The Nation article: we must transform the dem. Party

[rainy]

https://www.thenation.com/article/we-must-transform-the-democratic-party/

"It’s time to abandon, once and for all, the party’s corporate centrism and addiction to big-dollar fund-raising."

[Jonny Appleseed]

1. We just need to rename it

We can't reform it until the two party system sidelines the republican party and the two parties becomes left-centrists and progressives. Otherwise I'd advise against going cold turkey on fellating the corporations that keep conservative nutjobs from being elected.

[guillaumeb]

2. But these corporations are anti-democracy by their nature.

The wolf will not save the sheep from other wolves.

[Jonny Appleseed]

16. Those wolves are wolves that weren't raised in the wild.

They're gonna eat the sheep but they'll need time to figure out how to eat it without looking like all those uncivilized asshole wolves.

[brooklynite]

66. That's a meaningless concept...

You can sideline a Party, but not an ideology. The Republican Party exists as a center-right/right wing Party because 40% of the people want one. There will simply be another center-right Party that will grow to meet demand.

[Jonny Appleseed]

68. "because 40% of the people want on"

But they really don't. They're voting for the brand, and the association therein. Left-center is what 90% of republicans think they're voting for. 9% want to control women and are scared of gay people. And 1% have a lot of money and read Atlas Shrugged.

[WhiteTara]

3. yes, it's time to make changes.

I retired from politics this year. I'm 70 and it's time that the millennials pick up the mantle and do the best they can. I did and now it's it's their turn.

[Demsrule86]

58. No it is no...we have no power at all ... we need to win elections and overturn

United until that ...nothing can be done.

[WhiteTara]

67. I didn't say I wasn't going to vote

But it's their turn to do the heavy lifting. My shoulder hurts like hell these days.

[Demsrule86]

72. You need money to win elections these days...

Sorry about your shoulder. My brother just had a shoulder replacement...didn't eve know they did this...and is doing well.

[WhiteTara]

73. Like I said, it's their turn.

[Squinch]

4. Right. Which, as long as Citizens United is in effect will guarantee that we lose every election,

everywhere.

Great idea.

We can't abandon big dollar fund raising until we overturn Citizens United. Any more than we can cut off our own feet and expect to beat people in footraces.

[Doremus]

23. It's been done

People donate big dollars to candidates who aren't lapdogs.

[TDale313]

34. Yep. It can be done.

[Squinch]

45. Since Citizens United, it never has been done, so what makes you think so?

[Demsrule86]

59. Maybe during presidential years but not off year elections.

And there is an unlimited amount of money coming at us from the other side...so no we can't do it...and it is not always possible...and we have an uphill climb without handicapping our folks.

[Go Vols]

83. Yep,maybe next time

[Squinch]

44. That's an issue of the candidate, not the money. If we require that our candidates don't take

large amounts of money from single sources, we will lose. Instead, we need to take all the money we can get, get in there, and make a law to overturn Citizens United.

If we flaunt our purity and disdain big money donors before Citizen United is overturned, all we will ever be is pure losers.

[Doremus]

50. Flaunting our purity is exactly what we need to do.

First we need to find some. Then we flaunt the hell out of it.

The money will flow.

[Demsrule86]

61. No one cares about purity...jobs yes ...health care yes...purity no.

[Squinch]

77. Did you notice the election we just had?

[Demsrule86]

57. Bullshit...no one outside of those who are uber critical of the Democratic Party ...

and never say anything about the Republicans ...Greens and the like... care about whether our candidates accept money and in the age of United...they need the money...purity always helps Republicans. One of the reasons there was no money for the states is this purity nonsense...and look where it got us.

[Squinch]

78. You're agreeing with me.

[Demsrule86]

91. Sorry must have been to a different poster...but I am glad we agree...great minds think alike?

Cheers.

[brer cat]

93. +1000

Thanks for adding a dose of reality to the pot.

[zipplewrath]

5. If this was a post, it'd get alerted

DU doesn't really wanna hear this stuff.

[eniwetok]

7. if true that would be both stupid and counterproductive

it's not as if the Nation is a right wing rag. Dems need some clear values clarification.

[Demsrule86]

62. If the Nation keeps coming after the Democratic Party

It should be considered a right-wing rag. I wish it could be alerted...this sort of crap caused us to lose in 16...they only help Trump.

[KPN]

71. Can't disagree more.

We're 180 degrees on this.

