If the Democratic Party went Populist would Centrists Flee?

[Billsmile]

This is a turn around on the "Where are they gonna go?" point of view applied by Rahm Emanuel to liberals.

So let's have at it. If the party decided to move to the left & embrace populist liberalism would those in the middle leave and become Republicans?

[samnsara]

1. i would vote for the person but NOT campaign for them..

...and if they were spewing all kinds of shit and lies I may just write in someone

[AlphaCharley]

65. Tired of this

The country save for some regional areas like college towns and sections of large cities IS a centrist country. Like it or not an Elizabeth Warren/Sanders style liberal is NOT going to win an electoral election , nor will similar candidates give back a majority in the Congress (which I'd rather have than the Presidency anyway).

I am sick and tired of progressive litmus tests and purity and wanting to make everything about religion (or anti-religion), and identity issues, splitting the vote and letting Republicans waltz in to offices to do their damage, etc.

You run the type of candidate where they can win. If that takes a Joe Manchin in W.VA. and a Sanders in Vermont, then GROW UP and DEAL with it.

2. Tired of the 3rd way, DLC blather. (which ironically was started by the GOP as a way to get the left all lathered up). The DLC was NEVER anything but middle-to-left and they were the best organization we had for fielding candidates up the ranks into competitive districts. NAME ONE junior Dem Senator in a red state in the central country that has won since the DLC was around? You can't cause there are none.

Just work as a coalition and KNOCK IT OFF.

[GaryCnf]

104. Incorrect

The party dogma that elections are won in the middle is not true and never has been. Many Democrats claim that it was Bill Clinton's attention to moderate voters which brought us victory in 1992. It was not. In fact, it was a right wing third party candidate siphoning off GOP voters.

In 1992, Perot funneled off:

12% of the GOP vote in Louisiana
13% of the GOP vote in Georgia
10% of the GOP vote in Tennessee
21% of the GOP vote in Missouri
13% of the GOP vote in Kentucky
15% of the GOP vote in West Virginia
18% of the GOP vote in Iowa
the GOP vote in Minnesota
21% of the GOP vote in Wisconsin
19% of the GOP vote in Michigan
20% of the GOP vote in Ohio

(Aside: Curiously, Jill Stein's 2% takes the blame for our 2016 loss - as opposed to the abject failure of the "play to the middle" strategy to EVER pull majorities in key battleground states - whereas Perot's 1000% better performance is overlooked in the haste to proclaim the political "brilliance" of the 1992 campaign.)

The FACT is that Bill Clinton won ONLY because the GOP could not keep Ross Perot in the fold. Our refusal to admit that fact and instead continue the "play to the middle" strategy has put us in the pit we are in now.

I am glad that Perot gave us those elections, BUT to credit a campaign that would have failed if not for Perot is simply denial.

It is especially tragic this time. We had a brilliant platform and an eminently credible candidate. Unfortunately, our national campaign continued the to follow "play to the middle" playbook. Deny it all you want, but here are the campaign's ads:

http://www.p2016.org/adsg/adsgeneral.html

Count the number of ads standing up for Michael Brown, or even Black Lives Matter. Count the ads standing up for the millions of undocumented workers who have not reached the kind of heights that makes them palatable to middle of the road voters. Count the ads saying something that has even the slightest chance of offending those middle of the road voters that party leaders have incorrectly deemed "essential" to victory since 1992.

You won't find many.

We are the party of the oppressed. We have a platform which vows to fight for the oppressed. What's more, the oppressed far outnumber the privileged. Obama knew it and ran on it and as a result won in states where we had to win AND won a MAJORTITY, not just a plurality, of the popular vote.

Our campaigns and our candidates need to reflect it.

ONE OTHER small thing. The DLC was not s "center-left" group. Executing (and torturing - search for images of the guard-performed cut down procedure they did on him) the pathetically insane Ricky Rector, passing the 1992 Crime Bill, and passing Welfare reform were not "left" at all, or even "center." They were offerings to the hard right.

