Are the Dems in disarray?

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

A perennially relevant question.

[Xing]

Well, we don’t want Politico to go bankrupt, now do we?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course. The Dems have always been in disarray. Martin Van Buren and his buddies were already in disarray back when they were talking about creating a new party. The Dems were constantly in disarray all the while FDR was passing New Deal legislation left and right. Even at the height of LBJ's power Dems were still in disarray. The Obama Presidency saw Dems continuously in disarray, even when he won reelection. The history of the US Democratic Party is nothing but the history of disarray.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Unlike Republicans, Democrats actually have room for disagreement and debate as a “Big Tent” party so to speak. Yes, we should have core values (Respect for diversity, civil rights, universal health care, sensible gun laws) — and those values should be a requirement for being a Democrat, but the implementation and how to best effect those things is being hotly debated by many factions and voices in the Democratic Party right now, and I think we’ll emerge stronger for it.

[Crumpets]

Roses are red,
Wilbur Ross is gray,
Democrats are always,
in disarray.

[T'Chenka]

The corporate Democrats are losing a lot of ground to the progressive wave. They're being exposed as Corporate Republican-Lite at the same time that voters are adopting progressive or semi-progressive agendas. The fact that AOC isn't old enough to run for president (and become the frontrunner) is contributing to Pelosi-crats still holding onto power, albeit with a weaker and weaker grip.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

The corporate Democrats are losing a lot of ground to the progressive wave. They're being exposed as Corporate Republican-Lite at the same time that voters are adopting progressive or semi-progressive agendas. The fact that AOC isn't old enough to run for president (and become the frontrunner) is contributing to Pelosi-crats still holding onto power, albeit with a weaker and weaker grip.

Even as a huge fan of AOC, she doesn’t need to be president for at least another decade or two.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course. The Dems have always been in disarray. Martin Van Buren and his buddies were already in disarray back when they were talking about creating a new party. The Dems were constantly in disarray all the while FDR was passing New Deal legislation left and right. Even at the height of LBJ's power Dems were still in disarray. The Obama Presidency saw Dems continuously in disarray, even when he won reelection. The history of the US Democratic Party is nothing but the history of disarray.

"I don't belong to an organized political party.  I'm a Democrat!" - Will Rogers

"The Dimmycratic Party ain't on speakin' terms with itself." - Finley Peter Dunne as "Mr. Dooley"

[T'Chenka]

The corporate Democrats are losing a lot of ground to the progressive wave. They're being exposed as Corporate Republican-Lite at the same time that voters are adopting progressive or semi-progressive agendas. The fact that AOC isn't old enough to run for president (and become the frontrunner) is contributing to Pelosi-crats still holding onto power, albeit with a weaker and weaker grip.

Even as a huge fan of AOC, she doesn’t need to be president for at least another decade or two.

Ideally yes, I agree.

I'm just passionate about (North) Americans discovering and embracing progressivism, people waking up to the disgusting state of corporatism, and progressivism gaining true power and influence in our society. If that means Ocasio-Cortez becomes president a little too young, but the country experiences some sort of cultural awakening and progressive revolution, I'm willing to accept that she might make a few mistakes here and there due to lack of experience and wisdom.

It's the price I'm willing to pay. Bernie in this election is a better choice, but I'm not sure he can grow the movement further as much as AOC can.

[ON Progressive]

Well, we don’t want Politico to go bankrupt, now do we?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

The corporate Democrats are losing a lot of ground to the progressive wave. They're being exposed as Corporate Republican-Lite at the same time that voters are adopting progressive or semi-progressive agendas. The fact that AOC isn't old enough to run for president (and become the frontrunner) is contributing to Pelosi-crats still holding onto power, albeit with a weaker and weaker grip.

Even as a huge fan of AOC, she doesn’t need to be president for at least another decade or two.

Ideally yes, I agree.

I'm just passionate about (North) Americans discovering and embracing progressivism, people waking up to the disgusting state of corporatism, and progressivism gaining true power and influence in our society. If that means Ocasio-Cortez becomes president a little too young, but the country experiences some sort of cultural awakening and progressive revolution, I'm willing to accept that she might make a few mistakes here and there due to lack of experience and wisdom.

It's the price I'm willing to pay. Bernie in this election is a better choice, but I'm not sure he can grow the movement further as much as AOC can.

I love AOC and her policies, and I generally agree with you — but I fear someone as inexperienced as AOC could actually set our cause back significantly if she were elevated to such a high position so quickly. Of course we both know this isn’t going to happen, but AOC for Senate if Schumer resigns and then maybe AOC 2028 or 2032? Definitely, she’s the face of the (growing and inevitable) millennial revolution in our party.

[junior chįmp]

The Democratic Party has no identity and the people who are considered its potential leaders are never beens like crusty Joe Biden, who reminds one of a shag rug and waterbed salesman, and central casting stiffs like Kamala Harris who are like one of those dolls who when you pull the string, recites some mind-numbing SJW drivel or pointless plattitudes(though generally limited to 5 or 6 phrases).