[Demsrule86]

92. I wonder what side the Nation is on...They are helping Trump and hurting our chances to save the

judiciary by retaking the Senate in 18.

[KPN]

95. How so? I don't see it.

Keep in mind that this is a dated article from just after the election.

Currently, who specifically are they influencing in a way that is negative for our party? And how will that be negative for our party? What are the direct and indirect consequences?

I don't get your premise?

[Demsrule86]

96. Attacking the party as unworthy ...makes people less likely to vote and/or

join the Democratic Party...and they pulled this before the election...thus helping Trump. I saw Katrina on one of the MSNBC shows...and I don't know if she is on our side.

[KPN]

98. Well, I can't argue that attacking the Party as unworthy prior to the election could

influence some people to not vote for the Party candidate. I didn't see that interview. Did Katrina really say that? Do you have a link? Did someone else from The Nation say that the Party is unworthy (source)?

[Cary]

6. Why do you want to sow discord and discontent?

[eniwetok]

10. why are you?

The article DOES raise legitimate questions about why so much of the Democratic Party went corporate. But then parties evolve and it's not that the party wasn't at war with itself when the Southern racists tended to be Democratic in the days before the civil rights legislation in the mid 60s. In a dysfunctional... artificially created 2 party system... one created by ACCIDENT because of our antiquated way of holding elections... there will always be some discord.

[synergie]

24. What does that even mean?

Honestly the folks seeking division keep throwing around these words whose meanings they don't understand. The party went corporate? WTF?

It is a dysfunctional system where people keep shouting phrases they are told mean something to attack the people who make up a party. It's artificial when these slogans are fed to gullible folks who don't know any better, though it is not by accident, this is deliberate discord, bereft of meaning and wholely pointless.

In what way is anyone who us parroting these lines seeking to actually address the numerous issues that the people in this party are fighting to address on a daily basis?

Basic human rights, people's lives, the environment, jobs, and global stability are at stake here, and people are losing their minds about bade up things like "corporatists", the "establishment", tearing their hair out about actresses and "maverick" Policians deciding they're qualified to engage in foreign policy without telling anyone.

When are we going to examine the lunacy that is being allowed to run amok on the left and the right, which sounds rather identical?

[Squinch]

46. "The party is corporate" is something that has been repeated over and over online. Hmmmmm....

[Demsrule86]

63. No it doesn't...this article discourages people from voting for Democrats...

and it is divisive.

[eniwetok]

8. here's where I disagree with the article

" the Democratic establishment’s failure in the 2016 election has left tens of millions of our most vulnerable fellow citizens at the mercy of Republican plutocrats who imagine that a nation of immigrants can close its borders, that food stamps are too costly while tax breaks for corporations are a necessity, that senior citizens don’t work long or hard enough, and that the essential work of government is the redistribution of wealth upward to billionaire oligarchs. "



I seem to recall Hillary WINNING the popular vote. But there was so much interference from the FBI, Wikileaks, Russia, and utter bullshit being tossed around by the GOP... that we can't blame the democratic establishment beyond trying to weaken Bernie.

[athena]

28. The Nation helped Trump win.

I used to be what they call an "investor" in The Nation. Not a big one, but big enough to get invited to certain events. No more. Their attacks on Hillary caused them to lose me, a loyal reader and supporter. I don't even subscribe any more.

Changing the Democratic Party begins with getting the Democratic Party elected in the first place. It does not begin with attacking the Democratic nominee mercilessly and insuring a Republican victory. The Nation played right into the hands of the Russian spy network working to get Trump elected. It's disingenuous of them to compound that by continuing to attack the Democratic Party.

[eniwetok]

29. utter bullcrap

"Changing the Democratic Party begins with getting the Democratic Party elected in the first place."

Leaving aside that HRC only lost BECAUSE OUR SYSTEM IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC... and leaving aside that I never attacked HRC "mercifully" I seem to recall LBJ demolishing Goldwater in 64 yet Nixon winning in 68. How can that be if your theory is correct?

But if you can't do the math that HRC lost even after getting 3 MILLION more votes, then you're never going to see the TRUE problem here... that we have an antidemocratic system and the Dems, the party THAT SHOULD BE PUSHING FOR TRUE DEMOCRATIC REFORMS... instead supports that antidemocratic system... the very one that gave Bush1 and Trump wins even after being REJECTED by the People.

