So can we get rid of the stupid "progressive vs establishment" false dichotomy now?

[JHan]

Gillum had a fabulous win last night and he's a good candidate. The primary was never a factional brawl despite media narratives desperately wishing it were so...

Gillum's career didn't begin with anyone's endorsement. Gillum has built a career over a decade through hard work and grit. And his efforts have now brought him within reach of a Governorship.

He is not a footnote in someone else's story.

He enjoyed support among all kinds of Democrats, and he especially benefitted from support among the base of the Democratic Party.

Even those who supported Graham, are happy with his win. He is charismatic, his constituents in Tallahassee love him, and he has a bright political future regardless of what happens in November.

But above all, it shows that those pushing factionalism between progressives and "establishment" need to be studiously ignored from here on.

[The Polack MSgt]

1. He is not a footnote in someone else's story.

[spicysista]

7. This!

[ehrnst]

2. Thank you. (nt)

[FSogol]

3. +1 Well said. n/t

[LAS14]

4. K & R

[DonCoquixote]

5. whenever someone tries to dtart this bs

refer them to this:

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/08/29/gwen-graham-we-must-all-put-all-our-efforts-behind-andrew-gillum/1126736002/

She told her supporters she congratulated Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who led the state's Democratic primary race by more than 42,000 votes in a historic upset, the Florida Division of Elections showed. She said Gillum has been a longtime friend and encouraged her supporters to embrace his campaign for governor.

“I said, ‘Now, Andrew, go out and win this damn thing,’” Graham said she told Gillum. “Because this is too important for the state of Florida. This is too important. This election was never about the candidate. It was always about the importance for the future of the state that you all love... The future of Florida is at stake.”

The former congresswoman expressed her support for Gillum in his race against Trump-backed Florida Republican nominee Ron DeSantis.

“We must all put all of our efforts behind Andrew Gillum and make sure that we do everything we can,” she said, “to have him elected governor on Nov. 6, 2018.”

[JHan]

6. yup, her response was great. I really hope Florida pulls through blue.

[DownriverDem]

20. Too Bad

Many comments on Raw Story are from so called progressives attacking the DNC for not helping Gillum. I don't know if it's true, but these folks just start trouble.

[bettyellen]

29. Gillum was given a speaking spot at the DNC convention and was a delegate- for Hillary.

Did they miss that because they booed him?

[Cha]

91. Scorch! They attack over nothing just to puff themselves up.

so-called "progressives".

[mcar]

28. She showed everyone how to lose graciously and how to support the winner

and the party.

[Cha]

92. Gwen Graham is the template for losing gracioulsy and a

Team Playa!

[Honeycombe8]

61. Why all the angst about progressive vs. moderate? Were there emails about Gillum by moderates in DU?

I didn't see any, but there may have been. What's the cause of these posts about progressive vs. moderates? This isn't the only thread.

I saw two yesterday about progressives being the real Democrats.

Then I see two today about moderates supposedly attacking progressive candidates like Gillum.

What's the deal on this?

[grumpyduck]

8. I don't understnad why people seem to be so hung up on labels

"I'm a progressive," "I'm a conservative," "I'm a redneck," "I'm a fiscally responsible right-wing Democrat," "I'm a Bible-thumping Klingon."

Many years ago I was working with a consultant on an architectural project for a government agency. The consultant had created a system for keeping track of utilities and such, and she and the client asked me what I thought they should call the thing. After hearing a bunch of made-up labels that meant absolutely nothing, I said I would just describe what the thing did in good ol' Queen's English. That went over like a lead balloon for a moment, but then they decided to do just that.

[JHan]

11. i stopped believing in labels when I decided to drink slightly expired grape juice.

I jest.

Labels can be useful, but as you point out people are way too invested in them because it's our way of branding ourselves and selling ourselves to the world.

Take Independent voters for example - "I'm an independent". It's their way of saying to the world I'm above the fray, I'm an "Iconoclast", I'm "different" when one could also argue they're indecisive and possess political views which are all over the place, without any rational, core foundation.

[DownriverDem]

21. Platform

If folks would read the platform they would see that the goals are very much progressive. I'm a proud Democrat.

[Squinch]

70. Because we have three long standing trolls who each like to stir it up almost every day, and lots

of people fall for it. (I include myself in that. It took me a while to catch on to their game.)

[sheshe2]

9. Thank you, JHan.

Well done...make Florida blue.

[JHan]

13. here's hoping.

Unless they like the smell of toxic algae blooms.

[ismnotwasm]

10. He also pulled in the African American vote

Concentrated on African American WOMEN in his campaign, which is part and parcel of the Democratic base. I am not familiar with Florida politics, so I took my own crash course on this guy. He is a uniter, he is a savvy politician and Florida is lucky to have him. Oh—and he’s easy on the eyes

[JHan]

12. Yup ...

and I agree he's easy on the eyes

[Cha]

93. I had a crash course, too, ismnotwasm! And, to expound on your post..

Gillum was just interviewed on CNN - he said this was a win for "the Barack Obama wing.....

....the Hillary Clinton wing, and the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party."

They also did an analysis on CNN of the victory, and say it was because of the overwhelming black turnout for him in the state.

It's a truly broad-based win for the entire Democratic Party and Gillum.

George https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2146130

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/08/29/how-the-black-vote-carried-andrew-gillum-to-victory/

[BlueMTexpat]

108. Great collection, Cha!

Mahalo!