[Trumpocalypse]

105. Totally dishonest

All polls in 92 and 96 showed that Perot drew equally from both democratic and republican voters.

[GaryCnf]

112. That's a good try

BUT

The poll that mattered in 1992 shows that, even after feeding red meat to the hard right, the DLC playbook pulled less than 44% of the vote across the country and even less than that in many key battleground states.

Regardless of who lost votes to Perot, the DLC playbook failed to keep the Democratic coalition together.

THAT is honesty.

[Trumpocalypse]

118. So now you're changing your argument

since your last post about Perot was a lie.

Now, let’s briefly consider the 1992 exit poll data and the actual composition of the Perot vote. According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats. Fully 53% of Perot’s vote came from self-defined moderates, 27% from conservatives and 20% from liberals; so about 10 points of his 19% came from self-described moderates, with 5 points coming from conservatives and 4 points from liberals. We also know from the exit polls that the Perot voters were angrier at the political system than supporters of the other candidates. Do these Perot supporters really look like voters that would have gone heavily to incumbent Bush in a two-candidate race?

It is just possible that Perot cost Bush a state here or there where Clinton squeezed out a very narrow plurality (Colorado, Montana, Ohio and Georgia come to mind as possibilities), but there is no empirical evidence that documents this that I am aware of. Even if true for all four states (a very unlikely probability), it merely reduces Clinton’s electoral vote majority from a near landslide to very comfortable.

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

[GaryCnf]

121. Even ignoring the fact that it doesn't address

the failure of "centrist" campaigns to garner majorities in critical states at all, that opinion piece is a pretty thin semantic distinction to use as justification for calling another poster a "liar."

Particularly when you just ignore the utter failure of the "centrist" campaigns to produce anything resembling majorities in what were for Obama blue states.

It's a far cry from "Perot didn't cost Bush 41 the election" to "Perot cost Clinton a majority in the Rust Belt states."

[Trumpocalypse]

122. Changing your argument again

Since your initial dishonest post has been total proven false.

[GaryCnf]

123. If that's what you got, go with it

and just pray that no one stops and says,

"Hey, is that right? Did our "cater to middle of the road voters" strategy fail to EVER give us a majority of the popular vote in a presidential election, much less a popular vote majority in the states whose electoral votes are necessary for us to actually win a presidential election?"

[Trumpocalypse]

124. Still changing your argument.

You posted a lie about what voters went for Perot and now you're spinning to cover up that lie.

[Hortensis]

106. Too much snow. Populism is a NEGATIVE force, right or left,

or some mixture of both. "Populism is resentment extremely dependent on ignorance that by definition of political scientists is focused on "the establishment."

Populism is a force that arises as a broad-brush hostility, a burn-down-the-government-barn passion. A typical person in the grips of populist passion cannot name even one good public official he wants to save, aside from his chosen leader.

Populist passions are dangerous. They can be harnessed by charismatic leaders for almost any purpose, any ideology. In 2016 we had two candidates who spoke to populist passions, Sanders and Trump, and both tried and succeeded in picking up followers from the "other" side.

Steven Bannon is trying to direct the power of populism in the U.S. to destroy our democracy.

THAT is populism.

[GaryCnf]

109. Fair enough

Accepting what you state as the definition of "populism" and I think it is a at least a fair one, I can't disagree.

On the other hand, if "populism" is a euphemism for "Sanders-style Democratic populism," which I suspect was the intent of the OP (and I thought, correctly or incorrectly - you know I often miss what people are saying - you were trying to embrace by tying Sanders to Trump), it is not an appeal to passion, but to justice for the oppressed, justice for the people at the very heart of our party.

[Hortensis]

111. A key feature of populism is ignorance.

People who want to help themselves need to educate themselves about their candidates and choose more responsibly than those in thrall to populist hostilities.

And mercifully for all of us, most do.

Trump's election wasn't a "populist" victory, but a victory by anti-Democratic Party forces who USED both populists and conventional conservatives to continue the flow of wealth and power to the few. And, of course, to remove the sanctions on Russia.