[athena]

30. Good luck moving the Democratic Party left after a loss like this.

I take it you either didn't live through the 2000 election or weren't paying attention.

[eniwetok]

33. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm old enough to have a Medicare card... and Gore lost BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Because of the EC each vote in Bush's FL lead was worth 1000 votes in Gore's national lead.

You can blame Kate Harris, and the right wingers on the Supreme Court who all acted abysmally... but in the end they all just let our antidemocratic system do its dirty work.

[athena]

60. Oh yes, the wonderful years after W won during which the Democratic Party moved left!

How great it was that after Gore lost to W., the Democratic Party realized what a mistake it had made in neglecting its base and underwent a thorough transformation to become a truly progressive party. Not one Democrat in Congress was in favor of attacking Iraq! Democrats criticized W and his right-wing policies at every opportunity -- so much so that W lost his 2004 reelection campaign in a landslide! We Nader-loving liberals proved once and for all that the best way to move the party left was to support a third-party candidate and ensure a Republican victory so that the Democrats would learn their lesson.

Oh wait. That's not really what happened, is it? Instead, we got six years of spinelessness on the part of Democrats, which only ended with the Katrina disaster six years later, when Bush finally began to lose his popularity.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[eniwetok]

81. you seem determined to ignore the defects in the system

There are any number of factors in play in an election... but if someone WINS the popular vote, and it's OVERTURNED by an antidemocratic abomination called the EC which gives a voter in WY a 4x bigger vote than a voter in CA... or in 2016 55k Trump voters a bigger vote than nearly 3 million HRC voters... THEN THAT IS THE REASON GORE AND HRC LOST.

As for Nader... AGAIN this is a defect in the system. Are you denying that we all should have the right to vote our conscience... that all we must do is revolve our vote around the defects in the system?

So aside from trying to get the Dems to abolish the EC... or change the amendment formula to permit it... a simple solution is moving to Instant Runoff Voting. So those Nader voters in FL could pick Nader as their first choice and if he did not win... voters would pick a second choice and no doubt 95% would have said Gore.

[Demsrule86]

65. Yes they did...I cancelled my subscription and never read that rag anymore.

They are so privileged...they won't suffer under Trump and all the people that will don't concern them...why it is time to 'fix' the Democratic Party so we lose every time I guess...they do not deserve to be called liberal or progressive.

[athena]

69. They do well under a Republican presidency.

Their subscription rates go way up, compared to when a Democrat is president. They claim they don't care about that, but it's very hard to fight for something wholeheartedly when winning it might spell the end for your organization. Also, they have been worried for years that their readership was getting too old. The texting generation, for the most part, doesn't read and is easily distracted, so they changed their beautifully readable format with something that is easier to flip through casually but extremely clumsy when what you want to do is read. When this didn't work, I guess they thought they could get younger readers by supporting Bernie. I doubt any of this will work for them. They had something good and threw it away. And they criticize the Democratic Party for taking its loyalists for granted!

I wish they could recognize that they played a big role in Trump's victory and learn something from this, but it's clear that they never will.

[Demsrule86]

70. It is true...I subscribed to Washington Post, Mother Jones, New York Times and

Talking points memo etc...media that supported Democrats and tell the truth about Trump.

[UTUSN]

9. How 'bout sticking *with* the Democratic party?

[eniwetok]

12. Are you going to criticize Bill Clinton for trying to change the party?

The parties are always evolving. Are you going to criticize Clinton for taking the party down the corporate path? So why criticize anyone trying to reverse it?

[ronnie624]

15. +1

Stagnate and die, or evolve and live.

[eniwetok]

20. But if the Dem Party is to mean anything it should be...

Controlling the power of money, keeping corporations on a choke chain, increasing rights and tolerance, and a decent social safety net.

[synergie]

25. What is this corporate path you speak of, and can one see it

without a special decoder ring or goggles?

Parties indeed are evolving, but one should criticize the portion that seems to be devolving into something else entirely. They did not with Tea Party wing, and look what happened to them, why should we allow those who proudly call themselves the Tea Party of the supposed left, do the same to us?

Regression and extremism should be criticized.

[eniwetok]

32. I didn't think this was some state secret...

Are you that unaware of Clinton's support for NAFTA and his betrayal of organized labor? Are you unaware of his penchant for corporate deregulation?

