Which wing of the (D) party has the most potential to be their Tea Party?

[Blue3]

The Democratic Party has quite a few activist movements, much more than the Republican Party in my view.


But, IF any of them are to become "the Democratic Tea Party," which is the most likely to do it?

And by that, I mean have the strength and numbers and vocal activism to urge purity tests especially in primaries, and actually win primaries... even if it hurts the overall party.

First, let's list the activist wings of the Democratic party:
-Sanders/Warren/Occupy
-"Black Lives Matter"
-environmentalists
-animal rights activists
-feminists
-LGBT advocates
-antiwar "doves"
-humanitarian interventionists
-labor unions, including teachers' unions
-immigrant advocates
-marijuana advocates
-gun control advocates
-globalists
-anti-globalists
-consumer protection advocates
-college students and young adults
-AARP
-Keynesian stimulus-spenders & middle class tax-cuts
-infrastructure advocates
-ACLU
-urban advocates
-Internet advocates
-pro science crowd
-secularists
-multiculturalists
-electoral reformers
-academics
Who else??


I do NOT think the Sanders/Warren/Occupy wing has the most potential for this. Look at how few of Sanders-endorsed Democrats won their primaries if they were insurgents, and then the only ones that won the GE were actually incumbents (plus 2 safe seats). Economic-progressive candidates have had similar success in primaries before 2016 as well.

I think it's the "Black Lives Matter" wing that has the most potential. Even in 2016, they forced talk of BLM and tried to urge a purity test, saying both Hillary and Bernie failed it, etc. And I bet it damaged Hillary in the GE among those white voters who showed up for Trump, to know the BLM unrest was tolerated by the Democrats, even if they misunderstood the message behind BLM (which IS a terribly divisive slogan, no doubt).

I fear that if the Democrats do try to focus more on progressive economic populism, and be color-blind about it to get some of the WWC vote back... that the vocal BLM activists will say they aren't true Democrats and demand litmus tests and try to force discussion, force to make it more racial. You also need to win majority-AA primaries to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. And all this could unintentionally (or worse, apathetically) actually hurt the Democrats' chances in general elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A lot more than 2 non incumbents endorsed by Bernie won.

[Blue3]

A lot more than 2 non incumbents endorsed by Bernie won.

I heard...


Total national endorsements (US Rep / US Sen): 77

 Winners...

 Raul Grijalva (AZ; Incumbent)
 Tulsi Gabbard (HI; Incumbent)
 Jamie Raskin (MD; Open Seat)
 Keith Ellison (MN; Incumbent)
 Rick Nolan (MN; Incumbent)
 Marcy Kaptur (OH; Incumbent)
 Peter Welch (VT; Incumbent)
 Pramila Jayapal (WA; Open Seat)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A lot more than 2 non incumbents endorsed by Bernie won.

I heard...


Total national endorsements (US Rep / US Sen): 77

 Winners...

 Raul Grijalva (AZ; Incumbent)
 Tulsi Gabbard (HI; Incumbent)
 Jamie Raskin (MD; Open Seat)
 Keith Ellison (MN; Incumbent)
 Rick Nolan (MN; Incumbent)
 Marcy Kaptur (OH; Incumbent)
 Peter Welch (VT; Incumbent)
 Pramila Jayapal (WA; Open Seat)

He endorsed a lot more people than that. Of course some of them were for pretty low level offices.

[Blue3]

He endorsed 77, and only those won, to my knowledge.

I wasn't talking about mayors and city council members and state legislators.



But anyways, back on-topic...

[The_Doctor]

The BLM people will cause the loss in 2020, honestly. That's their version of the tea party I guess.

The other "tea party" left - the populists - are actually the long term majority makers. So not really analogous to the Trump Tea Party.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I've never understood why 'Black Lives Matter' is such a 'divisive' slogan. It's not the kind of statement that one would assume implies its contrapositive. What I don't like is the attempt to make it--'Black Lives Matter' specifically, those three words specifically--a shibboleth on the left the same way 'radical Islamic terrorism' is on the right. It smacks of something that's becoming a thought-terminating cliché. It's not like we're trying to ascertain whether a valid baptism happened or something.

