Seething liberals vow revolution in Democratic Party - They just don't get it.

[Renae]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

[FONT=&quot]“There were people who felt left out of he economy over the last eight years who were never able to get back on their feet, blue collar men and women,” Salazar said. “Donald Trump was able to capture them in terms of emotion and sentiment.”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Democrats have not done very well in rural America and I don’t understand why that has happened. The broader question is how to have a Democratic Party that can attract those working men and women.”
[/FONT]

 

[MrPeanut]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

I like that they diagnose the problem and immediately follow it with claiming they don't understand how it happened.

 

[Van Basten]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

Doomed what? Lmao, absolute nonsense.

The Dems have plenty of support, the problem is getting that support base out to vote.

 

[TheGoverness]

I like that they diagnose the problem and immediately follow it with claiming they don't understand how it happened.

Doc: "Hmmm....all of these symptoms are consistent with Stage 4 Lung Cancer..."

Patient: "So I have cancer?!"

Doc: "Do you? I've got no idea."

 

[MrPeanut]

Doc: "Hmmm....all of these symptoms are consistent with Stage 4 Lung Cancer..."

Patient: "So I have cancer?!"

Doc: "Do you? I've got no idea."

That is the most perfect description of the Democratic party right now.

 

[Opopanax]

That is the most perfect description of the Democratic party right now.

I think a more fitting description is:

Fireman: Your house is on fire, get out now before you're burned alive!

Democrat Voter: Nah. You'll put the fire out and it'll be fine.

 

[cpwill]

Doomed what? Lmao, absolute nonsense.

The Dems have plenty of support, the problem is getting that support base out to vote.

Yeah. "Don't nominate a soulless, boring, felon who is a walking case of scandal-exhaustion" probably would have been a good first step.


The Democrats have a steep hill to climb in 2018. That is not the case in 2020. Predictions of their doom are no wiser now than predictions that the GOP was going to become a rump regional party in 2008.

 

[cpwill]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

Out of curiosity - is there a link to this article?

 

[PirateMk1]

Yeah. "Don't nominate a soulless, boring, felon who is a walking case of scandal-exhaustion" probably would have been a good first step.


The Democrats have a steep hill to climb in 2018. That is not the case in 2020. Predictions of their doom are no wiser now than predictions that the GOP was going to become a rump regional party in 2008.

The predictions of the demise of the Democratic party is a bit premature. They are like cockroaches just when you think you got em all, the little bastards reappear.

You could say they themselves got a taste of that annoying trait with the Donald. Everyone in the party was going "I thought we got rid this bastard!" He was the invincible cockroach in their kitchen ****ting in their kitchen screwing up what they were trying to cook up.

We are gonna be wondering the same bloody thing about them, sooner than we expect I might add. Damn roaches.

 

[Chomsky]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

What link?

What article?

Am I missing something here?

 

[Renae]

Out of curiosity - is there a link to this article?

DOH!
Seething liberals vow revolution in Democratic Party | TheHill

 

[Renae]

What link?

What article?

Am I missing something here?

Seething liberals vow revolution in Democratic Party | TheHill

Yeah, I thought I had put it in. FAIL

 

[Chomsky]

Seething liberals vow revolution in Democratic Party | TheHill

Yeah, I thought I had put it in. FAIL

Thank you!

(now I'll be happy to give your OP a like )

 

[calamity]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

A lot of those voters seem to have gone with Sanders but stayed home for Hillary or straight up voted Trump.

It is my take that what was rejected on Tuesday was the establishment. If the D's go more populist, especially if those D's align with Trump's ideas which benefit the working class, they will be competitive again. If they double-sown on their support of special interests: gays, BLM, Wall Street, unions, etc.; they are doomed.

 

[JackA]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

Doomed as in getting the most votes.

 

[Chomsky]

Alright - read it.

Good article, and I agree with it.

The problem though, is: Trump beat them to the anti-establishment punch. Now is there room for two anti-establishment parties? Possibly yes. Both parties would be attacking the establishment from two different perspectives, right & left. I like this idea. It would put Social Democracy in the forefront and the center of debate. And would allow two anti-establishment choices.

I forgot about Robert Reich, but yeah - he might be the right guy to do this. I like him. Sanders and Warren would likely jump on. Only problem here is: Sanders is 75, Reich is 70, and they'll be 4 years older in 2020 (79 & 74). That leaves Warren as the most obvious current Presidential nominee.

Bit I'd love to see this come to fruition. I always thought Trump/Sanders should have been the debate the country needed & deserved to have. Well, I got one of them it appears, but not the one I wanted.