Look... politics is a juggling act where parties often steal issues from the other. Bill Clinton stole free trade, welfare reform, and cops on the street from the GOP. We're often blind when Dems betray us because they still support issues that we DO support. Take Schumer... a social liberal yet someone who fought some common sense tax reforms for hedge fund owners. Bill Clinton was for health care reform and even raised the top tax rate... yet he was also a corporate Dem.

We can't let a candidates positions blind us to what true Democratic positions should be. If we do then we're doing 180s and not even realizing it. Dems were against Bush's irresponsible tax cuts in 2001 and wanted debt paydown... then many reversed themselves when Obama said he wanted to preserve most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts... and debt paydown disappeared as an issue.

Bottom line... we either care about principle... or we blow in the wind with the changing positions of Dem candidates. I'm a principles guy.

[synergie]

42. Apparently it is.

I'm unaware of the dogma you have created, or has been crated for you. I find it interesting that the actual people who cast votes for corporate deregulation are never credited for their actual actions. Guess that's some sort of state secret? (It's not, there is a record of who voted for what, and if one understands how our government works and which branch does what one might learn some things.)

Look, politics is a bit more complicated, and the people were actually agitating for free trade, welfare reform and cops on their streets, cause these were issues that were affecting their actual daily lives.

Some are often blind to what was actually going on in the 90's, and how politics actually works, preferring instead to make up names and attack for reasons they cannot put a finger on, but they feel deeply are REASONS!!1!

We can't let a cult of personality and slogans blind us to what true Democratic positions actually are, doing so self delusion.

Bottom line, we either care about facts or we just make up things as we go along because we're too lazy or ignorant to do our homework. I'm a woman who likes to actual do the work and know what's going on, and who thinks empty slogans are a terrible way to judge principles. You might say it's what makes me a principles gal.

[KPN]

74. Unaware? Really?

Heaven help us.

What people were agitating? Your memory differs from mine quite a bit.

Here's the questions I would ask you: if you are right, why have we lost so many elected positions at every level in so few years? why are you so critical of anyone (especially people who have been lifelong loyal Democrats, some registered for 40 years and more) who thinks and views things differently than you about the Democratic Party's drift over the past 25 years?

We "care about facts" too. Nobody is "making things up" from my read of the posts up-thread. We like to actually "do the work and know what's going on" too. Many of us disagree with you that "corporatists" is an empty slogan -- hell, all of DC is a corporatist cesspool. When are we going to "drain the swamp"?

From my perspective, your views are complicit in getting us to the place we are now at governance-wise.

I understand folks' concerns about sowing discontent and division within the party, trolls, etc. But we shouldn't let those get in the way of making us stronger, making us better. ... Granted, this is an old article and in that way is just bringing up old stuff, but do we have to lambaste the poster? How about just pointing that out and saying we get it, move along as opposed to attacking?

[synergie]

94. Indeed, mine is based in reality, not wishful thinking and revionistic history.

Gerrymandering. Heard of it?

I'm not the one being reflexively and hypocritically critical, and one wonders why it's those who are questioning this that are silence, attacked and abused here.

Ah, but the posts here show that there is no care for facts, and that literally making things up and denying words on a page are the norm, from people who don't do any work and have no clue what's going on, and cannot and will not learn. Many of us are laughing at the way that made up words are being used as epithets and attacks by those who in the same breath whine about our supposed intolerance to differences of opinion. Empty slogans are empty.

When are people going to stop echoing Trump's inanity and realize that their heroes are denizens of that same swamp, and have set up camp there for these many decades?

So now I'm complicit because you've made up some views that you think are mine? Yeah, those swamp denizens that have been in the party for 40 years and who basically did nothing right really have credibility when they blame people like me for their failures, governance wise. We're reaping what you've sown, and in this age, it's people whose views you're espousing who are ensuring that it goes downhill from here, due to the damage they're doing. We've seen this level of guano for the past 17 years, and the same divisive forces are blaming everyone else for "being complicit" for the things they've wrought.

We're not letting the trolls and divisive forces get in the way, I for one am calling them out, since they're complicit in the toxicity environment that delivered us that anti-Establishment outsider who was so concerned with the concerns of White men.

Apparently lambasting posters is what passes for discussion among those who are quick with the attacks and slow with actual understanding. Hanging around for a few decades isn't an education, and yeah, how about not attacking? Or is the hypocrisy, the blame, the divisiveness and the attacks just too much to pass up?