[The_Doctor]

I've never understood why 'Black Lives Matter' is such a 'divisive' slogan. It's not the kind of statement that one would assume implies its contrapositive. What I don't like is the attempt to make it--'Black Lives Matter' specifically, those three words specifically--a shibboleth on the left the same way 'radical Islamic terrorism' is on the right. It smacks of something that's becoming a thought-terminating cliché. It's not like we're trying to ascertain whether a valid baptism happened or something.

This is kind of a controversial opinion.

The problem is that BLM is seen as hyper-aggressive and a lot of the black community, while it has been victimized, also need to straighten out their own house. 

In a sense, there needs to be a maturation to the demands (criminal justice reform, more funding for African American students) but there also needs to be a connective understanding about the African American community taking responsibility for the many community problems it faces. I understand many are a result of criminalization, poverty, etc. but BLM will be seen as an aggressive demand for social justice without the correspondent taking of responsibility.

Yes, cops are overly aggressive. Yes, whites get off scott free more than blacks and other minority groups.

But cops are often in minority neighborhoods because often, as a result of poverty and crap, crime happens there.

I might be totally off base about understanding BLM, though. But SJW in general are not exactly my favorite people. (Also it's 3:18 AM)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Me.

[ApatheticAustrian]

BML should have been BML2.....i understand that this would somehow sound less solid and more like an after-thought for some but it would kill i think 90% of possible critics.

[Devout Centrist]

The Progressive wing will go off the deep end in the years to come.

I foresee a Republican blood bath in the House and State level in 2018.

[Blue3]

The Progressive wing will go off the deep end in the years to come.

I foresee a Republican blood bath in the House and State level in 2018.

But what part of the Progressive wing? (Now that Hillary is out, they're basically the entire party). Examples in my first post.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

A bloodbath favoring the Republicans, or a bloodbath against the Republicans?

We do have to face this reality: Progressives have the natural right to have their side in charge. Nature is progressive. To enforce a progressive agenda is Nature's way.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

A bloodbath favoring the Republicans, or a bloodbath against the Republicans?

We do have to face this reality: Progressives have the natural right to have their side in charge. Nature is progressive. To enforce a progressive agenda is Nature's way.

I think I heard someone say something similar.  Something about "nature's eternal fascism" comes to mind.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I've never understood why 'Black Lives Matter' is such a 'divisive' slogan. It's not the kind of statement that one would assume implies its contrapositive. What I don't like is the attempt to make it--'Black Lives Matter' specifically, those three words specifically--a shibboleth on the left the same way 'radical Islamic terrorism' is on the right. It smacks of something that's becoming a thought-terminating cliché. It's not like we're trying to ascertain whether a valid baptism happened or something.

because large swathes of the population think that black lives don't matter (or at least that they matter less than having an undelayed commute or w/e). no need to overthink this.

[Blue3]

More thoughts on which wrong of the Democrats is most likely to hype-up but unintentionally or apathetically hurt it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Me.

A wing generally has more than one feather.

[Kingpoleon]

I'd assume people ranging from Thom Hartmann to Richard Trumka to Robert Reich will start this movement. Others like Keith Ellison will carry the torch.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

A bloodbath favoring the Republicans, or a bloodbath against the Republicans?

We do have to face this reality: Progressives have the natural right to have their side in charge. Nature is progressive. To enforce a progressive agenda is Nature's way.

Nature is to be controlled and crafted, not followed. Hence why we wipe our asses with paper and not bark.

[Simfan34]

I've never understood why 'Black Lives Matter' is such a 'divisive' slogan. It's not the kind of statement that one would assume implies its contrapositive. What I don't like is the attempt to make it--'Black Lives Matter' specifically, those three words specifically--a shibboleth on the left the same way 'radical Islamic terrorism' is on the right. It smacks of something that's becoming a thought-terminating cliché. It's not like we're trying to ascertain whether a valid baptism happened or something.

As I've been bleating on for the past few days, it's problematic that activist types now react to "all lives matter" in the same manner as one might react to the n-word.