[Cha]

109. Mahalo nui loa, BlueMTexpat!

[NCTraveler]

14. K&R

[tosh]

15. K & R!

[oberliner]

16. Can we get rid of the "Endorsements from Bernie Sanders don't mean anything" narrative also?

[JHan]

17. can you not.

[OilemFirchen]

23. There's one in every crowd.

Or, as we used to say in the used car business, "There's an ass for every seat."

Spot on OP, BTW. Thanks.

[JHan]

49. Yeah and the catch is ...

what I'm describing is a phenomenon which has plagued discourse among some Democrats for a few years now. Last night was a great example that it was all nonsense.

but ya know, people gonna to do their thing.

[herding cats]

86. They can't not.

It's actually comedic at this point to me.

Transparent as a piece of glass and we're all watching from our side and shaking our heads at the show.

[DownriverDem]

24. I don't care, but

It bugs that Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party, yet he uses the Democratic Party. Many of his supporters don't like the Dems. They say it all the time. It's like they are ignorant about how our electoral system works.

[ancianita]

38. Understand this: the Democratic Party USES HIM, not the other way around.

Quit bitching about Bernie. He touts our FDR Democratic Party line to change Repubs' minds. Those who know him at all know this.

WE in our party should be able to do the rest.

Stop picking at those who support Democrats.

People here need to recognize that Bernie chose a label for a reason that is NOT anti-Democratic Party.

Bernie really does keep this country liberal where regionally, culturally stigmatized Dems cannot. When he talks hard line progressivism, the hardliners of the right admire and respect that.

He AND GILLUM keep the conservatives thinking, thinking, and gradually moving to center to get the women's vote, religious vote, labor vote and youth vote.

And don't niggle with me, a 60-year Democrat, for defending party values no matter where they come from.

[questionseverything]

62. love your post,,,,bernie's ideas (single payer and legalized mj) are now more mainstream

i don't know how long it will take but at least the idea is out there

[bettyellen]

33. Unfortunately the contradiction between how some speak of delegates, how they treated speakers at

the DNC convention and suddenly claiming him as their own is glaring. It’s not pretty to watch.

[LanternWaste]

34. In case you're wondering, that particular meme is from this past spring.

I figure it's important to know when things are dated...

[Squinch]

71. Look how you worked that in there. Aren't you clever.

[SpicyBoi]

18. There's a post touting

That Gillum was a Hillary delegate and he didn’t know about Bernie’s endorsement until after the election.

So Id say no, we haven’t ended the false dichotomy.

[justie18]

26. Nevertheless

He did campaign for Hillary, was a delegate for her at the DNC convention. Recognizing this fact does not mean we have to continue the animosity between 'establishment' and 'progressive'.

[SpicyBoi]

58. 2018...

Sure but 2018 matters far more now, you’d agree?

That’s why I think bringing up his past is an attempt to diminish any contribution Bernie had.

[Cha]

95. No, it's stating facts about who Andrew Gillum is.

He's a Uniter Not a Divider.

Gillum was just interviewed on CNN - he said this was a win for "the Barack Obama wing.....

....the Hillary Clinton wing, and the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party."

They also did an analysis on CNN of the victory, and say it was because of the overwhelming black turnout for him in the state.

It's a truly broad-based win for the entire Democratic Party and Gillum.

George https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2146130

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/08/29/how-the-black-vote-carried-andrew-gillum-to-victory/

[lmcfigs]

45. That doesn't sound right

Huh? How could he not know about Bernie's endorsement until after the election if Bernie rallied with him just a few weeks ago.

[SpicyBoi]

57. My mistake!

Sorry the post said it was the voters as if to say that voters voted for him thinking he was more Clinton than Sanders.

Not that Gillum didn’t know. My mistake

[Squinch]

72. You know how to take down an untrue post right? You click the little "self-delete" button.

[Cha]

94. That was one post and it was obviously ridiculous.

[Squinch]

103. And the poster admits it was ridiculous, but doesn't take down his post

where he spreads the ridiculousness.

Wonder why.

[peggysue2]

19. Preach it, JHan!

Yes, this is it exactly. As I mentioned before, Gillum has proven himself to be A Man for All Seasons, a candidate who can stretch across the Democratic spectrum and encourage our electorate out to the polls in November. With supercharged energy.

It's a plus plus on all fronts. Btw, 100% on this:

But above all, it shows that those pushing factionalism between progressives and "establishment" need to be studiously ignored from here on.

Starting yesterday, straight into November.

Nobody's footnote. Love that line!

[JHan]

25. Thanks peggy.

Yes, his talents were obvious before this year, and that's why others shared his DNC convention speech.

All hands on deck at this point.

I'm also watching some journos dismiss his chances and their conclusions aren't based on actual data as far as I can tell (The usual crapola) Despite all the talk, midterms look dire for Republicans.

[Hekate]

22. K&R

[mcar]

27. He is not a footnote in someone else's story.

Can I borrow this to use it over and over and over again?

[JHan]

31. of course :)

[BlueJac]

30. K&R 100 times

[LisaM]

32. This is a great post.

I appreciate your perspective and thoughtful way of expressing things. And I agree that the Democratic party is progressive, and I get very tired of being labelled differently.

Your post made my blood pressure drop! Thank you.

[JHan]

46. thanks, it's something that's long bothered me as well.

[Magoo48]

35. Thanks for making some arguable points.

That said, and including the fact that I will continue to support democratic candidates, there is nothing false about the dichotomy between further left, progressive democrats and corporate supported, establishment democrats. We’re all under the tent right now, it’s ok to talk about it, it serves nobody to fight about it. Like many of you, I work hard to promote the election of democrats, but I work equally as hard to promote the values I believe in within the party. If we’re all doing that, then we will be well served. And, I will be told by no one who and what to ignore.