From my perspective a good long look in the mirror is really required for many here, it's like they have no clue what they're accusing others of and what they're doing themselves.

[KPN]

97. Huh? Gerrymandering?

OK, introduce something new to this specific discussion. Who's arguing with you on that? Not me.

It strikes me that you are making a lot "empty" points with little or no substantiation.

How am I or other posters up-thread being hypocritically critical? I don't see it. Just saying that doesn't make it so, no?

What made up words are you talking about? No one here made up the word "corporatist". Keep in mind though that all words are made up at their origin. That doesn't make them illegitimate descriptors.

Re: facts. It strikes me that you are being selective about which facts matter and in the process denying others' their facts. Example: massive and still growing income inequality and a sense that the Democratic Party has not supported the interests of the working class underlies the chief concern of many posters here. Income inequality is a fact that cannot be disputed. Bill Clinton's approach to trade and welfare reform are facts. The list goes on.

You will have to elaborate on "echoing Trump's inanity and realize that their heroes are denizens of that same swamp" if you want me to understand your view. What inanity's specifically? What heroes specifically? Maybe you can convince me with the facts here.

What have I sown specifically that we've now, as you say, "reaped"?

How are my views "ensuring that it goes downhill from here"? How am I/we "complicit in the toxicity environment that delivered us that anti-Establishment outsider"? I don't get that.

Who's doing the attacking in this conversation between you and I? Please show me what words I used that are attacking? How are they attacking?

Perhaps we can both chill on the "attack" mode and actually have a conversation?

[JCanete]

84. the problem is your blanket assumption that a push from this direction is all empty sloganeering.

Your constant rebuttal to that "sloganeering" is the sloganeering that politics is "more complicated than you people understand. Leave it to the grown ups. One day you'll grow up and be on our side too."

It is an insistence, without specificity, that we're the rubes or the un-inquisitive, and that YOU are the informed, with the facts at your disposal that you see no reason to use when making these very generous claims.

Democrats sometimes blind us to what democratic positions are. That's the problem. Yes, politics is complicated. Sometimes a message will lose you the battle because popular opinion swings the other way. But when we pander on that message to the worst instincts of our constituents, for instance the way we approached inner city violence in decades past, we are making things worse, not better. We are making it harder to come back from a false narrative, and we are undercutting our own record. We could be on the right side of history and prove it over and over, but instead, we have too often in the past, tried to be on the right side of the voters right then. We have the power to be a beacon for voters if we don't also get lost in those waves.

I submit that us adhering to political realities as we have done, has lost us like a 1000 seats in recent decades. Even if the other way doesn't work either, I'm not sure why at this point, people think there is anything to lose for trying.

[JCanete]

36. There is no comparrison between the far left and the tea party.

Last edited Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:28 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not sure who among that left are calling themselves the left tea-party but it is silly when they do it too. The left tends to know what they are actually mad at, and why. The tea party just felt shit wasn't right and pulled everything out of their ass that had already been fed to them via astro-turfing. There is no left equivalent of that big money astro-turfing, and certainly not on the far left where the money to pull that off does not exist.

The far left might be a mixed bag, but the principles are fairly clear. It is not because those are wrong that people try to diminish them, it is typically because they are, supposedly, uncompromising on those principles. Back to the tea-party, they on the other hand represent the very worst instincts of human nature. They are not right. They are confused about what ails them and they are scared and frustrated and hateful, and what they actually want is more shit that will hurt them and everybody else.

And they have no clue that money in politics is the problem the way it actually is a problem. They don't hold their own politicians to the fire at all when it comes to this issue...lucky for the GOP and their rich daddy's who created that monster.

What is extremism in your mind? What on the left is regression, in your mind? I mean we know what our last 30 years looks like and overall, which direction we've been moving save for a couple bright spots. That's doing politics the way we think it has to be done. I would call that regression.

EDITING: BECAUSE WHO OPENS WITH "excuse me, ..." really. Sorry about that Synergie.

[synergie]

39. You might want to tell that to the folks who are branding themselves this way.

Cenk and his "justice Democrats".

It's pretty silly, but that group seems to enjoy being silly and ridiculous on many levels.

Lots of people without much education, who embrace their ignorance and are pretty much ignoring what Americans and Democrats are actually concerned with today. I mean we know what all of our history looks like, but quite a few seem to have no clue what the present looks like or where the future is going, this is why these folks embrace things that have been failing for quite some time, while ignoring the actual problems we're facing how to actually fix them.

