Here's what the Democrats are doing wrong

[BeyondGeography]

Comment: The pro-Bernie passage, if it annoys you, shouldn't turn your head from the issue of mainstream D's tendency to underestimate the strength and durability of anti-elite sentiment.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/heres-what-the-democrats-are-doing-wrong-commentary.html

There's now virtual consensus, even among Democrats' most loyal backers, that the party has been decimated nationwide at all levels of government. Save for a few select regions going against the grain - Northern Virginia, Southern California, etc. - the party's fortunes have fallen precipitously, and in its current state will be in no position to govern nationally any time soon.

Given the present political climate, it would be easy for prospective Democratic standard-bearers to calculate that trafficking in anti-Trump fervor is the key to reversing these grim trends. With his overall unpopularity, and the visceral rage he inspires in liberals, Trump has enabled the emergence of a hucksterish grievance industry among portions of the center-left.

Many of their leading lights peddle corporatized "resistance" paraphernalia and promote emotionally-satisfying but fanciful scenarios whereby Trump will be ousted from office imminently for "treason"-related offenses. Given Trump's long history of promoting grifters and cheats, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that he's indirectly engendered this new breed of them.

...Democrats can take a partial lesson in the opposition Trump has cultivated. During the campaign and right up to today, political, cultural, and economic elites have coalesced against Trump with a vigor unlike anything before seen in the modern era. Whether it's the media, the intelligence community, or high finance, Trump is viewed as Enemy Number One by massive swaths of elite society.

Rather than cater to spurned elites' preferences - as Hillary Clinton very consciously did -Democrats would be wise to conclude that agitating against decadent elites is in fact a highly viable strategy, not just electorally but ethically. Elites are distrusted and disliked not because Americans are bumbling dupes prone to demagogic blame-shifting, but because elites are indeed genuinely blame-worthy. And Americans are right to scorn them. All within the not-so-distant past, their malfeasance has crashed the economy, hobbled governmental institutions, mired the country in endless war, and frayed societal bonds.

If it is to regain electoral viability, the Democratic Party's next standard-bearer can't be someone comfortably ensconced in one of these elite strata, where politics is more a matter of cultural affectation than life-or-death exigency. It also can't be someone who looks back on the Obama years with unadulterated fondness, because whatever you think about the man personally, Obama presided over a long period of fermenting discontent which culminated in the electorate opting to gamble on one of the most outlandishly anomalous candidates in all of American history.

...Whether it's (Sanders) or someone else who takes up the mantle ahead of 2020, the lesson to be drawn is that a successful candidate must be animated by popular discontent with the prevailing order. And in the process, angering discredited elites -- whether they be in media, Washington, or Hollywood -- must not be seen as a burden to be overcome, but an advantage to be capitalized on.

[leftstreet]

1. Ouch!

Excellent article!

Thanks for posting this

DURec

[flor-de-jasmim]

2. As for Sanders, he is STILL the most visible, most vocal proponent of change going out on the road.

[marylandblue]

4. But at this point in the 2016 cycle, nobody had heard of him

In fact, six of the last seven presidents have been outsiders to some degree or another. Four were governors. Obama was a Senator, but had only been there two years. And then there is Trump.

So our best choice for 2020 will be a firebrand either a governor or freshman Senator.

[Orrex]

11. We should nominate a barrel of shit that promises to bring back coal jobs.

That's how the Repubs took the 2016 election, after all.

[mountain grammy]

21. Yep!

I think that's what they're saying.

[lib-ruhl]

28. The shit without the barrel would work also...just say-in!

[lovemydogs]

3. thanks for expressing what I feel better then I could

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Who qualifies as a "non-elite" (other than Bernie)?

What did Obama do that "fermented discontent" so much so that the public became more amenable to electing Trump? As I see it, the Republicans got hyper-reactionary almost entirely because of President Obama's election and ran hard and poured in lots of money against him and Democrats for 8 years and, except for 2012, Democrats and progressives mostly stayed home and didn't vote (for whatever reasons), ceding control of Statehouses and Congress to Republicans and helping lock in control (esp. with 2010 midterms). I'm somewhat unclear about what else the Democrats need to do to be successful in 2018 and 2020. Nobody is certainly happy with the status quo at the moment because Trump has so dramatically shattered norms and put our country in a position we've never really been in before. At the moment, I would think that putting anybody in power promising a return to an Obama competence-level governance should be a welcome relief, especially for Trump voters with buyer's remorse. Democrats and progressives also need to, you know, vote if they want to stand any chance of winning again. We have to keep our voters voting every.single.election and we can't always run an Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Not prosecuting bankers is something many would point to

But if you read Sheila Bair's writings, his handling of the foreclosure crisis was a big, and I would say, more important whiff. He promised relief to four million homeowners and came in at under one million:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/sheila-bair-book_n_1912699.html

WASHINGTON — Former bank regulator Sheila Bair cringed when President Barack Obama promised at an Arizona high school gymnasium in 2009 that his administration could save millions of homes from foreclosure.

