Will the Democratic Party collapse if they don't embrace Bernieism?

[Technocracy Timmy]

I worry that in the post Citizens united world that the Democrats have a really nasty institutional disadvantage in such a system (trying to convince their progressive base that they will represent their needs while also taking huge sums of money from corporate interests to fund their campaigns). I think this is why the Democrats were so hellbent on winning over wealthier voters in places like GA-06. It's easier for them to become a more fiscally moderate Party by representing the needs of those kind of constituents who are likely more accepting of the Party taking heavy amounts of corporate money.

If it weren't for my theory on the 1980-2008-Today macroeconomy then I'd be very concerned about this development. Neeedless to say there's going to be a shakeup sooner or later. Economic shakeup in 2008, political shakeup in 2016, etc. all the signs are there for another massive shakeup.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Theyll collapse if they do embrace bernieism. There is no way they would hold onto their urban professional wing by shifting to a full on communist/socialist platform

And there's no way their non-urban-professional wing will vote for a party that doesn't promote progressive economic initiatives, and that group is way bigger.

If it's way bigger, Sanders would have won.

What? Hillary Clinton had celebrity name recognition going into the primaries and had built a decades long political career making inroads with various constituencies within the Democratic base. And to RINO Tom's point, she adopted 2/3's of Sanders platform for good reason.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Theyll collapse if they do embrace bernieism. There is no way they would hold onto their urban professional wing by shifting to a full on communist/socialist platform

And there's no way their non-urban-professional wing will vote for a party that doesn't promote progressive economic initiatives, and that group is way bigger.

If it's way bigger, Sanders would have won.

What? Hillary Clinton had celebrity name recognition going into the primaries and had built a decades long political career making inroads with various constituencies within the Democratic base. And to RINO Tom's point, she adopted 2/3's of Sanders platform for good reason.

Pandering.

So? That reinforces RINO Tom's point that the Democratic Party's progressive economic wing is far more powerful than people realize.

Third Way 90's neoliberal politics is dying. Obama was the first step, but Trump and Sanders are much clearer signs of this. That 90's way of thinking is as relevant to the Democratic Party as Eisenhower republicanism was in the late 70's.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

Really now...so Hillary Clinton's plan to fund such a program by taxing the wealthy and redistributing to lower income people isn't an example of fiscal liberalism? Wtf is then?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Democrats have failed to win contested seats with their current platform. They've lost on epic proportions in recent years (the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court, etc.). Obviously, they're doing something wrong. Why not give Bernieism a shot? Appealing to blue collar voters (their New Deal Era base) and increasing millennial turnout doesn't sound like a bad idea.

But acting like a full-blown SJW (like Bernie and Warren) is a massive turnoff.

Isn't Sanders the most popular politician in America right now?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Democrats have failed to win contested seats with their current platform. They've lost on epic proportions in recent years (the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court, etc.). Obviously, they're doing something wrong. Why not give Bernieism a shot? Appealing to blue collar voters (their New Deal Era base) and increasing millennial turnout doesn't sound like a bad idea.

But acting like a full-blown SJW (like Bernie and Warren) is a massive turnoff.

Isn't Sanders the most popular politician in America right now?

Clinton had a 70% approval rating when no one was attacking her, too.

Wasn't Obama's approval rating fairly high during the 2016 campaign in spite of Trump's incessant attacks against him? I think he even had a 54ish percent approval on Election Day; which is very impressive given how polarized we are as a country.

Hillary is literally only seen in a favorable light when she's completely out of the limelight. She couldn't defend herself at all from attacks.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Wasn't Obama's approval rating fairly high during the 2016 campaign in spite of Trump's incessant attacks against him? I think he even had a 54ish percent approval on Election Day; which is very impressive given how polarized we are as a country.

Hillary is literally only seen in a favorable light when she's completely out of the limelight. She couldn't defend herself at all from attacks.

I'm not really sure if one could attribute her persistent unpopularity right now to any longstanding trends. The email scandal and everything that came with it was pretty uniquely damaging to her, and it will probably take a long time to recover. I mean she went through over a year and a half of non-stop attacks on that and it completely destroyed her image.

You could argue that the email scandal itself was unique but good God almighty did she worsen it by seemingly lying about the whole situation. She inadvertently made it worse by trying to downplay to such a degree that it made her look guilty even in the eyes of many Independents and some Democrats.