Learn how government works, how to get involved and educate oneself from credible sources? Gosh no, that's too much work. Attend rallies, shout out handy slogans and click on facebook links, all the while maintaining one's purity, since actually showing up to vote in every election and every level is just so much hard work, right? That's doing politics in a profoundly stupid way, insisting on doing this while attacking the only people who have any hope of effecting change, I would call that regression an there is a determined group that seems to be regressing and either unaware or simply dishonest about their goals.

It's sad that these ignorant folks are being fed a pile of BS, but that seems to be the goal of the tiny fraction that is seeking to sow discord, denial and the deflection necessary to hamper actual progress.

[JCanete]

41. I think the show is worth-while. I've heard them say we need to get that kind of

grass-roots the tea party was about recently, which is definitely forgetting the reality of the tea-party, but they are hardly proudly proclaiming themselves the left tea-party... certainly not in the way you are making the connection.

I don't have any idea what you call credible sources, but there are very few out there that don't have some ridiculously obvious spin. I prefer my news to come with the spin up front. Just because something printed is "factual" doesn't mean the opinion in it, the omissions, and the assumptions in the writing don't entirely present an untruthful narrative. Falsehoods are unacceptable. Lies are unacceptable, but you'll have to point to me where TYT has demonstrated a pattern of running with proven falsehoods. Your characterization that these people aren't informed would have to come with far more specific evidence to convince me, and I would love to see your example of somebody who is by contrast, informed and simultaneously credible. Hopefully you have some suggestions I've never run into.

Just accepting the way government works as the way it has to work, is not a solution. We should be trying to change that, and not all of it can happen in Washington within the system, unless there is an outside clamor for those people inside the system to change it. In fact, the "you don't understand" line always seems to come in the service of limiting possibility...of taking things off the table and excusing our politicians for votes that do not favor the people...like shit, Manchin. What is the value of having a person on our side who votes for a Supreme Court justice that his going to screw his own constituents sideways? That isn't representing his voters. That's leaving them, and us, to the wolves. But right, those are the political realities. That's what we're supposed to understand. That's all in the service of something progressive. Nonsense.

[athena]

31. Exactly. Instead of relentlessly attacking it, for a change.

The Nation is one of the actors that put Trump into the White House. And they still don't get it.

I say that as a heartbroken former Nation reader who supported The Nation for many years until they decided that attacking Hillary would get them younger, Bernie-supporting readers. Who knows what might have happened if they had chosen to defend Hillary against all those unfair attacks from the right, the left, and Russia?

[FrenchieCat]

11. I think we need to keep Russia out our elections

First and foremost...then undo Citizen's United, and do something about gerrymandering. The Democratic Party is not even close to being the real problem IMO! undo the above and Democrats will win!

Now if folks aren't getting to the polls because their perfect imagined candidate is not on the ballot; that's called suicide; nothing more, nothing less!

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. +1. This right here.

Thank you.

[ronnie624]

14. You're not going to "undo" anything

without enough of the electorate to make it possible. The Democratic establishment is going to have to appeal to an overwhelming majority, in order to overcome the culture of corruption that has set in.

[synergie]

40. We're going to have to start addressing the small fraction of the electorate

that has been brainwashed by this "anti-establishment" and "corruption" crap that has been introduced into this election cycle. The overwhelming majority sees it for the BS that it is, but we need to understand and correct where the corrupting influences have come in and fix the damage the propaganda has done.

We can undo ignorance with education, and as more people wake up to what happened to them, it makes it easier.

[Jim Lane]

17. An event can have more than one cause.

For example, your quick list of issues omits the unverifiable electronic voting machines. The existence of all these other concerns doesn't refute the argument that the Democratic Party should make internal changes.

[eniwetok]

21. Russian interference would mean NOTHING if not for the fact....

Our federal system is antidemocratic. If not for the EC HRC would be president... and if not for state suffrage, the Dems would control the Senate simply because they represent 33 million more Americans than the GOP.

[Squinch]

47. So eschewing large donations is your means to changing that? Kay...

[eniwetok]

48. apples and organges

But then you knew that.