“If lenders and home buyers work together, and the lender agrees to offer rates that the borrower can afford, then we’ll make up part of the gap between what the old payments were and what the new payments will be,” Obama said, explaining the program with Bair at his side. “And this will enable as many as 3 to 4 million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure.”

In her new book, “Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself,” Bair recounts how her own housing proposals were passed over in favor of a much weaker program, which she knew would never save 4 million homes. Bair served as chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation until July 2011.

“At the Phoenix announcement, the president was masterful in announcing the program, though I cringed as he threw out what I considered to be wildly inflated numbers on the programs’ impact,” Bair wrote. “Even with our own, more aggressive proposal, we had estimated the number of successful modifications at 2.1 million tops.”

The plan, known officially as the Home Affordable Modification Program, offers struggling homeowners reduced monthly payments through a standardized modification process. The program won’t reach its goal of 3 to 4 million restructured loans, but it recently achieved a sadder milestone: 1 million failed modifications. Fewer than 900,000 homeowners are making modified payments, which are typically $500 lower than before the modification...

Look, Obama did many good things. Like all Presidents, he was in the business of putting the best face possible on things, and that's not the mood right now. The point the writer makes, and I think rather well, is that people are numb to standard "the sun will come out tomorrow" fare coming from people they've tuned out a long time ago (or would like to). And if you want to cut through the clutter, you better nominate people who understand that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Ok but.......

I can understand that some people might feel disappointed about the lack of progress when Democrats are in office (which is largely driven by Republican obstructionism after they take away Congress from the Democrats after the first midterm or two) but what is the fundamental reason(s) driving vast numbers of would-be Democratic voters into the arms of Republicans- who will make every single thing they care about worse- every election? Or simply not bothering to vote at all knowing (I think?) that it means that it will cost Democrats more elections and things will just get worse on all fronts? It simply baffles me why- if they really want all of the things you're talking about here to be better- they simply either give up and go home without voting or they get easily conned into voting for a moron like Trump whom rubberstamps the far-right Republican agenda that gets crazier every year instead of continuously vote for a slightly imperfect Democrat whom actually agrees with them? Sometimes I seriously wonder if a lot Americans or just masochistic and just can't handle the idea of having any good things in life and feel like we have to be in perpetual conflict and misery even when we all deserve and could theoretically choose to have a happier and more fulfilling existence? I guess that we never got over our historical Puritanical nature? Maybe that is the function that the GOP has decided to serve?

[BeyondGeography]

24. Good points

There's a free-floating anger out there that isn't rational and seems disproportionately aimed at Democrats, aka the people who might actually be able to help. Republicans run empty-headed people like Karen Handel against smart, well-meaning Democrats like Jon Ossoff and we lose in-part because late dark money ads tie him to our long-entrenched House Leader, who is a fraction of the "threat" to voters as the existence of dark money, its source and the political party that made it all possible (it wasn't Pelosi's).

What I think we need to respect here is not the quality of anti-elite thinking but the fact and roots of its existence. The American economy is a grind; many people feel like they are chasing the wind when it comes to balancing out income with expenses and their frustration hasn't ebbed with the recovery. Any politician who stands before people who feel this way without convincingly conveying the impression that he or she knows they've been roughed up, lied to and ripped off is going to be labeled an elite. That's what the article is basically saying, IMO. Trump's election should have taught us that many voters are seeking a meaningful break with the past. They chose horribly, carelessly and stupidly. But that doesn't mean if Democrats offer their characteristically "safe" alternative they won't do it again.

[Dustlawyer]

37. It all comes down to having to take corporate and wealthy Donor cash with strings attached.

Obama was one of the best Presidents in a lot of ways, but yes he had to give the quid pro quo. The lack of prosecutions of Wall Street bankers and the continued plea bargains for the massive and numerous fraud schemes instead of convictions and judgments as Elizabeth Warren continued to point out.

Also, Eric Holder was asked by our firm to revoke BP's probation after the BP oil spill. We gave him and his team all of the documentation from the underlying felonies they pled to from the killing of 15 and injuring thousands at their plant in Texas City, TX., in 2005. Instead he let BP off early right after killing 11 more and ruining the Gulf for years and causing 100's of thousands severe economic hardship.

