How Democrats Can heal the Schism in Their Party

[JA]

How Democrats Can Heal the Schism in Their Party

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SoLongAtlas]

Good article. They can help themselves by getting off this identity politics train and moderate their message to actually reach out to people not in auto-Dem states. Not everyone lives in an urban-suburban environment, is agnostic, pushes ID everyday, and has sufficient revenue to do $15 or more for minimum wage, hangs with computer programmers and pushes the newest iPhone, etc. 

Get rid of the techno-urban elitist image and voters, esp. the needed indies will flock to them in 20. Granted I am an indy and voted against Trump, albeit very hold your nose for HC style. Get someone that voters don't have to reluctantly vote for.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democratic party would of course do better if they dump the idiotic identity politics part and come up with actual progressive solutions for those who have lost their jobs due to automation or offshoring. But they don't want to. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The Democratic party would of course do better if they dump the idiotic identity politics part and come up with actual progressive solutions for those who have lost their jobs due to automation or offshoring. But they don't want to. 

That would involve getting off their Wall Street based gravy train.

Sure, Bernie proved you can fundraise from your voters, instead of being a pet for the 1%. But that's hard, and looks like work, and it certainly isn't as fun as rubbing elbows at $1000 a plate dinners. (And probably doesn't help with the post-facto bribes and sinecures either.)

The Dem establishment isn't really interested in winning jack for their constituents, they just need to be a credible enough alternative to the GOP that the 1% keep buying them off just to be safe.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well duh. But the problem is that the corporate wing will never accept that. That's why it needs to be purged.

[KingSweden]

The only politician I've ever seen speak w/ any eloquence about automation before is Ben Sasse, and for better or worse I don't see his brand of conservatism as ascendant

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If the tell the Clintons to STFU, that would be a good start.

[Person Man]

 The problem is that they need the money from the donors. Then again, in 2016, they got a lot of money, but they just didn't get the votes. They may have to give up money to get more votes, but if they lose too much money, they will start losing votes (because they won't be able to run a ubiquitous enough csmpaign and GOTV). The way forward ultimately comes down to getting on the right point on the PPC where votes are maximal. If that doesn't work, then they don't have enough votes. Of course the issue then if they can anything done that actually works.

[Virginiá]

The problem is that they need the money from the donors. Then again, in 2016, they got a lot of money, but they just didn't get the votes. They may have to give up money to get more votes, but if they lose too much money, they will start losing votes (because they won't be able to run a ubiquitous enough csmpaign and GOTV). The way forward ultimately comes down to getting on the right point on the PPC where votes are maximal. If that doesn't work, then they don't have enough votes. Of course the issue then if they can anything done that actually works.

Personally I think money matters somewhat less than I thought when I first joined this forum. Politicians are just kind of pushed into wanting it by the fear that they will be outspent and that it could make the difference. Of course I think it still matters more and more the lower downballot you go, where candidates have a lot less profile.

If progressives want to make the most progress, I think they ought to work the hardest on winning primaries in safe seats, and work outwards from there. Go where they don't really need that much money in the long-run, and let the moderates and more monied interests work on the seats that actually need it, at least for the time being anyway.

[Coraxion]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Good article. They can help themselves by getting off this identity politics train and moderate their message to actually reach out to people not in auto-Dem states. Not everyone lives in an urban-suburban environment, is agnostic, pushes ID everyday, and has sufficient revenue to do $15 or more for minimum wage, hangs with computer programmers and pushes the newest iPhone, etc. 

Get rid of the techno-urban elitist image and voters, esp. the needed indies will flock to them in 20. Granted I am an indy and voted against Trump, albeit very hold your nose for HC style. Get someone that voters don't have to reluctantly vote for.

since you prefer throwing out not just identity politics (whatever that is meant to be) but most of the party program, what exactly should the democratic party stand for then in your opinion, contrary to the republican party?

(besides the point, that the democrats ofc need their urban voters to come out and vote)

[RINO Tom]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

Speaking from personal experience, friend, you are about to be arguing with your party members a LOT over the next four years if you're still clinging to Clintonism.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

Speaking from personal experience, friend, you are about to be arguing with your party members a LOT over the next four years if you're still clinging to Clintonism.

When did caring about equal treatment of minorities become "Clintonism"? Heck throughout the primaries Bernie whenever he brought Trump up called him a "racist" before any criticism of his economic policies

[RINO Tom]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

Speaking from personal experience, friend, you are about to be arguing with your party members a LOT over the next four years if you're still clinging to Clintonism.

When did caring about equal treatment of minorities become "Clintonism"? Heck throughout the primaries Bernie whenever he brought Trump up called him a "racist" before any criticism of his economic policies

Just going off of his past posts and inferring deeper meaning.  One such post stated that he would not care about welcoming fiscal conservatives who voted with the GOP on economic issues into the party if it meant winning a majority in Congress, for example.

[James Monroe]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

[Yank2133]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

[Sumner 1868]

The idea Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on a strong civil rights agenda is blatant revisionism.

[Santander]

Right, the party that actively fights against the Bill of Rights is the civil rights party.

[SoLongAtlas]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

Except when the GOP does it, they win. When the Dems play it, they come across as SJWs and "out-of-touch big city elitists that we don't take too kindly to around here" Just saying...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The idea Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on a strong civil rights agenda is blatant revisionism.

Well, I expect she had web pages, power points, and some really nifty statements that amounted to a very strong civil rights agenda on paper. It's certainly not what came across as the or a theme of her campaign. (Her campaign could have benefited from *any* strong theme beyond "don't vote for Trump".)

[Technocracy Timmy]

The idea Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on a strong civil rights agenda is blatant revisionism.

Agreed. Anybody who thought Clinton even had a coherent narrative to voters beyond being third term Obama is lying to themselves. I still can't figure out what her core message was. I know what Trump's was: trade and immigration. Hillary? Could've been anything.

[ApatheticAustrian]

It's not "identity politics". It's civil rights. If anyone is playing identity politics, it's the GOP.

Except when the GOP does it, they win. When the Dems play it, they come across as SJWs and "out-of-touch big city elitists that we don't take too kindly to around here" Just saying...

i would appreciate an answer to my question above

[Mr. Smith]

Right, the party that actively fights against the Bill of Rights is the civil rights party.

Ah, so that's how you construe the GOP as the Civil Rights party, got it.

But what do you care, you're a monarchist anyway, no?

[The_Doctor]

Tom Perrielo basically hits on the themes of the upcoming realignment, which is the shift from neoliberalism to populism. He understands that if the Democratic Party emphasizes economic growth and equality but maintains the socially liberal ideology they had they can win a realigning election. There's a reason Hillary won the popular vote with Bernie's platform and it wasn't all Trump's fat mouth.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Tom Perrielo basically hits on the themes of the upcoming realignment, which is the shift from neoliberalism to populism. He understands that if the Democratic Party emphasizes economic growth and equality but maintains the socially liberal ideology they had they can win a realigning election. There's a reason Hillary won the popular vote with Bernie's platform and it wasn't all Trump's fat mouth.

I think that a lot of it can be attributed to Trump though. I don't think Rubio or Kasich would've lost the PV against Clinton.