of calling me 'young' when you don't know me at all beyond my affiliations and perceptions doesn't do you, or what you represent any favours.

#2: I don't need a dyed in the wool Republican partisan to figure out how they feel about Bernie. It's not a ****ing mystery man; these are the guys who called Obama a socialist unironically; it's pretty obvious what their opinions on Bernie are.

#3: That partisan Republicans obviously hate Bernie, and like him only in so far that they feel he can foment division and weaken the Democrats (despite being its strength and future at present) doesn't make me like the Dem establishment more.




No proof of that. Again, we'll see how history and the electorate judges him, but my guess is that it won't be favourable. The only good thing he's actually done thus far is kill the TPP (and even then I thought it should have been renegotiated).



Sanders might've not had the oratory and charisma of FDR, but he had his vision, and his ideas are in line with the New Deal. FDR is obviously the closest historic parallel. As SS is concerned, why blame FDR for subsequent failures of other politicians to scale the program with rising life expectancies? FDR was a great wartime leader who got life expectancies and standards of living firmly in the direction of that enjoyed by those in Scandinavia and northern Europe for which he should be commended; it's a shame his example wasn't followed by either party since Nixon onward. Now expectancies are on the decline, as is the standard of living, and economic injustice is skyrocketing.

As JFK goes, the dude was economically fairly liberal and Keynesian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Domestic_policy

That he advocated reasonable tax rates scaled down to heights that I still consider fairly staggering (depending on deductions) isn't nearly evidence of him being some kind of fiscal conservative or moderate; dude is a far leftist by today's standards.



Corporatism and the suffocating profusion of money in politics per Buckey v Valeo, and all its attendant corruption are actually why the left can't have nice things; because those with the money and power hate the left, and the idea of economic justice as they fear what it would cost them. Clinton ran a terrible campaign that deemphasized Bernie's popular policies and failed to play to the anti-establishment, populist zeitgeist essentially at their behest; that and the skullduggery at the DNC in support of her vision, or lackthereof, and political baggage/corruption per Wikileaks are what truly cost the Dems in turn out and support, and ensured the seminal blue wall would flip.

You seem to have a great love for Sanders so tell me exactly what Sanders has DONE that warrants this support. We know what he says but what has he done. Apparenlty rhetoric trumps actual substance in your world. Sanders is from Vermont so I can hardly wait for the results you believe qualifies him to run the country

 

[Greenbeard]

How are progressives supposed to vote for someone actively giving progressives the finger and courting Jeb Bush voters.

This is the problem. You think a $12 min wage, public options and a Medicare buy-in, a more progressive tax code, debt-free college, universal pre-K, paid family and medical leave, and yes even an anti-TPP stance are "actively giving progressives the finger."

You folks are out of your damn minds. It's all process and personalities, with occasional obligatory lip service given to policy. And as a result you've given away the SCOTUS for a generation, and we'll be very lucky if Medicare and Medicaid survive the next four years in anything resembling their current form.

 

[Winston]

Meh. What you have there is one person's opinion. So whether this means your (and the authors) assumption is correct, is still legitimately open for debate.

Taking for granted its the NYT.. The hard data in there is not opinion or commentary. It shows that Obama voters defected to 3rd parties in higher numbers than Republican voters showed up for Trump, in the 3 states that decided the election, MI, WI, and PA. In this case, your challenge to me was, prove that a progressive platform would win Democrats elections. The numbers seem to indicate that I'm right. Clinton lost Mi, Wi, PA by 77,774 votes. Democratic turnout was significantly down in those three states. While Republican turnout improved by 440,000 votes. 3rd party votes surged to 503,000. If the Democrats would've won 16% of that 3rd party vote, it would exceed the 77,000 threshold and throw them the election.. Progressives vote third party but, would vote Democrat if they felt represented. The numbers here indicate that I was right. Democrats would've won this election if they moved left.

Meh. Provided that the single payer government program isn't bankrupting those that have to pay for it, which is the middle class.

