You mark my words: if dems run away from 3rd way clintonionism, an abyss awaits

[Matty]

2016 was a rejection of hillary, NOT third way, new democrat, policy views. Americans continue to support safety nets, low taxes, and distrust of expansive gov't. The Clintons gave the democratic party the recipe to dominate, and it's why they have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes.

You let Keith Ellison and bernie sanders corrupt that playbook and you'll be in the political wilderness for a decade at least.

The GOP attributed bush and dole losses to being too boring and moderate, and look what happened, the crazies took over and trump is now the leader of the GOP.

Do NOT let the jferns of the world take over your party. If you want to win, re-embrace Clintonian methods, just pick non-horrible, fresh faces to do it. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lucky for you, they didn't take the hint from 2014 (like firing DWS immediately), and will likely continue to lose with your strategy. They chose Chuck Schumer as their Senate leader after he said that Democrats didn't need working class voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio, so they will probably need to lose several more time to get some slight party of a clue.

[Sumner 1868]

Since the Third Way's main goal was preventing collapse of the Democratic Party in the South, it has failed badly since the turn of the millennium.

[White Trash]

Since the Third Way's main goal was preventing collapse of the Democratic Party in the South, it has failed badly since the turn of the millennium.

If that was the goal, they really should've done the opposite of that.

[Hindsight was 2020]

2016 was a rejection of hillary, NOT third way, new democrat, policy views. Americans continue to support safety nets, low taxes, and distrust of expansive gov't. The Clintons gave the democratic party the recipe to dominate, and it's why they have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes.

I don't get your point because the Bernie branch supports all that too but they also are big into keeping big money out of politics

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

what abyss is worse than their current position? genuine question op

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Lucky for you, they didn't take the hint from 2014 (like firing DWS immediately), and will likely continue to lose with your strategy. They chose Chuck Schumer as their Senate leader after he said that Democrats didn't need working class voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio, so they will probably need to lose several more time to get some slight party of a clue.

Yes, he said on camera that for every working class vote they lose they'll pick up 2 or 3 moderate Republicans. The fact that his strategy led to her loss makes it all the more incredible he's now leading the party. However, it's worth noting that Bernie endorsed him for the position.

[Cashew]

The GOP attributed bush and dole losses to being too boring and moderate, and look what happened, the crazies took over and trump is now the leader of the GOP.

And it worked! But thanks for the concern trolling anyway.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The GOP attributed bush and dole losses to being too boring and moderate, and look what happened, the crazies took over and trump is now the leader of the GOP.

The implications of this point remind me of that old Cracked article that said something like 'Nicolas Cage was one of the finest actors of the eighties and nineties, who abruptly quit acting at the height of his abilities. He has appeared in dozens of movies since.'

[RINO Tom]

LOL.  No.  Democrats lost precisely because they didn't realize how many "deplorables" were actually voting for their Black nominee twice, and the types of folks who post on here had deluded themselves to believing that a candidate actually got elected on the backs of solely benevolent White liberals in big cities, PhD holders and all of the lovable minorities that seek their protection.  Such a coalition would get about 30% of the popular vote, of course.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

3rd way clintonianism is as relevant as Eisenhower Era Republicanism was in Reagan's time.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Considering that 3rd wayism has resulted in the lowest number of Dem elected officials since Reconstruction, I'll stick to my lucrative career as a Bernie shill.

[Indy Texas]

LOL.  No.  Democrats lost precisely because they didn't realize how many "deplorables" were actually voting for their Black nominee twice, and the types of folks who post on here had deluded themselves to believing that a candidate actually got elected on the backs of solely benevolent White liberals in big cities, PhD holders and all of the lovable minorities that seek their protection.  Such a coalition would get about 30% of the popular vote, of course.

Well, the "Deplorables" are in your party now. You couldn't have won the election without them. Have fun with that.

[Cuckslayer]

Democrats need to drop the SJW nonsense. No more anti-gun nonsense either.

Neoliberalism both in economic and foreign policy needs to die. No more pointless wars overseas, no more outsourcing deals.

If they continue down Bill Clinton's third way path they won't win another Presidential election until 2028 if that. They will lose the House for almost two decades by 2028.