One aside though: Who would represent Conservatism? It could get left by the wayside ...

 

[calamity]

Alright - read it.

Good article, and I agree with it.

The problem though, is: Trump beat them to the anti-establishment punch. Now is there room for two anti-establishment parties? Possibly yes. Both parties would be attacking the establishment from two different perspectives, right & left. I like this idea. It would put Social Democracy in the forefront and the center of debate. And would allow two anti-establishment choices.

I forgot about Robert Reich, but yeah - he might be the right guy to do this. I like him. Sanders and Warren would likely jump on. Only problem here is: Sanders is 75, Reich is 70, and they'll be 4 years older in 2020 (79 & 74). That leaves Warren as the most obvious current Presidential nominee.

Bit I'd love to see this come to fruition. I always thought Trump/Sanders should have been the debate the country needed & deserved to have. Well, I got one of them it appears, but not the one I wanted.

One aside though: Who would represent Conservatism? It could get left by the wayside ...

Yes. A Left-Right battle against the corrupt establishment and special interests might not be a bad thing.

I'd love to know how many of Sanders' supporters voted for Trump. I haven't seen a stat on that yet, but I have read multiple anecdotal accounts of working class whites and blacks who did do just that.

 

[Chomsky]

A lot of those voters seem to have gone with Sanders but stayed home for Hillary or straight up voted Trump.

It is my take that what was rejected on Tuesday was the establishment. If the D's go more populist, especially if those D's align with Trump's ideas which benefit the working class, they will be competitive again. If they double-sown on their support of special interests: gays, BLM, Wall Street, unions, etc.; they are doomed.

Agreed in entirety.

But I'd also point-out that "anti-establishment" dovetails really well with the all the groups above I bolded - except for Wall Street.

And HRC's establishment connections & policy is *exactly* what alienated those rustbelt union and (more prevalent) former union guys to get picked-off by Trump.

I see this as very doable.

 

[calamity]

Agreed in entirety.

But I'd also point-out that "anti-establishment" dovetails really well with the all the groups above I bolded - except for Wall Street.

And HRC's establishment connections & policy is *exactly* what alienated those rustbelt union and (more prevalent) former union guys to get picked-off by Trump.

I see this as very doable.

What concerns me about the Left is that they hold out for the perfect candidate. They either get it or they stay home. This was so very evident in 2010, 12, 14 and 16, when they felt Obama did not quite live up to their ideals. So, they let him lose the House, then the Senate and now the Presidency.

The Right does not have such hangups. They are good with just about anyone who is pro-gun anti-abortion...and not a D.

 

[Chomsky]

Yes. A Left-Right battle against the corrupt establishment and special interests might not be a bad thing.

I'd love to know how many of Sanders' supporters voted for Trump. I haven't seen a stat on that yet, but I have read multiple anecdotal accounts of working class whites and blacks who did do just that.

Trump-Sanders would have been an amazing series of debates!

Could you imagine if we had gotten 'Capitalism v Social Democracy', instead of 'emails v sexual innuendo'?

I would hope we the American public would rise to this!

 

[Chomsky]

What concerns me about the Left is that they hold out for the perfect candidate. They either get it or they stay home. This was so very evident in 2010, 12, 14 and 16, when they felt Obama did not quite live up to their ideals. So, they let him lose the House, then the Senate and now the Presidency.

The Right does not have such hangups. They are good with just about anyone who is pro-gun anti-abortion...and not a D.

Yeah - the Dems do get a lot of idealists!

I suppose that fine though, if they can be pragmatic when the rubber meets the road.

But hell, if the Ds made this transition I might consider re-joining them. I was solidly behind Sanders.

 

[calamity]

Yeah - the Dems do get a lot of idealists!

I suppose that fine though, if they can be pragmatic when the rubber meets the road.

But hell, if the Ds made this transition I might consider re-joining them. I was solidly behind Sanders.

IMO, Sanders had more grassroots support and may very well have rallied enough troops to pull this out. Obviously shoe-horning Hillary into the nomination was a big mistake. People got pissed and they stayed home.

 

[Harshaw]

The Right does not have such hangups. They are good with just about anyone who is pro-gun anti-abortion...and not a D.

Not correct. Both McCain and Romney shed millions of Bush voters. And Trump had fewer votes than Romney.

 

[katzgar]

There is a statement, at the end of this article of hand wringing and whining that epitomizes to me why the Liberal/Progressive wing is a doomed bird in terms of getting national broad support:

democrats obviously have more support in spite of the current outcome.

 

[Renae]

democrats obviously have more support in spite of the current outcome.

Nope. They lost.