If we ever want to have Representative Democracy again we must find a way to finance and go populist or hope to take over after this Trump debacle and pressure Democrats and whoever else we need to in order to get them to pass an Amendment to get the money out of our politics and institute Publicly Funded Elections.

Don't get me wrong, love Obama but hate the game. We can not get the Feds to investigate the open Quid Pro Quo's going on all over D.C. If we could there would be a huge turnover in Washington.

[BeyondGeography]

42. It's pretty brutal, what it does to people/everyone

I mean look at Holder, who ends up at Covington when it's all said and done. At the same time, he was a mensch on voting rights and will keep fighting that good fight. So good people are getting good stuff done on the one hand, but you'd rather not see or know what's going on with the other.

It's not good enough, and people on the outside of the game sense it, even if we don't like how they vote. We've empowered money in the public space and weakened government. At some point, government will have to fully reassert itself, most likely after the next disaster, heaven forbid.

[loyalsister]

10. Bragging about the economy for one

Low unemployment numbers don't mean what policy wonks think they mean to people working more than one job. In my region as that bragging was going on, umeploment was 4% with poverty at 20%.

It is an economic trend that did not break over the course of 2 Democratic presidency. Medical debt, low wages, student loans, the 2008 crash all contributed. If you aren't a person living under those conditions, you might know one. Not many people see themselves represented in government. They obviously aren't part of the numbers that are supposed to reflect success of office holders. They are not interested in platforms and they are reasonably angry.

Meanwhile, voters are supposed to be placated by Warren Buffet and the fact that there are some nice rich people. But, the doesn't mean a whole lot if your employer is greedily profiting from low wages.

Dems keep selecting candidates who have the advantages of education and lots of good luck. Even when they come from modest backgrounds they are perceived as having entered a the world where they are among the rich who are getting richer. People want to be represented on the stage. That doesn't mean being angry at the other party for standing in their way. It does not mean a wealthy individual angry about an investigation that will never amount to more than an inconvenience as they return to their comfortable lives. Governance does not imply relatability and solutions to everyday problems.

They are angry at creditors, about not getting raises and promotions. Angry that the cost of cable and internet access are so out of control that they can't afford them. Angry that they had to resort to a payday loan to pay the electric bill. Angry that they couldn't buy health insurance and paid the fine instead.

Meanwhile, they are bombarded with condescending advice to solve the problems they will never have. Get a different job. Go to college. You wouldn't have to spend so much on healthcare if you'd lose weight. Don't eat out. Don't buy junk food. etc. etc. Then, every couple of years someone is asking them for a vote that gives them a good salary.

There is no platform that fully addresses the everyday struggles of going alternating having gas, electricity, or phone service in any given month because they can't afford all three. Then looking around and wondering what will become of their children when they grow up.

It is not just poor and working class people. People whose incomes qualify as middle class have these experiences, too.

[pirateshipdude]

6. "cater to spurned elites' preferences" I think this is ridiculous.

I get that we want to define the Democratic Party in this manner. I think factually this argument can be torn apart.

[trc]

7. Commentator for TYT suggesting "elites" are the problem

with the Democratic party. Ok, but. Rather than condemn the party leadership and it's members as elites (republican talking point since Reagan) let's discuss Cross-check, Russian hacking and interference and racism/prejudice/misogyny. Is there money in politics, yes. Do both sides accept donations from very wealthy folks, you bet. Did that make a difference in this election? Nope. See the list above, that is what stole this election from Hillary. The fact that the Democratic party is very inclusive, seeks members from all groups and fights for the rights of those groups and individuals is what scares the very white republican party. I have seen more and more research being released on this election that suggests that it was not economics that drove many rural and suburban republican voters, it was fear of others not like themselves. Is it a coincidence that the Democrats seek brown, black and LBGTQ voters and those groups are constantly under assault by the republicans? Does the party of inclusion have wealthy members and leaders, it indeed does. Is this inherently bad, not at all. Can the party move faster on issues? Sure, but we have to be in positions of power to do so. If you believe so deeply that this party is flawed, and it surely is, then run for local office, make your voice heard and be the agent of change you believe we need. Work from the inside out, or, take the much easier path and work from the outside in. One path makes this party stronger, more responsive and more agile. The other drives members and potential members away, or moves them to the "both sides do it" camp with the result being voter apathy and disengagement...and that is how republicans win.

[SharonClark]

9. Sounds like it was written by a conservative to create a false narrative and expect the dems

to fight among themselves. Oh, wait, it was written by Michael Tracey, reporter for The Young Turks who apparently owns the copyright on the word "elites". Close enough.