[RINO Tom]

LOL.  No.  Democrats lost precisely because they didn't realize how many "deplorables" were actually voting for their Black nominee twice, and the types of folks who post on here had deluded themselves to believing that a candidate actually got elected on the backs of solely benevolent White liberals in big cities, PhD holders and all of the lovable minorities that seek their protection.  Such a coalition would get about 30% of the popular vote, of course.

Well, the "Deplorables" are in your party now. You couldn't have won the election without them. Have fun with that.

NO ONE CAN WIN AN ELECTION WITHOUT "THEM."

LOL, how can you be so thick?  Is a sexist, homophobic Black man not deplorable?  I think you actually believe that Democrats are this party of the enlightened and only the enlightened.  If there comes a day where that comes true (LMAO), the Dems wouldn't get over 40% of the popular vote.  How can you not see that?

[White Trash]

LOL.  No.  Democrats lost precisely because they didn't realize how many "deplorables" were actually voting for their Black nominee twice, and the types of folks who post on here had deluded themselves to believing that a candidate actually got elected on the backs of solely benevolent White liberals in big cities, PhD holders and all of the lovable minorities that seek their protection.  Such a coalition would get about 30% of the popular vote, of course.

Well, the "Deplorables" are in your party now. You couldn't have won the election without them. Have fun with that.

NO ONE CAN WIN AN ELECTION WITHOUT "THEM."

LOL, how can you be so thick?  Is a sexist, homophobic Black man not deplorable?  I think you actually believe that Democrats are this party of the enlightened and only the enlightened.  If there comes a day where that comes true (LMAO), the Dems wouldn't get over 40% of the popular vote.  How can you not see that?

Preach

[krazen1211]

2016 was a rejection of hillary, NOT third way, new democrat, policy views. Americans continue to support safety nets, low taxes, and distrust of expansive gov't. The Clintons gave the democratic party the recipe to dominate, and it's why they have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes.

I don't get your point because the Bernie branch supports all that too but they also are big into keeping big money out of politics

Crooked Hillary only kept this election within 74 EV because of a 2:1 money advantage. Imagine the good thrashing she would have gotten without that big money.

[ApatheticAustrian]

2016 was a rejection of hillary, NOT third way, new democrat, policy views. Americans continue to support safety nets, low taxes, and distrust of expansive gov't. The Clintons gave the democratic party the recipe to dominate, and it's why they have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes.

I don't get your point because the Bernie branch supports all that too but they also are big into keeping big money out of politics

Crooked Hillary only kept this election within 74 EV because of a 2:1 money advantage. Imagine the good thrashing she would have gotten without that big money.

yeah...imagine the money candidate without money.

or trump without his inability to feel shame.

[krazen1211]

2016 was a rejection of hillary, NOT third way, new democrat, policy views. Americans continue to support safety nets, low taxes, and distrust of expansive gov't. The Clintons gave the democratic party the recipe to dominate, and it's why they have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes.

I don't get your point because the Bernie branch supports all that too but they also are big into keeping big money out of politics

Crooked Hillary only kept this election within 74 EV because of a 2:1 money advantage. Imagine the good thrashing she would have gotten without that big money.

yeah...imagine the money candidate without money.

or trump without his inability to feel shame.

The former is pretty easy. Hillary conned her foolish base into giving her $1 billion and squandered it. The money pot appears to be drying up.

Pretty soon now, the Democrats will raise a full defense of the greatness of Citizens United. How else can they compete with the greatness of Trump?

[JA]

I have to disagree with you very strongly on this. It's Clintonian Third Way/Neoliberalism which has damaged the party so terribly that it enabled a Trump and GOP victory. Neoliberal policies being espoused and/or enacted by the Left have alienated the working class all across the Western world. It's a politics of, for, and by the cultural elite, and it lacks any genuine concern for the plight of those it isn't fashionable to pity.

With that being said, it'd be an injustice to turn our backs on social justice issues simply because socioeconomic ones are more pressing for the majority population. "Identity politics" is about lifting the issues facing underprivileged to equal level with those facing the majority; everyone has a right to have their concerns heard and addressed. The Left must learn to shed its cultural elitism, connections to the financial industry, and how to re-energize its working class base (of all racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious groups).

[RaphaelDLG]

If Trump indeed won because of his policy issues rather than his personality/attitude/anti-establishment stance, and that's a big, big if, the #1 issue or one of the #1 issues that won the election for him in the key states was the trade agreements that the Democratic party supported and that are a hallmark of Clintonianism.

