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

[Spark]

[RINO Tom]

It's not that simple, but it will collapse (and arguably already has) if it doesn't, ya know, act like a liberal party.

[Virginiá]

What exactly do you mean by 'collapse'? Because there are a lot of people who might find the word 'collapse' adequate for the party's current state.

If you mean collapse as in the party might disappear - then just stop there. Questions you might have whose hypothetical outcome is the party ceasing to exist should by default be answered 'won't happen,' unless you have a viable and plausible theory already. This is because parties are extremely durable, and have survived much worse than the Democratic Party's current predicament.

[°Leprechaun]

The Democratic party has been going downhill since 1964. Obviously it is also deeply divided. It was divided as far back as 1968. Obama did ok in 2008 and 2012, but he didn't have good coattails the way candidates did in the past. The party is dieing in many places, especially the South.
Obviously, no candidate since 1996 has done well in the South in POTUS elections.
A lot depends on what happens in the next three years, especially if Democrats can start turning things around, (11/2018, for example). It is hard to predict what Trump will do. The stock market seems to be ok so far, but there are other factors, not all strictly economic.

If Democrats could reach beyond the extremely narrow groups that they are pandering to they might do better.
Republicans can pander to the tea party and the so called "religious" (aka so called "christian") right and get away with it because those groups are bigger than the groups to which Democrats are pandering. Perhaps they need a better economic message. Sanders seems to have done better among certain middle class voters in two key swing states, MI & WI where he won the primaries.
Democrats have done an excellent job of alienating Bernie voters taking their votes for granted and some would even blame him for Clinton's loss and not put any blame on Clinton herself. Can and/have the Democrats considered if any potential candidate can or could bring the disparate two factions together or will they continue to eat their own?

[Person Man]

What exactly do you mean by 'collapse'? Because there are a lot of people who might find the word 'collapse' adequate for the party's current state.

If you mean collapse as in the party might disappear - then just stop there. Questions you might have whose hypothetical outcome is the party ceasing to exist should by default be answered 'won't happen,' unless you have a viable and plausible theory already. This is because parties are extremely durable, and have survived much worse than the Democratic Party's current predicament.

I definitely don't think that the Republican brand will become universally accepted or that their party will become truly popular in the near future but eventually in this polarized environment, if the Democrats keep losing, eventually they will just give up, right?

A lot of Democrats just before the election in 2006 were suggesting that if they couldn't even win the House, there would simply be more very liberal Congresscritters going the way of Bernie and becoming Independent or Green. I even heard Charlie Cook say something to the effect that if they didn't win the Senate, they were going to fire a bunch of people and if they didn't win the House, they would "go the way of the whigs". In effect, I could see that if the Democrats lose both 2018 and 2020, and especially if the Republicans are able to pass their legislative and judicial agenda and still aren't very popular, that there will be a lot of Independents running in 2022 and Dems might endorse an Independent for President in 2024.  

I was hearing a lot of TEA Party folks saying that if their wins were kept to a minimum in 2010 that there was "going to be a revolution".

[PragmaticPopulist]

I highly doubt it. I always think back to this famous saying:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's pretty much what Democrats had in mind when they took regained the house in 2006. They just found good candidates that fit their district. A lot of the new representatives were in rural districts, and tended to be centrist.

[Virginiá]

A lot of Democrats just before the election in 2006 were suggesting that if they couldn't even win the House, there would simply be more very liberal Congresscritters going the way of Bernie and becoming Independent or Green.

I mean, that would be silly. Why abandon the Democratic Party for a party that is even less successful (by far)? Lots of people have these dreams and fantasies of making other parties relevant, but besides an election or two at the state/local level, they hardly ever make a difference. Our system is built for 2 parties, and the Democratic Party is simply too well known and too ubiquitous to be supplanted. It could happen, but it would have to be some cinema-esque situation that just comes together perfectly "against all odds," as the trope goes.