[JHan]

43. Yes, you'll find a fairly broad ideological spectrum within any political organization.

And political views and beliefs often exist on a continuum. Some may lean more moderate in some areas, and more radical in others, and these beliefs may evolve over time.

The false progressive vs establishment meme, in this context, is the idea that only those associated with a particular clique have the best interests of the voters at heart, which is not true. Good democrats have been smeared, and their records and the Democratic brand itself become tarnished because of this type of destructive factionalism which is not at all based on ideology.

One thing remains constant: The Democratic Party has evolved into being a party which invests in the social contract. The "social contract" isn't some fairy, pie in the sky, slogan. It's the view that a "persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live." This takes the form of taxation, infrastructure, schools, health etc. Significant progressive legislation on this front has been heralded by Democrats. Right now we have a Political Party - the GOP - intent on undoing that progress, so factional fights are not only strategically stupid, it plays into the hands of our opponents.

This is really what I'm addressing in my post.

And of course, we've all got our own opinions on things. We're all here speaking and shouting into the void, hoping to be heard. If you don't like this message, there's always trash thread.

[betsuni]

78. +1000000000000000

[Cha]

96. Thank You for explaining that so well, JHan!

The false progressive vs establishment meme, in this context, is the idea that only those associated with a particular clique have the best interests of the voters at heart, which is not true. Good democrats have been smeared, and their records and the Democratic brand itself become tarnished because of this type of destructive factionalism which is not at all based on ideology.

They do that to puff themselves up. It's disgusting.

[ancianita]

36. Absolutely. All Dems all the way.

[mainer]

37. Those pushing factionalism are doing Putin's dirty work

When Dems get into fights with each other, Putin wins. Trump wins. And we lose all that we've worked so hard for these past decades.

[JHan]

90. + Putin likes the chaos and discord, and the geopolitical point is an important one..

It's something to take seriously since it's not just about "republican vs democrat" but country vs the world.

Putin wants a destruction of the liberal order as we know it or a realignment. A Republican Administration which isolates America's allies suits his purposes just fine so he's okay with a President pushing Republican isolationism, pissing off trade partners and allies.

And China is probably cool with this too. Xi Jinping has some very big ideas, and talks about implementing massive projects, and do it he's tapped into Confucianism because to do big things you need social cohesion and stability. A weakened U.S means China can dominate in the 21st century, exercise leverage and set the agenda.

America, on the other hand, is a polarized polity. Everything is a fight and a battle, where policy taking the country two steps forward could be scrapped with a change in administration, taking the Country 5 steps back.

Liberals and progressives ( and whatever else people may call themselves on the left spectrum) must understand what's at stake.

[Cha]

97. Yeah, stein was a good little trooper for putin.

[TomCADem]

39. That would put a lot of Trolls out of work.

Nt

[Squinch]

73. They'll never stop. One of our most prolific is right here in this very thread. But so be it.

[progressoid]

40. "He is not a footnote in someone else's story."

Who is saying that?

[JCanete]

41. No, any more than we can get rid of the idea that racism still exists in this nation even post

Obama. Good on Gillum. One case does not make a rule.

As to whether or not we should be declaring it progressivism vs establishment, I think there's some wiggle room there. There is establishment progressivism and there's non-establishment progressivism, and they are very very different.

[Squinch]

74. Kay. Maybe you do up a report on the massive differences. The rest of us will be over here

voting "D."

[JCanete]

87. So will I. What exactly do you want from me here. I already thought it inaccurate to assume the

establishment part of the democratic party wasn't progressive, but I do think there are some big differences in some cases to do with ideology, in others to do with strategy.

[Squinch]

102. Yes. Different people with different ideas make up the party.

That can be said of my book group, the girl scouts or any other group of two or more people.

First, those are largely differences of philosophy, not policy. Most in the party agree on policy. So who really gives a shit.

Second, if you really really care about the philosophy and think you must make everyone see your reasons, you're not paying attention.

Right now, if you have any understanding at all of what is happening around us, our differences are completely irrelevant.

[JCanete]

116. No they aren't irrelevant. We can be on the same side of defeating Trump and still care about how we

are going to govern when we get back into power.

[Squinch]

124. Kay. I guess some people really like a fight.

[JCanete]

125. I like primaries and issues I care about getting exposure. I'll vote for the candidate in the GE

that democrats put forward.

[brush]

77. Pls explain the differences you speak of in your last sentence.

[JCanete]

89. Some of us are more or less down on the ills of capitalism AS the ills of capitalism for one.

I'd say there's some daylight there between some of us. Some people seem to absolutley want everybody to have a decent life and their basic needs met, but dont' begrudge a system that makes multi-billionaires. I for one do begrudge that system and find it hard to separate the issues. Some of us think loudly and proudly promoting dramatic ideological positions stand in the way of us winning elections. Some people think its the opposite.

[JHan]

105. regulatory framework keeping capitalism in check has been policy pushed by Democrats.

"Some people seem to absolutely want everybody to have a decent life and their basic needs met, but don't begrudge a system that makes multi-billionaires"

I'm going to make a leap here...

Your thinking is the kind I've heard by others who also want Democrats to end capitalism or upend the current economic system.