BLM, left-wing identitarians, and their white liberal cohorts (aka "woke" people) helped drag down the Democrats this election. They may wreak further havoc yet. I can't help but feel, as I said to a friend the other day, that while I'm slowly moving towards the Democrats, the Democratic party is running in leaps and bounds away from me. Many moderate liberal friends of mine have expressed similar sentiment.

Wokeness is a disease. Identity politics, of both the left and right, must be consigned to the trasheap of history. Otherwise this country may very well prove unable to hold together. Ellison, if he wins, will soon find himself the latest victim of the circular firing squad mentality if nothing is done to rectify this.

In short, the Democratic Tea Party will be these people.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

As I've been bleating on for the past few days, it's problematic that activist types now react to "all lives matter" in the same manner as one might react to the n-word.

That's not what's going on. To say "all lives matter" just sort of takes everyone's eye off the ball.

[Blue3]

As I've been bleating on for the past few days, it's problematic that activist types now react to "all lives matter" in the same manner as one might react to the n-word.

That's not what's going on. To say "all lives matter" just sort of takes everyone's eye off the ball.

No, some people do react to it as almost as bad ad the n-word.

[Blue3]

So which of these groups can we expect to see a lot more of?

-Sanders/Warren/Occupy
-"Black Lives Matter"
-environmentalists
-animal rights activists
-feminists
-LGBT advocates
-antiwar "doves"
-humanitarian interventionists
-labor unions, including teachers' unions
-immigrant advocates
-marijuana advocates
-gun control advocates
-globalists
-anti-globalists
-consumer protection advocates
-college students and young adults
-AARP
-Keynesian stimulus-spenders & middle class tax-cuts
-infrastructure advocates
-ACLU
-urban advocates
-Internet advocates
-pro science crowd
-secularists
-multiculturalists
-electoral reformers

Who else??


For reference, Hillary's policy proposals can basically be boiled down to these...

Economy (Job Creation, Quality of Life, Energy, Healthcare, Education, Deficit Reduction)
modernize infrastructure & more clean energy
universal paid family/medical leave
higher minimum wage
ending tax loopholes for the rich, impose risk fees on large banks
more affordable college
more affordable childcare
improve social security
more affordable prescription drugs
more investment in mental health, substance abuse, Alzheimer's
public option for healthcare insurance
more funding for schools, universal PreK, more computer science

A More Just, Fair, & Safe Society
criminal justice reform
repairing the Voting Rights Act, more voting reform like universal registration & campaign finance
immigration reform
antidiscrimination laws to protect people from being fired for being gay
better gun safety laws, like universal background checks
strengthen national and international service, like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps


The issues with the U.S. that are most concerning/upsetting to people here are:
1. Income Inequality / Affording healthcare, college, childcare, housing, energy, food, transportation, retirement, leave
2. Race-fuelled violence / Police shootings / Bigotry / Riots / need of Criminal Justice & Voting Reform / Civil Rights
3. Greenhouse gas emissions / climate change

Overall values are of wealth, health, liberty, security/safety, the natural and artificial environment, and education.
(service/love/counseling/mediation, investigation/science, recreation/arts are also underlying values)

The dueling narratives of 2016, in retrospect, seem to be
"elitists versus commoners"
(Trump's narrative, selling himself as champion of the commoners)
against
"educated humanitarian progressives versus ignorant selfish traditionalists"
(Hillary's narrative, selling herself as champion of the educated humanitarian progressives)


Hillary might have won the total vote, but it was too concentrated, and Trump had more widespread support.



Which of these groups have the most potential to hurt the Democrats even more?

[Famous Mortimer]

This list of groups is too long to be useful.

Every single policy position does not qualify as a faction.

Anyway, the answer to this question is SJWs. Obviously.

[Blue3]

This list of groups is too long to be useful.

Every single policy position does not qualify as a faction.

Anyway, the answer to this question is SJWs. Obviously.

I know it's long. I'm asking people to narrow it down to which one is most likely to be the Democratic Tea Party.