This was a classic harnessing of clueless populist anger to serve their own enemies.

[GaryCnf]

113. Okay

Now on that one we totally agree . . . although we still need to help

[Hortensis]

115. :) Back to Billsmile's silly OP: How can WE go "populist"

and yet also flee to form another party? The party is its voters, and no one knows that more than those whose job including keeping our hugely diverse voters as happy and focused as possible.

Also, not all, or even most, of the types being referred to are populists. Some are just the kind of "rule-or-ruin" leftists who always oppose anything that whiffs of mainstream left.

That's true in any era. Jefferson and Madison worked within their establishments (Virginia's was 250 years old at that point), as did FDR , as did Hillary, and all were angrily opposed by this type.

[GaryCnf]

116. Jeez

We cannot be getting this close to agreement.

Part of my frustration with this play to the middle strategy is that Hillary was (notwithstanding what other fellow leftist may claim) incapable of credibly pushing the most progressive platform in history. She had the personal bona fides to stand her arm in arm with the oppressed. It's just that when you look at the campaign's own ads at the link I provided, we didn't.

I'm as far from a Hillary hater as you can get. My beef is with what I believe to be a failed strategy.

[Hortensis]

117. Lol. Now, I believe we need to be blaming others more for

their failures.

White male not-so-liberal former Democrats who chose Republican white male supremacy. No amount of anxiety over change could ever, ever excuse this.

"Populists" also for their indulgence of the worst aspects of their character instead of their better.

Those black conservatives who rejected Obama's call to get out and vote for a white Democrat as they had for a black one. At least they're understandable.

Democratic misogynists, male and female, who were far more resentful of a woman candidate than they admit.

And of course, those eternal hostile rule-or-ruin leftists whose zealotry overwhelms principles and issues. Scorpions whose hypocrisy leads them to think we owe them a ride across the river.

[GaryCnf]

119. We actually agree there, too.

I believe, however, that the number of such cretins is far less than what some believe.

At the risk of revealing more personal information that I would prefer, I am not a "political person."

I am an attorney who practices primarily in the area of capital defense/habeas corpus. Through this, I see a different set of black people than are seen even by most other people of color. I am not talking just about the black population on death row. I am talking about their families. I am talking about the families around them, the families of the kids they grew up with, the families who every day are getting beat down and shot and left behind in ways it is hard for most people to imagine.

What I do, however, also exposes me to white death row inmates, to their families, and to their friends. Their lives are remarkably similar. They are getting beat down at every turn, they are brutalized by cops, they are nothing but fodder for a system which gives no more of a shit about them than it does my black clients or the people around them.

DU is, and this is not meant as criticism, a haven for people who have lives where they actually get to stop and think about long-term political consequences, to sit at computers and click links to platforms, and to read transcripts of speeches. The people I see every day don't. They don't have the luxury of sitting down and considering the consequences of not voting. At best, they think about whether X or Y has offered something that will help them get by, to keep their kid from being killed, or even just keep their kid from constantly being hassled by the cops, or just to put more food on the table. They're just looking for someone to walk over to them, look them in the eye and say "Yea, I give a fuck about you."

Those are the people I am trying to defend here and there are 100 times more of them than elitist assholes who say, "I'm sorry, I am just too good and pure to vote for Hillary." Yes, I do get pissed when those families whose lives are being crushed (and whose children and children's friends live in prisons and on death rows) get blamed for not being as informed or as discerning as the folks we get to talk with every day here on DU. I get pissed when they get lumped in with people who have good lives and good jobs and voted for that fucking monstrosity out of pure selfishness. I do get pissed when they are attacked for not knowing what we all know and getting their asses out to vote. And I guess if I were honest, I'd have to admit that I am more than over those people who have the luxury of being politically well-informed acting like they "know something" about me as a black man or the people, both black and white, that I see every day (not talking about you ).