Democrats impose regulations, Republicans don't. Democrats have risked this even when facing electoral losses. Republicans have success with their anti-regulation pro-capitalist rhetoric because they tap into the hyper-individualism of the American mind which hates Government and taxes. It's dumb, but like taxation, Regulation and "government" are things which inspire revulsion among many - not just hate but revulsion, I mean there was even a damn riot over taxes which birthed America. This is part of the fabric of American History, it's the American reptilian brain.

And apparently, it's not enough that the Democratic party has moved to the left. I am sometimes told that all along the Democratic Party could have ended a system which makes people multibillionaires and chose not to....apparently, a political party can do that in America.

These criticisms point to people thinking that the Democratic Party is the only party with agency in America - kind of like the thinking that Chuck Schumer could prevent Kavanaugh by using special unicorn pixie dust and shouting real loud. There's zero understanding among those who think like this that in politics there are countervailing forces and other entities which impose their own will. It's their weird reconfiguration of reality which I struggle to take seriously.

[brush]

106. Thank you, thank you, thank you. There's too much sophomoric, dorm room philosophy that...

makes its way here.

[JHan]

110. lol and I actually want an explanation ...

If they could show me how the Democratic party can completely upend a system which creates multibillionaires in some immediate drastic way without electoral consequences I'd cheer them on. Because all 2016, revolutionaries of various stripes told me incrementalism is bad.

But solid explanations aren't what I get - there's either mention of systems known to be terrible ( like communism), or they point to Scandinavia which is capitalistic ( Nordic model)

[JHan]

113. Your post is a rant that is not at all tethered to reality.

Look I'm not going to go down history lane and point out stuff that can be looked up on google.

Democrats are responsible for almost ALL Wall Street regulations since Truman with the creation of the SEC to Dodd-Frank under Obama.

Democrats have been responsible for corporate and capital taxes and yet we still hear " why won't they tax the fuckers" and accusations of Democrats being shills for Wall Street.

This madness needs to stop. The people responsible for giving corporations a free ride are Republicans.

And when you allow Republicans to flood SCOTUS with their picks, you get more shitty policies.

[JHan]

117. I edited my reply to you.

Please read it carefully.

[brush]

118. Ahhhh...you do know about the huge tax cut for the rich right, that was passed into law recently?

Guess what party rammed it through Congress and into law? The repugs, you do know that, right?

And the last tax cut before that, and the one before that and that and that one.

Do some research and find out what the parties stand for. The repugs have been about tax cuts for the rich for forever. How do you not know that?

[brush]

121. I mentioned the multiple tax cuts rammed thru by the repugs to show you who is behind not taxing...

the rich and corporations. You do know that the repugs control all branches of government now and obstructed Obama for eight years by stopping all Democratic proposals to tackle infrastructure and the good jobs that would bring.

The Dems were able to get thru health care but only a watered down measure could pass because of the repugs, and they have been trying to tear it down ever since as they do anything that helps the non-rich.

And as far as the Democratic Party isn't trying hard enough as you say, if they don't have majorities in the House and Senate, they can't bring bills to the floor to vote on and into law. Go back and study some civics and then get back to me.

Also, get out and vote for Democrats to take over control of at least the House in Nov. and then we'll be able to get beneficial measures to the floor and voted on. Only the party in the majority can do that. It sounds like you don't know that.

[brush]

134. Obama's tax cut was for the middle class and small businesses, not for the rich. Nice try though.

"Now, I’ve cut taxes for those who need it – middle-class families and small businesses. But I don’t believe that another round of tax breaks for millionaires will bring good jobs to our shores, or pay down our deficit," Obama said.

Obama is often accused by Republicans of raising taxes, and he has raised some taxes during his presidency. He’s also said that he intends to raise income tax rates for couples who make more than $250,000 a year or single people who make more than $200,000 a year.

[brush]

147. Again, you seem to not understand none of those things can happen until the Dems are the majority...

party. The minority party can not move bills to the floor to be voted on to solve any of those issues so please get out and vote in Nov. for Democrats, that is if you're in this country and can vote.

[JCanete]

119. And Democrats have an entirely different base that they work for and represent. The party is only

ever as good as its voters make it, and there have been times in the past where certain issues have gotten little play, where certain issues have not been on the radar of democratic voters, and as such have been far too risky for mainstream political contenders to dangle their ass in the wind for. I appreciate that. I'm not a hater of all decisions that have been made for pragmatic reasons given the playing field that is American politics. That includes moments where we've been sadly outgunned by a corporate media that had a choke-hold on the narrative, so that its been political suicide to take on and alienate some big money interests which also support our candidates to some degree(though at vastly different levels than the Republicans so that's a losing game in my opinion).


That is however, a dynamic that changed somewhat with the advent of social media as a watchdog(though we've seen the ways in which this has become its own kind of bubble making monsters in the last few years). And the social consciousness has certainly changed on all kinds of issues, and what I see no practical value at all in, has been the resistance by Democrats to ideas that seem to be playing well in the public sphere. That has stopped being a strategy for the sake of preservation.


By the way, among those donors to democrats are private prisons and payday loan companies. Both of which are still thriving in this nation. Both of which have not been decried by a united democratic front. Both of which are toxic and predatory.

[JHan]

128. It's 2018 ..

and you're bringing up private prisons, something which Democrats already addressed.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/

At this point, you're looking for any old example, any possible example, of when Democrats weren't perfect enough.

...We might as well be playing purity whackamole.