The Dems have to be clear that the agenda is for real persons, not artificial entities called corporations. Just as intellectual property monopolies such as patents and copyrights exist for ONE purpose alone... and it's right there in the Constitution... Congress has the power to

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


and this implicitly states these protection should NOT go beyond unjust enrichment or patents designed only to trap consumers in vendor lock.... corporations must be seen ONLY as social creations, economic tools, designed to benefit real persons. The GOP will never make this argument... and Dems FAIL to make this argument at their... and society's peril.

[Squinch]

76. WTF are you talking about? Your arguments are nothing but a gish gallop of

weird bot talking points that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Until Citizens United is overturned legislatively, if we decide we are too pure to take "big money" we will lose every election.

[eniwetok]

79. That's YOUR take

Leaving aside that CU can't be overturned "legislatively" not after the right wingers on the Court have made it a constitutional issue... you obviously believe that money is more important than messaging. I don't. Money may sway some but the bigger issue is why doesn't Dem money sway GOPers and vice versa? What makes some immune? The Kochs could piss away 10 billion and I bet it would not sway you or I. And it's clear that what makes us immune is our pre-existing political belief system. THAT is the key battleground, not money.

All Dems have done when many went corporate is muddy their message, and start serving corporate interests as was clear when Clinton and Obama gave the finger to organized labor with NAFTA, normalizing trade with China, and TPP.

The way to deal with money is to inoculate the Democratic base with a clear vision of that they are for the People and expose the real wealth protecting, corporate agenda of the GOP. But the cowardice on the part of Dem strategists is scandalous. A perfect example is after over 35 years the Dems have STILL not exposed the Right's starve the beast strategy or exposed how the Right is using the courts as the judicial arm of the GOP. What happened with taxes is OBAMA MADE PERMANENT most of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. Most Dems went along because they believe in Party more than principle. Absent from this debate was that each generation should pay it's own bills and when they don't deficits are theft from future taxpayers. That was a big issue in the 2000 election then it disappeared by 2008. ALL THE SEARCH FOR CORPORATE MONEY HAS DONE IS MAKE THE DEMS GO RIGHT. If presumably a liberal Dem doesn't understand that... then YOU are part of the problem.

[Squinch]

80. SMH. You have learned nothing. Have a nice day.

[JTFrog]

86. Wait you weren't convinced by all the caps, bold and punctuations?

[Squinch]

87. No. Because I'm morally bankrupt, doncha know?

[JTFrog]

88. But ... ... ... !! nt

[msongs]

18. 1)we must end republican election fraud 2) move dems out of the cities and spread out n t

[eniwetok]

22. WHY should anyone move to compensate for the absurdities of an antidemocratic system????

Do you really believe what you suggested? Why shouldn't anyone have a RIGHT to live anywhere else and still have their vote have the same weight in terms of representation as any other American?

[JTFrog]

89. You are gonna hate what we are doing in California then.

We are moving people to Issa's district to get his ass out.

Not sure why that would offend you, but my apologies in advance if it does. I mean at least we aren't just drawing maze type lines around people and places in order to gerrymander things in our favor.

[hunter]

19. 30-40% of U.S. Americans are racists and fascists. Hillary Clinton ran on a progressive platform...

... and won the popular vote.

That's the fundamental problem of the U.S.A..

The rat fucks can game the system, cheat, and "win."

[PatrickforO]

26. What a happy article!

If we could do this, it would make a real difference.

But we ourselves would have to step ahead and do better at 1) writing checks to the Democratic party, and 2) getting out the vote.

Lots of dollars lined up on the other side.

[Gman]

27. You overlook the fact that tens of millions of Americans

work for corporations. They're working people, families to feed, roofs over heads. Most by far nonunion jobs. But good jobs, nevertheless. And these people often need favorable legislation their corporation lobbys for and gives to candidates to have good jobs. How do you explain this to them?

[JCanete]

37. that is a perception that has to be undone. If we taxed right and regulated corporations right,

there would still be room for profit, and there would be a far more impressive safety-net, not to mention a far more robust commons. People would get more, and frankly, there would be better competition, since monopolies would not exist the way they do today, which means more jobs rather than less, better jobs, and an employee's market. (granted, automation and AI are getting more and more disruptive and will displace like 50 percent of the available jobs in the coming decades, so the future is something that makes so many of these positions temporary anyway.)

How one alleviates immediate agita over the possible loss of income or an entire job, is not easy, which is why bad economic policies are sold to the employees as good for them. The only way to do it is to let some people slip through the cracks of the conversation, or to promise and show how we would deliver a solid transition plan that would not abandon them.

