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

[°Leprechaun]

Democrats might be wise to nominate someone who isn't such a hawk, but then again there is no reason to think any Democrat could beat Trump at this point in time. An abyss may await no matter whom is nominated. Who's to say that an abyss doesn't await us on January 20, 2017?

Is it perhaps possible that "the end of the world as we know it" will occur in a mere 50 days from now?

[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.

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.

Maybe because this distinction was only viewed as important by autistic Atlas nerds?  My parents are very pro-free trade, for example, and I doubt they even knew Hillary's stance on the issue (or cared).  Most of my less-politically-literate friends just saw this election as an intolerant,  billionaire Republican vs. a cold, technocratic Democrat who made overt appeals to minorities and called her opponent racist ... I think we overestimate the degree to which the average person saw this as some special or realigning election.  And why is it such common knowledge that Hillary is faking her opposition to TPP but Trump isn't??  The guy probably doesn't have a political view that he's held on record for more than 8 years...

Either way, my main point was that there is NO evidence (and quite a bit to the contrary) that the Democratic Party of 2016 and beyond is moving toward a more pro-free trade stance.  Just simply zero.  That "future" exists only among Fuzzy Bear and people like IndyTexas who fantasize about a Democratic Party that only encompasses those smart enough to see the light (which for several reasons is laughable, but the most notable is that such an "elite" party would never win the popular vote ever).

[°Leprechaun]

"the popular vote"?
Really?
Since when does that matter?

[RINO Tom]

"the popular vote"?
Really?
Since when does that matter?

I was just making the point that such a coalition would be a laughably small percent of voters.  They'd never win the electoral college, either.  Happy??

[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.

Maybe because this distinction was only viewed as important by autistic Atlas nerds?  My parents are very pro-free trade, for example, and I doubt they even knew Hillary's stance on the issue (or cared).  Most of my less-politically-literate friends just saw this election as an intolerant,  billionaire Republican vs. a cold, technocratic Democrat who made overt appeals to minorities and called her opponent racist ... I think we overestimate the degree to which the average person saw this as some special or realigning election.  And why is it such common knowledge that Hillary is faking her opposition to TPP but Trump isn't??  The guy probably doesn't have a political view that he's held on record for more than 8 years...

Either way, my main point was that there is NO evidence (and quite a bit to the contrary) that the Democratic Party of 2016 and beyond is moving toward a more pro-free trade stance.  Just simply zero.  That "future" exists only among Fuzzy Bear and people like IndyTexas who fantasize about a Democratic Party that only encompasses those smart enough to see the light (which for several reasons is laughable, but the most notable is that such an "elite" party would never win the popular vote ever).

The experiences of you and your social circle are very far removed from that of the white working class in the rust belt that flocked to Trump this year. For them Trump's stance on trade was probably the deciding factor in their vote. As for why people trusted Trump over Hillary, I have no idea. He was by far the more dishonest candidate. I guess perceptions of Hillary have become so distorted by decades of smear campaigns.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

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.

The democrats embraced SJW culture and bashed white men constantly only to find that white men got tired of it and voted against them in record numbers. Naturally, they blame "racism" but the reality is that many of these "deplorables" voted for Obama hoping he would fix race relations, only to see them get worse. You say Trump's taking back race relations. what about BLM mobs attacking whites in Milwaukee and Charlotte because a black cop shot a black criminal?

The democrats created the racialized politics we have today (though such divides are inevitable in all diverse societies). Whites have awakened to the fact that the so-called "anti-racists" are usually just anti-white. When's the last time they called any place too black or too brown? Never, but they sure do attack things for being too white. I didn't see any liberals complaining when Hamilton sought exclusively non-white actors to play white historical figures (possibly breaking the law in doing so). Imagine a musical about MLK casting only whites. The cries of discrimination and cultural appropriation would be heard everywhere for days on end. Furthermore, whites have realized that they have as much of a right to vote in favor of their collective interests as any other race. For these reasons, less and less of them care what names (racist, bigot, irredeemable, etc) you call them. Why should they care what people in the beltway and Hollywood think of them anyway?

The people who celebrate the fact that whites are projected to be a minority in the US and Europe in coming decades and tell whites that they're privileged while their children are fighting an uphill battle against affirmative action to get into college and tell them that they can't really be poor because they're white are now the dominant force in the democratic party. You can either stop being anti-white and win some voters back or you can continue down the path you're on and wonder why so many people are embracing the alt-right. To be honest, I kind of hope you do the latter. We'll keep on winning and laughing as you whine about how much racism there is now.

This comes from a "cuckservative" site that condemns white identity, but this article at least explains why it's rising.  http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/how-anti-white-rhetoric-is-fueling-white-nationalism/

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

The democrats embraced SJW culture and bashed white men constantly only to find that white men got tired of it and voted against them in record numbers. Naturally, they blame "racism" but the reality is that many of these "deplorables" voted for Obama hoping he would fix race relations, only to see them get worse. You say Trump's taking back race relations. what about BLM mobs attacking whites in Milwaukee and Charlotte because a black cop shot a black criminal?

The democrats created the racialized politics we have today (though such divides are inevitable in all diverse societies). Whites have awakened to the fact that the so-called "anti-racists" are usually just anti-white. When's the last time they called any place too black or too brown? Never, but they sure do attack things for being too white. I didn't see any liberals complaining when Hamilton sought exclusively non-white actors to play white historical figures (possibly breaking the law in doing so). Imagine a musical about MLK casting only whites. The cries of discrimination and cultural appropriation would be heard everywhere for days on end. Furthermore, whites have realized that they have as much of a right to vote in favor of their collective interests as any other race. For these reasons, less and less of them care what names (racist, bigot, irredeemable, etc) you call them. Why should they care what people in the beltway and Hollywood think of them anyway?