Do you, or do you not believe that: "There is rally nothing in life for free. Someone somewhere has to pay for it, if you get it for free"

Or doesn't it matter, as long as someone else is paying for it?

I know. I'm talking about a system where you cooperate with each other. The implicit agreement in socialist economic programs, is that I'm going to pay for you because you are going to pay for me. And right now, especially in the private insurance market, capitalism is robbing you of your hard earned dollar. Socialism would save you money, if we were to implement a single-payer system.

 

[Conservative]

The way I look at it, Democrats need to move left. How are you going to get Green voters to vote for your party if you can't even put anti-TPP in the party platform. Even Donald Trump had keener political sense than Obama and Clinton. He was anti TPP. The DNC is to thank for Trump. If there's a single person who holds most responsibility for Donald Trump, that person is DWS. She gaslighted us the entire primary and then got exposed and could not stop deflecting to "Russia!!!!" The American people respect honesty. She should've said, "Yes, I'm sorry. We put the thumb on the scale. We loved Hillary. We told the MSM to show empty Trump podiums rather than Bernie's speeches. yada yada.

I hear you on Trump's awfulness. the EPA is in jeopardy. Health care is in jeopardy. But, at some point Democrats HAVE to exorcise neoliberalism from their systems. If this election did anything, it showed that Democrats need to move left. Quit going after center right voters. Hillary was courting Jeb Bush's voters rather than being anti-TPP.. what a crock! How are progressives supposed to vote for someone actively giving progressives the finger and courting Jeb Bush voters. That is backwards. Like the article says, "Move Left, Democrats"

Unfortunately the Democrats selected Perez, and by all indications have no intentions of moving left.

Same question, what exactly has Sanders done to warrant the support you are throwing his way? You really believe that the Congress of the US is going to support a socialist agenda? Maybe civics is a course you should take

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The way I look at it, Democrats need to move left. How are you going to get Green voters to vote for your party if you can't even put anti-TPP in the party platform.

The worst thing the Democrats could do would be move left. This country is not a majority liberal country. The country as a whole is pretty much evenly divided between left, right, and moderate, but the electorate that actually bothers to show up most elections is if anything, center right.

Throughout the 70s and 80s, the Democratic party moved more to the left and kept losing elections as result. Had it not been for Watergate, the Democrats would have not won the presidency for nearly 25 years. Then in the late 80s / early 90s, you had the DLC that came up with a lot of new centrist ideas for the party and then they got a candidate that believed in them, and could articulate those ideas very well, Bill Clinton.

Now, we hear a lot of bashing of the Clinton years by many on the left today. For the life of me, I don't know what they are bitching about. That third way he championed for the Democrats and his presidency resulted in the median income going up every year of his presidency (the only time that has happened in decades). It resulted in the poverty rate dropping to its lowest level in the history of the country. Millions of minority families were lifted out of poverty. Violent crime rates, which in the early 90s were much worse than they are today, dropped precipitously. Over 20 million new jobs were created. There were 3 increases in the minimum wage, millions of new acres of public land were protected, millions of uninsured poor children got health insurance through SCHIP. On paper in terms of economic performance, prosperity, the number of people lifted out of poverty, jobs created, and median household income growth (the growth of incomes for the poor and middle class), that 3rd way centrist style of governing has the best record in the history of the country. For crying out loud, he left office the most popular president since FDR.

That is both a winning formula for Democrats in that it brings in both liberals in cities and moderates in small towns and rural areas, and its a win for progressives because the results are progressive goals (growing middle class, reductions in poverty, peace, property, strong environmental protections and so on).

Now, I like Bernie and I think he makes a solid contribution to the Senate by talking about issues that other don't. However, he would have gone down like George McGovern in a general election for the presidency and even if he somehow won, his efforts to move the country hard to the left would have ended up being so unpopular that they would have cost Democrats the presidency for decades to come.

The problem with the Democrats today is not the new DNC chair, its that the party needs new ideas.