[fleabiscuit]

35. And pick daisies?

[JustAnotherGen]

38. After the elections in NJ

I can have this discussion. What we do this year determines how we undo the gerrymandered NJ 7th.

It's mission critical this year.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Here's an example of what's wrong with our party's self appointed beltway strategy geniuses:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/04/10/sen-ed-markey-democrats-restore-filibuster-scotus-nominees/100299012/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8915475

WHO THE FUCK THINKS THIS IS A GOOD IDEA? WHAT PRECISELY IS THE FUCKING GAIN, HERE?



Sorry, someone got upset the other day because apparently I swear and not everyone realizes that there's nasty words on the internet. I fucking apologize.

But getting back to the question at hand.

Who is going to vote for our party, to put it back into power, so we can promise to give the GOP back the tools to fuck up any future Democratic President's SCOTUS nomination, the way they did with Merrick Garland?

[SharonClark]

49. Getting rid of corporate money won't change the fact that politicians bloviate on TV

Put a microphone in front of most people and they will bloviate and yammer.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. It's not the bloviating. It's the pre-emptive surrendering that's the problem.

Why in the name of all that is holy would any sane Senator suggest that upon retaking the majority, we should -sorry, will- give back the Republicans the power to filibuster our SCOTUS nominees?

It's INSANE.

And before anyone goes "Oh, it's just Senator Markey from Mass" it is already all over the internet as "Democrats promise to re-establish 60 vote filibuster when they get majority back"


...great.

[JHan]

54. You're right..

it's a dumbass stupid move. I try to be even handed about these things, because I'm not privy to power plays but seriously..

Republicans are not reasonable and are only interested in Power, and they don't care one bit about precedent, standards or the implications of their actions. Restoring a tool they used (and abused) to obstruct when the the stakes are higher than it's ever been makes no sense.

[kentuck]

51. Maybe a little premature?

I would say, wait until after the 2018 elections. If people still vote for the Party of Trump, then Democrats have real problems.

[stopbush]

53. Sigh. The same article that says Dems need to abandon big-dollar fundraising

states the following: "The Senate remained under Republican control because billionaires flooded key races with money."

OK? Er...what?

[Squinch]

90. The whole idea from those who insist they are the only pure Democrats, where they

say that we have to insist our candidates turn away big-dollar fundraising?

In the current playing field, that is a guarantee of a loss. I am beginning to think that those pushing the idea so hard are either bots or victims of bots.

[Demsrule86]

55. This...

It's time to stop attacking the Democratic Party.

[alarimer]

56. Democrats need to speak for people rather than Wall Street/Silicon Valley

The money issue is complicated. They may not be able to win elections with so much dark money funding scurrilous campaigns of lies (just see what they are throwing at Jon Ossof to get a taste of the bullshit). Democrats do not have Koch brothers money funding things. And I'm glad they do not, or they would be beholden to yet another billionaire.

No, the issue is that Democrats have helped dismantle the very things that have helped people the most: the social safety net. Remember Bill Clinton's welfare "reform" (He gets the blame because he signed the fucking bill- could have vetoed it): it only made things much worse for a lot of people. Also, continuing the war on (some) drugs. Which to be fair, a lot of Democrats have recognized that it wasn't working and have taken steps to change things. By deciding that becoming DINOs in order to win was more important than actually standing up what was right: single payer, universal health care, environmental protection, reducing the BLOATED military budget, shoring up Social Security (instead of calling for raising the retirement age), helping people who are out of work through free trade or automation, etc, they have lost and will continue to lose. To be fair, I do see signs that some, at least, have gotten the message. Putting Tom Perez in charge of the DNC will help, I think. As will competing in all these local races.

And to be fair, there are also a lot of other issues that make things complicated. Systemic voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Gerrymandering (which Democrats are also guilt of, or at least complicit in). Possible Russian interference (I'm still skeptical that this was the major factor in 2016). And others.

[Orsino]

64. And absolutely must transform the Republican Party.

Both are much easier said than done, however. That easy corporate money is practically mandatory; it's not going away until it is made illegal.

[KPN]

75. This article is now dated. The concepts have been hashed over here many times.

Can we all just say "we get it, move along" instead of turning this into the same old pissing match and demonizing the poster?