The people who celebrate the fact that whites are projected to be a minority in the US and Europe in coming decades and tell whites that they're privileged while their children are fighting an uphill battle against affirmative action to get into college and tell them that they can't really be poor because they're white are now the dominant force in the democratic party. You can either stop being anti-white and win some voters back or you can continue down the path you're on and wonder why so many people are embracing the alt-right. To be honest, I kind of hope you do the latter. We'll keep on winning and laughing as you whine about how much racism there is now.

This comes from a "cuckservative" site that condemns white identity, but this article at least explains why it's rising.  http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/how-anti-white-rhetoric-is-fueling-white-nationalism/

oh sweetie

[Technocracy Timmy]

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

This response makes the most sense in the fewest amount of words.

The Democrats would be killed in a 2020 general election if they tried using a playbook that is nearly 30 years old.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I'll just say: this thread is the epitome of everything Atlas.

[Lachi]

Lol, a republican trying to tell democrats what could happen to their own party if something happens

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Democrats have the governor and legislative control of the fewest states since reconstruction.
Before they lost a mere 6 seats last year, Republicans had the most represenatives since the crash of '29.
After 2018, the Republicans could easily have more Senate seats than they've had since '29.
The Supreme Court is of course gone too.

We're in the abyss, and 3rd way is digging deeper.

[they don't love you like i love you]

What Crabcake said. "Third Way" is an absolutely useless term today unless referring to its historical use. There is also no such thing as "new Democrats" anymore.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

Neither Obama nor Hillary was a real moderate.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

Neither Obama nor Hillary was a real moderate.

Neither is the most popular politician in the country at the moment.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

Neither Obama nor Hillary was a real moderate.

Okay, then who exactly is a "real moderate"?

My goodness, I have started sounding like some moderate version of you or ExtremeRepublican.

[SoLongAtlas]

Agree to a certain extent. Liberal political persuasions are on the rise, social is pretty much settled. Economically speaking, other than share of wealth, small fed govt, limited engagements worldwide, reasonable tax structures will always poll well ahead of liberal ideas on those issues. 3rd way was a good way. The 90s were finally an era of moderation and growth (granted the tech rise) but Bill did a decent job until his scandals bit him in the end.

[136or142]

I agree with this, not just in terms of politics, but, even more importantly, in terms of governing.  Unfortunately, the way the OP posted it, it sounds like concern trolling.

[Kingpoleon]

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. 

1.) You're a Republican, therefore I question whether you are the proper authority to prescribe Democrats' winning strategy for the future.

2.) I disagree with your hypothesis. Did you ever consider that Democrats have won the last six of seven popular votes because they were viewed as the lesser evil. I was a Republican in 2012 and voted for Romney, but looking back, it is quite clear to me that Obama was a better candidate than Romney and certainly better than McCain. Likewise, given that "hindsight is 20/20," I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would opine that Bush was a better choice than Gore in 2000.

I would argue Bush was a better choice than Gore in 2000.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Clinton lost because of racial polarisation driving more whites to support the all-but-explicit white identity candidate. That's basically it (did anyone even talk about economics during the campaign?). Pennsylvania Deplorable's post, even though I disagree with all of it and think the sentiment is pretty disgusting, is instructive in this regard.

Seen this way, Hillary's "deplorable moment" was the exact inverse of the "Sister Souljah moment" Bill did in 92 when the Third Way was a thing. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton lost because of racial polarisation driving more whites to support the all-but-explicit white identity candidate. That's basically it (did anyone even talk about economics during the campaign?). Pennsylvania Deplorable's post, even though I disagree with all of it and think the sentiment is pretty disgusting, is instructive in this regard.

Seen this way, Hillary's "deplorable moment" was the exact inverse of the "Sister Souljah moment" Bill did in 92 when the Third Way was a thing. 

It was the inverse of what Hillary herself did in her 2008 campaign. To the Clintons, identity is something to use divide and conquer techniques with.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Clinton lost because of racial polarisation driving more whites to support the all-but-explicit white identity candidate. That's basically it (did anyone even talk about economics during the campaign?). Pennsylvania Deplorable's post, even though I disagree with all of it and think the sentiment is pretty disgusting, is instructive in this regard.

Seen this way, Hillary's "deplorable moment" was the exact inverse of the "Sister Souljah moment" Bill did in 92 when the Third Way was a thing.  

I don't know if you're trolling or not but trade protectionism was at the forefront of Trump's platform and campaign focus from day one and he never relented on it.

[Beet]

Pennsylvania Deplorable was a good, articulate poster. If they were around today, I'd say that.

[catographer]

I think the Democratic Party's ideological choice will be less clear than the dichotomy that people present it as. The mainstream of the party is more liberal than Bill Clinton was; Obama is the new middle of the party. Hillary Clinton is in that same spot. Going forward, the party has a choice from a spectrum ranging from 3rd Way centrism to Sanders progressivism, but also a choice to find a common ground and reconcile those two wings. I think the middle ground will be a winning strategy, but only with the right candidates and the right message.

Also, hard to predict the ideological trajectories of the parties. I reckon few of us expected the GOP to go from anti-Russia, pro-free trade, and internationalism to pro-Russia, anti-free trade, and nationalism in the span of one election cycle.