[JCanete]

130. Well, if that's what you took from that, fine. Actually I'm addressing your broad brush that

Democrats are simply the good guys in the equation. Again, our Democrats represent us and are as good as we make them, are as good as we demand of them. This is a matter of who we support in the primaries. This is a matter of who we elect and what we demand from them when they're in office. The best of our democrats have been the ones to make the argument for why we should demand something. They've driven our public desire. They've helped to shape our ethos. Our worst historic examples are when we've seen no reason to make a stink about somethign that would be inconvenient.

edit to fix a BAD seguay:


That's Clintons' platform you are citing, and I'm glad it was there. That doesn't speak for the democratic party at large. There are exceptions today. Plaudits to the Florida Democratic party for THIS YEAR! voting to no longer take private prison money, for which there are internal emails pushing back on that measure because it could mean the state party could not accept DCCC funding. Well...maybe the DCCC should catch up.


I don't think you can put private prison funding and payday loans in a question of purity tests. I think these two things should kind of be beyond the pale.

[JHan]

132. Clinton's platform was a reflection of the Dem party platform.

If you can find a wide consensus of dems saying private prisons are the greatest thing since sliced bread have a go at it.

[JCanete]

136. wow, that's a ridiculously low bar that you are willing to settle on there. There is fighting

for and not fighting against. Both are valuable to a company that wants to stay in business or expand it.

[JHan]

138. I get it, you want to hold on to your talking points.

[JCanete]

139. I could say the same to you, and that would get us nowhere. Do you actuallly take issue with the

veracity of my last statement? If you do, I would LOVE to hear it.

[JCanete]

122. thank you thank you thank you, for bringing the condescention that was so greatly lacking in this

thread. What can I say? Added value.

[brush]

127. You wrote it.

[JCanete]

114. I have no idea what your last paragraph is referring to or means...that the democratic party is the

only one with agency? They are certainly the only major party not entirely bought and paid for, which doesn't rely on such propagandized and compassless voters that there is no such thing as surviving in the party on principle. GOP politicians have ceded the driver seat long ago.

I can make a distinction between what we can do at any given point versus what we campaign on and advocate for, which is how you ever get there. It is because of, not inspite of, continued advocacy over the years and decades(coupled sadly to the reality that wages have been stagnant, costs of living have risen, and the rich have become ridiculously richer)that there is finally a public shift of opinion on what can and should be done. And I don't think taxing the rich is among bugaboos at this point among a large swath of the American population.


At this point attempting to make compromises with the GOP gets you a couple of extra days back in your home state for 8 confirmed Trump justices. When we have power again, doing what they do, threatening to roll out something big, is how we get them to come to the table for something less drastic. And if they still don't, how is that different than when they refuse to come to the table for something incremental? Making the argument that our rhetoric has to be soft, that our proposals have to be mild, so that we can appeal across the aisle is basing a strategy on fantasy. Hell, Edwards knew this back in 2008 and Obama's attempt to reach across the aisle proved Edwards right. Not saying Obama could have done things differently because there are all kinds of factors that I think he was saddled with, among them, the great weight on his shoulders as the first black president, but again, we know how that all went down.

I was highlighting differences across a spectrum of Democrats and other progressives. I don't personally want us to end capitalism in our economy because I have never heard an alternative presented that has yet to make sense to me in terms of how resources are distributed, what sorts of services, research and tech will be privileged, and who will make these decisions, etc. But I think its a dangerously regressive precedent to stop the intellectual exercise of looking outside of that box with the tired cliche of simply saying "capitalism is the worst economic system there is except for every other system." Period...full stop. No need to dig deeper or challenge our implicit assumptions further...

Personally, I think the best option to pivot to is Basic Income Guarantee. Interestingly somebody pointed out that Hillary Clinton had considered presenting this for her 2016 campaign, which is surprising to me, and certainly would be the kind of move that muddies these waters quite a bit, since even Sanders was not promoting this idea, and pretty much only ever entertained it as an option among many options. But either way, it has yet to be championed by a major candidate, so we'll see if it ever gains traction.

[JHan]

123. The last paragraph in my other reply to you.. put another way:

People expect the Democratic party to do great things even when they don't give the Democratic party the power to do great things, or they imperil Democratic Presidents by not giving them the legislative power they need to do great things throughout their terms in office.

At this point attempting to make compromises with the GOP gets you a couple of extra days back in your home state for 8 confirmed Trump justices

Schumer's leadership here was questionable for some but the GOP is still gonna get their justices. Schumer has zero leverage and is at the mercy of McConnell who is as popular as damp laundry. Maybe Schumer doesn't want the GOP to sell the idea to their base that Dems are being obstructionist this close to mid terms - which would fire them up. I've long accepted that what we think is going on is light years away from the political calculus political leaders ruminate on. EDIT: Now we know that Schumer actually got a deal Mark Pearce at NLRB https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11068678

But it didn't have to be this way. Voters didn't give Schumer the leverage he needs. If folks want a Dem congressional leader to act like a hot shot in Congress they need to give that leader the legislative support they need i.e. majorities.

Making the argument that our rhetoric has to be soft, that our proposals have to be mild, so that we can appeal across the aisle is basing a strategy on fantasy.

This is your interpretation of things. Things aren't radical enough for *you*. However, I understand that in this political eco system incrementalism is how you consolidate progress. You see incrementalism as half-measures, I don't.

"Personally, I think the best option to pivot to is Basic Income Guarantee. Interestingly somebody pointed out that Hillary Clinton had considered presenting this for her 2016 campaign, which is surprising to me, and certainly would be the kind of move that muddies these waters quite a bit, since even Sanders was not promoting this idea, and pretty much only ever entertained it as an option among many options. But either way, it has yet to be championed by a major candidate, so we'll see if it ever gains traction.