[RINO Tom]

If Trump indeed won because of his policy issues rather than his personality/attitude/anti-establishment stance, and that's a big, big if, the #1 issue or one of the #1 issues that won the election for him in the key states was the trade agreements that the Democratic party supported and that are a hallmark of Clintonianism.

Except their Senators and representatives DIDN'T.  Their relatively popular President - who is even more popular in his own party - practically begged them to get on board for TPA, and they stuck to their principles and gave him a big, fat NO.

In the Democratic Party, you had every semi-serious candidate OPPOSING TPP, with some questioning Hillary's truthfulness on the issue/the degree to which she opposed it.

In the GOP, you had a bunch of people who supported it and one main one who didn't; he won.

That gave you a general election with two candidates who OPPOSED TPP, and it is a total and complete myth that Clinton embraced being seen as the less protectionist candidate.  Instead of attacking Donald as being overly protectionist or suggesting that his economic policies would cause economic downturn, she quite literally ran ads about how he used to support free trade, practice outsourcing and was clearly faking his protectionism to pick up votes.  Now that CHUCK SCHUMER (for God's sake, CHUCK SCHUMER!!!!) is giving a decisive nod to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (and with promoting Manchin, a CLEAR nod toward a more populist approach), the idea that the Democrats will embrace neoliberalism or free trade in the future is nothing but pure fantasy on the part of people like Lief, IndyTexas and ag, who dream of a party made up purely of the cosmopolitan elite - a party that never existed in the first place and certainly won't now.

[RINO Tom]

2016 was a rejection of hillary, NOT third way, new democrat, policy views. Americans continue to support safety nets, low taxes, and distrust of expansive gov't. The Clintons gave the democratic party the recipe to dominate, and it's why they have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes.

I don't get your point because the Bernie branch supports all that too but they also are big into keeping big money out of politics

Crooked Hillary only kept this election within 74 EV because of a 2:1 money advantage. Imagine the good thrashing she would have gotten without that big money.

yeah...imagine the money candidate without money.

or trump without his inability to feel shame.

The former is pretty easy. Hillary conned her foolish base into giving her $1 billion and squandered it. The money pot appears to be drying up.

Pretty soon now, the Democrats will raise a full defense of the greatness of Citizens United. How else can they compete with the greatness of Trump?

This clearly isn't true, but even if it is ... the Democrats can do whatever they want.  No conservative in his or her right mind wants Citizens United TOUCHED.  Period.

[pbrower2a]

LOL.  No.  Democrats lost precisely because they didn't realize how many "deplorables" were actually voting for their Black nominee twice, and the types of folks who post on here had deluded themselves to believing that a candidate actually got elected on the backs of solely benevolent White liberals in big cities, PhD holders and all of the lovable minorities that seek their protection.  Such a coalition would get about 30% of the popular vote, of course.

Maybe Hillary Clinton could have been clearer about who the "deplorables" were -- people who, knowing that Donald Trump is a racist, religious bigot, and misogynist  could vote for him.

OK, this was a bad choice of words. We're all taught from an early age to not associate with creeps and creepy causes. But many of us have forgotten that lesson.

But what the heck. We get to see race relations go back 50 years and labor-management relations go back 90 at the least.

[AtorBoltox]

If Trump indeed won because of his policy issues rather than his personality/attitude/anti-establishment stance, and that's a big, big if, the #1 issue or one of the #1 issues that won the election for him in the key states was the trade agreements that the Democratic party supported and that are a hallmark of Clintonianism.

Except their Senators and representatives DIDN'T.  Their relatively popular President - who is even more popular in his own party - practically begged them to get on board for TPA, and they stuck to their principles and gave him a big, fat NO.

In the Democratic Party, you had every semi-serious candidate OPPOSING TPP, with some questioning Hillary's truthfulness on the issue/the degree to which she opposed it.

This is the most important part. Anyone with any degree of common sense knew that Hillary wasn't really against the TPP or free trade in general. The opinions and votes of other senators and representatives don't matter at all, people cast their vote based on the stances and records of the two Presidential candidates. Hillary did make some half hearted attacks of Trump over outsourcing, but he was clearly the anti trade candidate and Hillary was at the very least perceived as pro-trade. I really don't know why you're trying to dispute this.