I even heard Charlie Cook say something to the effect that if they didn't win the Senate, they were going to fire a bunch of people and if they didn't win the House, they would "go the way of the whigs".

Pundits and professional prognosticators love saying that stuff. I still stand by my point that both parties have been in worse situations and still toiled their way through hard times. Look at the post-Civil War era - the Democratic Party was a minority party at the federal level for almost 72 years, and while they had some success in the House and a few odd wins here and there in terms of Senate majorities / White House, it was mostly bleak. Republicans got hollowed out during the New Deal and they still bounced back. So yeah, comparatively, the Democratic Party isn't in that bad of a position.

I have a good feeling that by 2019, people will be singing a different tune. Republicans had an often-unpopular Democratic president they could milk for midterm waves, and now the shoe is on the other foot.

[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.

[The Mikado]

What the hell is this

[Virginiá]

What the hell is this

^ the post that was heard around the world

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah if they nominate Amy Klobuchar, who is very close to the Sanders campaign.

That's what nomination fights are for, but the one between Klobuchar and Booker will not divide the party like the 2016 campaign did, due to ethics, the dems will unite behind Booker and thus no need for the Sanders people to vote for either Johnson or Stein, anymore.

[Person Man]

A lot of Democrats just before the election in 2006 were suggesting that if they couldn't even win the House, there would simply be more very liberal Congresscritters going the way of Bernie and becoming Independent or Green.

I mean, that would be silly. Why abandon the Democratic Party for a party that is even less successful (by far)? Lots of people have these dreams and fantasies of making other parties relevant, but besides an election or two at the state/local level, they hardly ever make a difference. Our system is built for 2 parties, and the Democratic Party is simply too well known and too ubiquitous to be supplanted. It could happen, but it would have to be some cinema-esque situation that just comes together perfectly "against all odds," as the trope goes.

I even heard Charlie Cook say something to the effect that if they didn't win the Senate, they were going to fire a bunch of people and if they didn't win the House, they would "go the way of the whigs".

Pundits and professional prognosticators love saying that stuff. I still stand by my point that both parties have been in worse situations and still toiled their way through hard times. Look at the post-Civil War era - the Democratic Party was a minority party at the federal level for almost 72 years, and while they had some success in the House and a few odd wins here and there in terms of Senate majorities / White House, it was mostly bleak. Republicans got hollowed out during the New Deal and they still bounced back. So yeah, comparatively, the Democratic Party isn't in that bad of a position.

I have a good feeling that by 2019, people will be singing a different tune. Republicans had an often-unpopular Democratic president they could milk for midterm waves, and now the shoe is on the other foot.

The dems did pretty well between 1876 (first post reconstruction election) and 1896 (McKinley). They went 2-3 in presidential elections and did pretty well in the Congress.

The McKinley dynasty was sustained because TR had a Moderate Hero reputation that broke up the GOP. Democrats had at least some influence that way. The only time the Democrats were locked out of any influence at all were the 20s.  

I am not saying there will be no Democrats in 5 or 20 years but hopefully that there will be a viable brand and platform with a new leadership if the Democrats don't deliver next cycle.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

No.

[Strudelcutie4427]

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

[RINO Tom]

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.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

[henster]

I am really tired of 'is X party dead' or 'will X party collapse/ever win again',look where Republicans were in 2009 they were in far worse shape and look where hey are now. Political parties don't just collapse and die the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth.

[RINO Tom]

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.

LOL, no.  Most of Clinton's voters were not "urban professionals," dude.

[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.

[Alabama_Indy10]

The Democratic Party has been around nearly 200 years and hasn't embraced socialism. Why should that change now?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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.

[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.

[Don Vito Corleone]

"Bernieism"?

This is a cult

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

The Hillary campaign basically told progressives to go screw themselves. As for Eisenhower Republicanism, that would be far preferable to the neoliberals running the Democratic party.

[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.