If people actually knew more about Clinton, rather than what they were fed by crazies, they'd have realised that she's never been afraid of considering radical proposals - she just has this habit of wanting to make sure what she proposes can be implemented and will work.

For your edification:

Most of the traveling reporters are too young to remember the way Clinton was barbecued by the media from the beginning, labeled too radical, too feminist, too independent, too influential; dangerous, conniving, ugly and unfuckable. But it’s clear that even today she and her campaign feel that they can’t win with the press, that the story lines about her are already written. Case in point: In early May, the New York Times ran a feature about Clinton’s wooing of Republicans turned off by Donald Trump, which sent supporters of Bernie Sanders into a frenzy of I-told-you-so’s about Clinton’s crypto-Republicanism. The paper barely acknowledged that days later Clinton teed up her plan for subsidized child care and raising the wages of caregivers — proposals that would have been understood not long ago as something out of a ’70s feminist fever dream. There was also little media notice of her declaration, that same week, that she would remove bankers from the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks — an announcement that should have pleased left-leaning champions of financial reform.

It's unsurprising to me Clinton thought about a UBI. I fully support the idea too in principle, but I also grasp the challenges. America is way behind the rest of the world when it comes to considering a UBI. I closely followed how the Scandinavian countries dealt with it and they rejected it.

In America, it will require a massive rebuild of how taxes are levied and social services are paid for... Also try selling the idea of immediate tax hikes to tax adverse Americans because it WILL mean tax hikes and not just on "the 1%". We're also not living in the 50's where the marginal tax rate is 90% and where rich people make their wealth mainly through wage income. I want the idea to work but I understand and appreciate why she was thorough and responsible enough to not sell what is currently a pipe dream. But apparently, such responsible considerations are "Soft"

[JCanete]

129. The impetus has to be there to present something. I respect the wonkishness. Obviously things need

to add up. But we will never get these proposals from our mainstream candidates if we don't have the people out there taking it on the chin first. And just to be clear, I expect change to come ultimately from the insider candidates...but its the outsider candidates who give them the public pressure and backup to actually come through. I don't think that Sanders is a likely primary winner in 2020. I never thought he'd win in 2016 either, I was just glad he became a household name and drew so much public attention to these issues.

In my opinion, soft is when there is no valid reason to keep our powder dry...no valid reason to try to make overtures to the right, and we do it anyway. It is not soft to ultimately compromise across the aisle for a weaker plan, but having to compromise with ourselves is tragic, and it is soft to simply start with the weaker plan and continue to then water it down. That makes us look non-committal and apologetic to the American voter, and it does a middling job of inspiring people with the vision of a future to aspire to. "Tweaking here, tweaking there" is not an effective campaign slogan.

So what frustrates me is when there appears to be no earthly reason to hold back. 2016 seemed like a year where there was no advantage to not making a strong case for economic reform, where there was no advantage to not promoting single payer and other big programs for the commons and publicly pinning the bill on the rich. Its an easy argument to make. It just makes some powerful enemies in the process. But they aren't our friends now, and they keep helping some of our candidates win primaries and lose the GE's.

[JHan]

131. I don't have the salve to soothe your discontent.

Revolutionary talk is exciting and gets the endorphins going but reform is thoroughly boring. You keep complaining about "compromise" as if change happens overnight. Compromise is a fact of life - it happens in your job, in most every mundane human act there's some compromise. So why people have such a difficulty grasping that it's a fact of politics is befuddling.

You don't just have to know where you're going, you have to know HOW to get there. Far too often idealism stands in the way of the *How* thus impeding real reform and action so it doesn't impress me at all.

What impresses me is power and strategies to implement what we want. So I have little time for Ideological and purity language - both of which are ridiculous concepts in the reality of politics. There is not a SINGLE senator, not one, who hasn't triangulated or compromised to accomplish anything. And using "compromise" to cudgel Democrats hurts sincere and committed liberals and further damages the Democratic Party Brand - which helps the GOP.

The madness needs to stop.

[JCanete]

135. except I didn't say we shouldn't compromise. I said our proposals shouldn't start at the compromise.

Our public rhetoric shouldn't be that underwhelming. Again, nobody is going to roll out a proposal, nor dot all the I's and cross all the T's of something that they don't believe the public is ready for. And the public is not going to be ready for something that isn't presented and built up to.

You see criticism where we need it as madness and a problem, I see it as the pressure and again, the backup, that is needed to get our leaders to affect change. I see calling good viable proposals(fuck political realities here...we make those political realities) "fantasies" a problem. Only two years ago we were calling things that ended up in Clinton's platform, "offering unicorns." At this point all that Sanders ran on are more popular than not. Again, that's the political reality now. We made that reality. Clinton helped to make that reality.

[JHan]

137. No...

I don't have a problem with criticism. I do have a problem with inane positions.

but I'm glad you finally realize compromise is a fact of life.

I'll give you this: Activists love to say let's go for the big message and eschew detailed policy views ( Which will always be nuanced) And because they eschew the details when they can't deliver, the result is disappointment and voters feeling duped.

But I've never been confused about what the Democratic party stands for so all this talk about strong message is ridiculous to me. It's the sort of analysis from lazy pundits over the years which has become canon. It's the cult of the message which ignores other factors in politics which produce losses and wins ( How much attention has been given to Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering in comparision..). It's become a distraction. Once you know what the Democratic Party stands for ( and this is not difficult to find out) vote them in office at the State Level, Congress and in the Oval Office. It's not complicated.