Then you have the lower tier B actors of the party who form like a identity politics Justice League with each potential candidate occupying a specific identity that the Democratic Party feels it owes them their votes without ever having to conform to a set of principles or divulging anything of substance.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yes, from all that Republican pouncing.

[T'Chenka]

The Democratic Party has no identity and the people who are considered its potential leaders are never beens like crusty Joe Biden, who reminds one of a shag rug and waterbed salesman, and central casting stiffs like Kamala Harris who are like one of those dolls who when you pull the string, recites some mind-numbing SJW drivel or pointless plattitudes(though generally limited to 5 or 6 phrases).

Then you have the lower tier B actors of the party who form like a identity politics Justice League with each potential candidate occupying a specific identity that the Democratic Party feels it owes them their votes without ever having to conform to a set of principles or divulging anything of substance.

What about the "Bernie-crats"? They don't have a set of principles and don't divulge substance? Do you even know what you're talking about?

Now, someone could criticize those principles and that substance in 100 million ways, and many do, but is it really reasonable to sit there and say that Bernie Sanders has no principles?

[here2view]

Not really, they just gained 40 seats in the House and the primary has barely begun.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Well, we don’t want Politico to go bankrupt, now do we?

[The Dowager Mod]

The Dems are Always in disarray, it's part of who they are.

[Cold War Liberal]

Roses are red,
Wilbur Ross is gray,
Democrats are always,
in disarray.

I read this as

Roses are red,
Wilbur Ross is gay,
Democrats are always,
in disarray.

But anyway, yes, the Democrats are in disarray because on top of actually being the party that looks, loves, and prays like America, we actually have the only diversity Republicans say they care about: diversity of thought.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, Dems aren't in disarray, Dems have Harris and/or Biden in the lead for the presidency, who can beat Trump, who didn't live up to expectations: not keep America the same, again, but make America great again, better than before.

[Joe Republic]

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Democrats are less diverse than ever, in terms of ideology.  In that respect, so is the GOP.  This is the result of a more ideologically-based party system that we have today.  No Democratic Senator can declare today (as Herman Talmadge of Georgia declared in 1972) that he was "poles apart" from the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee (as he was, position-wise, from George McGovern in 1972).  The Democrats are not that kind of party anymore.

The line of cleavage within the party is rapidly becoming a split between Democratic Socialists (of the AOC mold) and the Neoliberal left that has come to dominate states like California and the New England states.  None of these folks would be comfortable being Republicans, but it is not inconceivable that some of the Neoliberals would join the GOP if the GOP dropped its Social Conservatism (which, IMO, is not likely at all).  Secret Socialists have long been a part of the Democratic Party, but now they are declaring themselves and "Capitalism", itself, is becoming an issue for Democrats.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. 

[pbrower2a]

Democrats have a quarterback controversy on the Presidency.. while facing the Commodus of American Presidents.

[T'Chenka]

Secret Socialists have long been a part of the Democratic Party, but now they are declaring themselves and "Capitalism", itself, is becoming an issue for Democrats.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.  

Out of all the Bernie/AOC progressives relevant to American politics at this time, NONE of them have an issue with capitalism itself.  All of these people want and desire capitalism. They have issues with corruption, oligarchy and a lack of regulation. They are striving for a Denmark / Sweden style of system, which you can easily research and see is 100% capitalist.

There is NO battle against capitalism. There are NO calls for communism. I love Bsrnie and AOC to death, but they make a big mistake using the term "socialism" to describe their beliefs. That word is a political cancer; and what they are seeking is a more socialized version of a CAPITALIST system.

The worst part is, you know this Fuzzy. Many conservatives know this actually. They just refuse to stop using this misleading talking point as propoganda. Bernie foolishly gave them an excuse to smear him and they've been running with it for years. What I wonder is, why are conservatives so desperate to use misleading arguments to make the other side SEEM to be wrong, instead if just touting their own supposedly superior ideas? Shouldn't an idea's superiority be able to win hearts and minds over other ideas without trickery? Hmm..

[136or142]

The so-called Green New Deal may have shifted the 'Overton Window'

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/some-gop-lawmakers-are-thawing-on-climate-change

Some GOP lawmakers are thawing on climate change
‘There are some things I’m willing to look at,’ said House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows

I don't think the 'Green New Deal' or 'Medicare for All' were ever more than slogans, but AOC does seem to appreciate the way to shift debate.

"Shimkus agreed with the sentiment that Democrats’ Green New Deal created an opportunity to craft a more politically-moderate approach to addressing climate that could receive buy-in from his party."

[Progressive Pessimist]

The so-called Green New Deal may have shifted the 'Overton Window'

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/some-gop-lawmakers-are-thawing-on-climate-change

Some GOP lawmakers are thawing on climate change
‘There are some things I’m willing to look at,’ said House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows

I don't think the 'Green New Deal' or 'Medicare for All' were ever more than slogans, but AOC does seem to appreciate the way to shift debate.

"Shimkus agreed with the sentiment that Democrats’ Green New Deal created an opportunity to craft a more politically-moderate approach to addressing climate that could receive buy-in from his party."

I guess that theory of overselling to reach a favorable compromise, that I always see being advocated for on this forum (especially among the more further left posters), works.