[Orrex]

12. That.

[YCHDT]

17. Yep

[JI7]

32. Elitists like maxine waters who violently assualts men more than twice her size

[LisaM]

35. Yep.

I kept thinking of "Hillbilly Elegy".

[Skidmore]

40. That was my immediate reaction. nt

[ismnotwasm]

45. Yup I'm not "elite" for instance

I'm getting off work right now. I take care of people for a living as a registered nurse.

The problem with this is it once, yet, one more time, again, underestimates how pissed off rank and file Democrats are at..our current situation..and overestimates a populist message without substance. We are never going to appeal to Trump voters. We shouldn't try--those people are fucked up. We should shore up our base of PoC and non-complicit women.

[Blue_Tires]

13. So "elites!!" is just the new "establishment!!" for 2020?

How original...

[MineralMan]

14. TYT contributor writes some shit.

I say he's wrong about all that. It's not going to be Bernie Sanders on the ticket in 2020, either. Not a chance.

We don't know who will rise to the top in 2020, but it's gonna be someone new, and probably someone you don't expect right now. We're a long way from that race, still.

If we don't retake the House in 2018, it won't matter, though, who runs on the Democratic side.

[BeyondGeography]

15. If it's going to be "someone new"

how is that you disagree with the premise of the article? What will be new about that "someone new"?

[MineralMan]

16. The premise of the article is "Oh, Noes!"

I don't have time for that shit. Maybe you do.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Question unanswered

Come on. I know you can do better.

[MineralMan]

19. I am doing better. I'm just not wasting any more time

on this thread or on that writer. Check the GD thread list.

[pnwmom]

20. Here's what this post is doing wrong. Our house is burning down and we need fire fighters

right this minute.

We can figure out how the Dems can appeal to more people -- without losing their basic principles -- later. But right now is the time to be united, aware of the real enemy, and working on voter turnout in 2018 and 2020.

P.S. It won't be Sanders in 2020.

[nini]

23. This is the moron that accused Maxine Waters of 'pushing him'

http://www.newsweek.com/maxine-waters-attacked-journalist-michael-tracey-parallel-universe-maybe-620371

This doesn't help my opinion of him either - From the article: "Tracey, an iconoclastic journalist known for an acute interest in downplaying the Russia election-hacking narrative"

More Democrat bashing from him - it's not constructive - it's buzzwords and BS used to attack us AGAIN.

[JI7]

29. So maxine waters is the violent elitist meanwhile not a word about gianforte

And the trump trash.

[nini]

44. Yea.. Aunt Maxine is such a sell out

[madinmaryland]

25. This article is a right wing bullsht essay against the Democratic Party.

Anytime you see the word elitist it's a slam at democrats in general. It's also written by someone at CNBC. I would take the opinion of the writer with a grain of salt.

[still_one]

26. and CNBC with their Joe Kernan, maria bartiromo, Rick Santelli, maria caruso cabrera, and

other roger ailes right wing assholes, never let a day go by without taking a swipe at the Democrats, or the Democratic party

[Me.]

36. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[JI7]

27. The support for the trump trash shows the anti elite seniment is bs

Whatever the fuck that was anyways. Most lower income people vote democratic.

[rzemanfl]

33. - t .

In exchange for that "s."

[H2O Man]

30. Recommended.

Thank you for this.

[JI7]

31. this is from the piece of shit that accuses Maxine Waters of assualting him

[Me.]

34. TYT!

EOM

[elehhhhna]

38. Dems are sending Donna effingg Shalala to the Sunday programs.

Followed by Gergen for fuck sake they're not even trying.

[NYResister]

39. This is the most ignorant commentary I've read in a long time.

This person seems to be ignoring and dismissing the extreme vileness of Trump's electorate, and blaming the Democratic Party for Trump's disgusting display of bigotry that resonated with bigots. Rejecting bigotry is not elitism. Good grief.

[lunasun]

47. IKR. And from all people this guy and his history ugh

[Squinch]

41. What is wrong with Democrats, as far as I can see, is that too many Democrats listen to and spread

Repubican bullshit like this. When they are not doing that, they are ripping at the party and each other. What they aren't doing is educating the electorate about their legislative plans, which are very good, and about the fact that everyone is getting shafted by Republicans.

This "elites" bullshit is bullshit. Republican agitprop divisive nonsense. You should know better.

And Sanders's "revolution" ended when Nina was put in charge of the organization. He's back to being the guy who proposes great things that have no possibility of passing. It's the equivalent of yelling at clouds.

[betsuni]

43. Tl:dr version: LEAVE TRUMP ALONE!1!! What nutty writing.

"Decadent elites" -- ah, yes, the decadent West, sounds like good old-fashioned commie propaganda.

[NYResister]

46. "elites"

drink


lol