All else is just fucking around and navel-gazing.

And there are many Americans out there who love any excuse to not vote and not inform themselves - these people can't be helped.

Sometimes I wish we had the voting laws of Australia. Maybe then people will take this shit seriously.

[JCanete]

141. Well we aren't getting anywhere here at this point. You say one sort of analysis is lazy, I say

blanketly just saying "we're the good guys!" is lazy.


Also, how is it that I "finally realize" that compromise is a fact of life? I'm pretty sure we've had a lot of conversations JHAN and I know I've been consistent on the distinction between compromise and what we campaign on. Weird that you are finally seeing what I've written over and over, just now.

[JHan]

143. Your determination to willfully ignore what people put to you...

because it challenges your thinking or assumptions on things is something to behold.

And yes at this fucking point in time, Democrats are the only ones that can stop the GOP undoing all the fucking progress DEMOCRATS have made possible.

[JCanete]

145. JHan, you just start in with the personal at some point. What did I ignore? I named what you've

ignored, apparently over and over for years, and hey, you didn't even address it this very response where you are telling me I'm the one ignoring what you're saying.

[JHan]

142. Uhm, how could anyone possibly take issue with that.. voting is about consequences.

Yes, if you don't vote in ways to advance your material interests you suffer the consequences.

You think Chuck Schumer is suffering because of the GOP gutting Obamacare? It's the voter who is suffering..

When Nancy Pelosi stood for hours to defend DACA, you think she was doing it because she might be deported?

Yes VOTERS have responsibilities. Shocking idea I know. It's called civic action.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport"

[JCanete]

144. Yeah, I think one of these threads addresses that I think our best leaders are the ones who

bring these issues to light and shape the voter consciousness around important progressive issues. I don't intend to mean there's no responsibility from leadership, or that the buck entirely stops at the voter, except that in practical terms it does, whether we as voters are working with the best information or with a thin veneer or with propaganda. Sadly civics isn't a priority that we as a nation have prioritized, which is certianly a function of those in the driver seat, but is reflected back in a vicious loop between the voters and our leaders.

[zipplewrath]

42. People have moved on

Not here at DU of course, but here in Florida, as we approached the primary, there was alot of discussion about Gillum versus Grahm. As you suggest, there really wasn't a "factional" brawl. But there were many conversations in the last week that went roughly something about "I like Gillum, but I want someone who would win". Trust me, people did notice him more after Bernies endorsement, but some of that was just timing. People really put off paying much attention at all. About the time alot of democratic voters were doing the whole "I guess I'm gonna have to make some sort of choice" is when Bernie showed up. It seemed to help Gillum alot. But in the conversations it wasn't Hillary vs. Gillum. It was Gillum vs. Grahm. And that wasn't a "progressive vs. establishment". It was alot of "I like what Gillum is saying, but the establishment seems to think Grahm is more electable". They also liked his "executive branch" experience.

Gillum won for alot of reasons. And he won even though a significant number of people with whom I spoke chose to vote for Grahm, even though they "liked" Gillum. I actually see that as a strength for him. (by the way, he has to choose a running mate. Grahm might wanna stick close to her phone). But one of the reasons he won, are the reasons I hope he campaigns upon. They are the kinds of reasons I've seen democrats with these special elections. The candidates go out and campaign on local issues. Here it is red tide, medicaid expansion, the Parkland shooting, and education. The Puerto Rico situation can also be leveraged. But it WON'T be about the Donald except to the degree that DeSantis makes it as such. And Gillum can hopefully make that work in his favor. Something to the effect of "fighting for Florida, not Trump".

I can tell you what it won't be about though. It won't be about Hillary vs. Sanders.

[JHan]

44. appreciate the insight, thanks.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Yes! Good point...the press has totally glommed

Onto. There's the trump guy and the establishment guy and the anti Trump establishment guy. Guy equals generic

[George II]

48. It's been reported that Gillum and Graham are friends, and they had a refreshingly cordial...

....relationship throughout the primary campaign, and she immediately threw her support behind Gillum and is urging her supporters to do so.

If one were to line up their positions on the issues and assess them as a whole (without knowing which was which) one would have a difficult time discerning who was the most "left" aka progressive candidate.

[JHan]

54. Yep that was really great to see.

[questionseverything]

60. are you saying they both ran on single payer and legalizing mj?

because gillum did and those are "lefty" views

[George II]

63. I said what I said. Interpret it as you wish.

[questionseverything]

64. it was a serious question...i would be thrilled if they both had

tried googling graham to see but only getting lindsey results

<shrugs>

[George II]

65. Legalizing marijuana isn't just a progressive issue:

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/559989879/all-time-high-majority-of-republicans-support-pot-legalization-for-first-time

[questionseverything]

67. so i found her website....she didnt support legalization but decriminalizing for personal use

which is better than nothing,but not as left as legalization

snippet from her website


Reduce sentencing for nonviolent drug possession
Decriminalize personal possession of marijuana
Reduce driver’s license suspensions for non-driving offenses
Perform a full review of all mandatory minimum sentencing laws for nonviolent offenses and again give judges discretion to depart from mandatory minimum sentences with a “safety valve” based on evidence in a particular case

/////////////////////////////

it is no wonder even conservatives want change , the cost of incarcerating non violent mj users is foolish

[Hermit-The-Prog]

81. you made sessions sad

OH I hope Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the Turd has seen that article and had a hissy fit over it.

Thanks for the link!

