The case for a new Democratic Leadership Council

[hopper]

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

Nobody liked Hillary though. Had Hillary been elected, the GOP would of won a super majority in 2018. Hillary was totally loathed by the Bernie wing of the party even more than the Republicans hated her.

I think this will end in one of 2 ways:

1) Trump is where Carter was in 1976. Disliked by the opposing party yet not trusted or liked by his own party; on the cusp of an emerging realignment that hasn't quite been figured out yet. Trump may fail miserably at things totally our of his control like Carter did or just flat out fail to lead.

-or-

2) Trump is where Reagan was in the 80s. Meaning that he will do a decent job as president but the opposing party will make tons of gains and keep him in check while they figure out who/what their party is about.

Both parties are fractured and your seeing splits emerge even right now. Alot of the neocon faction of the GOP endorsed Hillary. If Trump pals up with Russia, your going to see that part split and possibly join with the Democratic coalition. Trump has also turned off a decent amount of republicans from the idea that the free market can solve every problem. They now dislike free trade and are warming up the idea that health care is a right. If Trump fails to deliver on these things then that's a wing of the GOP that can be split and taken by the Democrats in 2020, much like the GOP took blue collar Democrats in 1980.

The thing is, Democratic politicians and Democratic voters (outside of teens on Atlas and self-absorbed "pundits" on CNN) don't want to alter their policies in a way that would appeal to those voters.  Moderate/business/affluent/neocon/whatever Republicans might not like Trump, but their alternative is worse, and they voted accordingly in 2016.  I highly doubt the Democrats will move in a direction that appeals to them, and so far they've done the opposite.

True the Dems don't want to change because they think their coalition of minority voters is good enough to win a Presidential Race in 2020. They think what's the use of pandering to White Voters when the dominant growing share of the US population is Latino.

The Dems think they aren't left-wing enough but they are acting like Republicans(i.e. Conservative Talk Radio) were after 2012 in that the Republicans weren't conservative enough.

[hopper]

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

Nobody liked Hillary though. Had Hillary been elected, the GOP would of won a super majority in 2018. Hillary was totally loathed by the Bernie wing of the party even more than the Republicans hated her.

I think this will end in one of 2 ways:

1) Trump is where Carter was in 1976. Disliked by the opposing party yet not trusted or liked by his own party; on the cusp of an emerging realignment that hasn't quite been figured out yet. Trump may fail miserably at things totally our of his control like Carter did or just flat out fail to lead.

-or-

2) Trump is where Reagan was in the 80s. Meaning that he will do a decent job as president but the opposing party will make tons of gains and keep him in check while they figure out who/what their party is about.

Both parties are fractured and your seeing splits emerge even right now. Alot of the neocon faction of the GOP endorsed Hillary. If Trump pals up with Russia, your going to see that part split and possibly join with the Democratic coalition. Trump has also turned off a decent amount of republicans from the idea that the free market can solve every problem. They now dislike free trade and are warming up the idea that health care is a right. If Trump fails to deliver on these things then that's a wing of the GOP that can be split and taken by the Democrats in 2020, much like the GOP took blue collar Democrats in 1980.

True on Free Trade but I don't know if GOP Voters think healthcare is a right.

I don't think Trump thinks that the free market can solve every problem either.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

F**k the DLC and all they stand for.

[Person Man]

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

Nobody liked Hillary though. Had Hillary been elected, the GOP would of won a super majority in 2018. Hillary was totally loathed by the Bernie wing of the party even more than the Republicans hated her.

I think this will end in one of 2 ways:

1) Trump is where Carter was in 1976. Disliked by the opposing party yet not trusted or liked by his own party; on the cusp of an emerging realignment that hasn't quite been figured out yet. Trump may fail miserably at things totally our of his control like Carter did or just flat out fail to lead.

-or-

2) Trump is where Reagan was in the 80s. Meaning that he will do a decent job as president but the opposing party will make tons of gains and keep him in check while they figure out who/what their party is about.

Both parties are fractured and your seeing splits emerge even right now. Alot of the neocon faction of the GOP endorsed Hillary. If Trump pals up with Russia, your going to see that part split and possibly join with the Democratic coalition. Trump has also turned off a decent amount of republicans from the idea that the free market can solve every problem. They now dislike free trade and are warming up the idea that health care is a right. If Trump fails to deliver on these things then that's a wing of the GOP that can be split and taken by the Democrats in 2020, much like the GOP took blue collar Democrats in 1980.

True on Free Trade but I don't know if GOP Voters think healthcare is a right.

I don't think Trump thinks that the free market can solve every problem either.

They only need to win enough to cause trouble.

[RaphaelDLG]

I am STRONGLY against a resurgence of the DLC.  I think DLC-style microtargeting, donor-asskissing political strategy bears a large part of the blame (though certainly not all) for the Democratic loss at the Presidential, state, local levels, etc.

Your writeup, however sounds like the INVERSE of the DLC - moderation on social issues, not moderation on economic issues.

Which I am in favor of, though I really think most of the moderation, save issues like guns and abortion, just needs to be rhetorical for it to work.