[Cha]

98. Too bad that didn't happen

with Hillary

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. Funny. I thought it was the "well established progressive vs stupid" paradigm :)

Progressives, liberals, and Democrats (excellent overlap among all three) versus the stupids who love tRump and are RepubliCONNED.

[JHan]

83. I am going to appropriate..

"well established progressive"...if you don't mind. it has me cackling. Thx lol.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

84. Any day I get a DU member to cackle is a good day! . . . nt

[Cha]

99. I like that, too. "Well established progressives"!

[Trust Buster]

51. I disagree. On both sides of the political spectrum there are moderates and those to the

Left and right of moderates. This matters very much to the voters. It matters very much to me. I will not subscribe to the “one size fits all” narrative because it does not. People have the right to make up their own minds about a candidate. I will maintain my independence in this area.

[JHan]

53. Well..

Obviously, every political party will have a wide spectrum when it comes to ideological beliefs as I point out in this post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211067734#post43

you wouldn't be on a democratic messaging board if you didn't share some principles with other democrats in the main.

I don't agree with some progressives on everything, but I can say we're all roughly on the same page in most respects.

I assume you'd never vote Republican? Because if you vote Republican ( especially if they're running for Congress) you run the risk of ceding leadership of the house & senate to Republicans. Period.

[Trust Buster]

56. I agree with you in principle but I think the OP ignores the fact that we are living in a

Post-Citizens United world. It was always difficult to establish a third party in this country before the Citizens United decision. Since that decision, huge money began to flow into the two major parties and has had the effect of making a third party all but impossible. As a result, many on both sides of the political spectrum who would ordinarily have been third party have been left with no choice but to cling to one of the two major parties. Therefore, of course there is a dichotomy on both sides of the political spectrum by definition.

[JHan]

66. That's true. ...

But unless you're a third party libertarian, ( since most of them seem to have no problem with Citizens United) a third party progressive would have realized what was at stake with a Conservative-Leaning Scotus and made a home among Democrats best they could.

Because in Politics all that matters is the outcome.

But I get the frustration you point to.

The filibuster dominates the political process in America so strongly that the idea of third parties and coalition governments remain alien concepts for the most part. The frustration with the system is therefore natural but would require pragmatism to work through. ( just as an example, even if first past the post was eliminated, there's no guarantee far leftists will see the candidates they want. The electoral college system would guarantee no one reaches 270 which would send the election to the house and god knows what else). Current primaries are probably the smartest way to test ideas less moderate but when those ideas and candidates representing don't win at the ballot.. ?

Citizens United was a terrible development , and in the mind of many it has brought along more corruption with it and I'm not entirely comfortable with that analysis. Sure a lot more money is pouring into political parties but history is replete with far more jarringly corrupt examples pre C.U. like Tammany Hall, Boss Tweed, Huey Long, the involvement of the Astors and Vanderbilts in elections, the Pendergast machine, William A Clark etc etc.

But say a third party progressive was really bothered with Citizens United, the election of Bush JR should have shown the importance of pragmatic utility over "purity politics". A Democratic President would have appointed a makeup on the bench where Corporate Personhood and other regressive policies wouldn't have passed.

I also think we need to talk about power a lot more than we do and how to consolidate it to maximise outcomes we wish for ourselves and our communities. I really see this as a power game where Liberals took a lot for granted, while Conservatives - who long felt that they lost something and needed to "Own" liberals again - looked to gain power by gaming the system, even if they sacrificed democratic values in the process.

[wasupaloopa]

55. Vote for Democrats in November. Forget your independence for this

one time. Or help trump it is up to you

There was is no third choice

[Squinch]

75. The rest of us will be voting "D." Because, you know, the Republic is in danger of blowing up. But

you go ahead and be all mavericky.

[NurseJackie]

80. ...

[radical noodle]

82. Look how happy she is just

thinking about trump being president. She has lost all credibility.

[JHan]

88. that really worked out didn't it ..

My favorite interview with her is the one she had with Colbert because of his amused expression throughout. Especially when he asked her "So she [hillary] didn't check in with you?"

I'm really over Susan though. Susan will Susan. I can't even hate her, because hate is too flattering. She does her thing and at least we know to expect it. Her wealth insulates her from the madness, but you know bless her heart and all that.

[Cha]

100. I couldn't scroll down fast enough to

get her fucking jabber mouth face out of my view.

So.. just a reminder that it should haunt her forever.

Jackie

[liberalnarb]

52. I was so thrilled to find out he won this morning.

And no, hes not footnote, hes the real deal. Maybe even a potential future Pres.

[JHan]

68. Who knows eh! I'd welcome that.

I agree that the sky is the limit for him... Of course I'm partial and biased towards him anyway.

[liberalnarb]

69. Whatever happens, it's good to have new bold, young, progressive voices rising to leadership.

[farmbo]

59. But what will all the Concern Trolls do with their spare time?

[left-of-center2012]

76. YES, please

[betsuni]

79. Please please please please please please please please please please please please

Please please please please please etc.

[joet67]

85. Please do. It's just a right-wing wedge, and they've been largely fueling the narrative

for months now. Along with a few media personalities who happily took the bait.

[CentralMass]

101. Apparently not.

[ck4829]

104. Kick

[Nitram]

107. Our tent is big enough for both. Democrats are inclusive, not exclusionary.

We don't need purity tests. Those are for fascists. Leave it up to the voters to decide.

[SergeStorms]

111. If we're "socialists", they're "fascists".

And I make it a point to describe them as such at every opportunity.