As for that "ride across the river," there too we agree, heck, if it were me I would open the floodgates and let them be swept away as they stand on the shore pontificating.

Take care. God Bless.

[Hortensis]

139. Oh, this has to stop! :) For sure a lot of the numbers are pumped

up by invidious agents, right and left, who are trying to make us seem divided and weak and distract from a GOP that's collapsed under the weight of years of corruption and betrayal of its voters.

Wow to what you do for a living. Not claiming in any way to have lived what the people you face every day do, but I was often homeless as a child, my mother suffering from major depression and alcoholism. She frequently got in trouble with the law simply by being too visible, and we were constantly moving. I experienced firsthand the "system" failing and even abusing me in many places different ways. And I know firsthand that many in it regard poor whites much the same as poor blacks, though I suspect now their contempt and hostility may have had a different genesis for white people who violated their ideas of the natural order. I've even been physically "brutalized" a couple times by viciously callous police as a child, though nothing that didn't stop hurting after a while.

So I at least know it's real. Frankly, I read very little about the atrocities these days because I don't need to be converted to a believer and the sick feeling of knowing it still continues as bad as it does is too real all by itself. I prefer to believe that we will move beyond this reactionary period after "too much" advance, recoup our losses, and advance further. And I do.

[GaryCnf]

140. Do you think making me cry

Is going to make it stop?

Seriously though, that is a moving account . . . Thank you for it.

[Hortensis]

141. No channeling Brazile. That's where we part.

[GaryCnf]

142. . . .

I won't do that, I promise.

[Champion Jack]

130. bingo

[pangaia]

81. "....and if they were spewing all kinds of shit and lies..."

Oh, my goodness.

[leftofcool]

2. I would leave but not to become a Republican

I would just stop participating. There are 60 million centrist Democrats who are pragmatic and like working across the aisle to get things done. The term applied to us is "Hillary Democrats." I am 100% okay with that term.

[Skidmore]

50. .You might be wrong

about that.

[emulatorloo]

52. I think you have no clue what the term neo-liberal means

[DonCoquixote]

18. working acorss the aisle

is not going to be so easy in the trump era. These folks would consider Reagan a democrat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. True dat!!

[Alpeduez21]

35. This happened before Trump

He is merely a symptom of the republican disease. The repukes did NOTHING to help the former president of the US. The republican party has become much worse but it was never such a much to begin with.

[AlphaCharley]

71. Was this divisive thread started by a troll?

[Hekate]

82. One wonders, doesn't one. We can't be allowed one lousy night to enjoy Democratic victories...

Someone has to come alomg and stir up crap.

[LuvLoogie]

80. I'm a Hillary Democrat, too. But I wouldn't consider myself a centrist.

I'm also a Jerry Brown, Al Franken Democrat. I might become a Bernie Sanders Democrat as well if he ever decided to join the party. He might actually accomplish something lasting if he gave up his manifesto and pitched in.

This morning he suggested that people vote the Democratic ticket. Is that a populist message, or was he just checking a box?

Need someone with the fire in their belly, like Hillary or Jerry or Al, who has the guts to join a collective effort for the greater good.

[Wwcd]

3. Lets say they grew a third ear vs the party that grew a third eye

Just suppose

[SandyZ]

9. Right. I tried to seriously answer, but really, this.

[Wwcd]

54. Ok back to Trump.

@TeaPainUSA
Trump the Orange Serpent
Came to DC
To swallow up ObamaCare and kill his legacy
Dictators and despots get all the great reviews
I cannot wait till Mueller's got him shitting in his shoes

[SandyZ]

56. Yes, well. The Democratic Party is the winner tonight for sure.

It puts questions like this to rest.

[NurseJackie]

69. Winner!!

[NCTraveler]

4. One of, if not the most, progressive platforms of a major party.

Seems a lot of people really want to change that. Different shiny words are used with respect to direction but the narrative is always the same.

[Zen Democrat]

14. Platforms are meaningless.

[NCTraveler]

20. Not even close to meaningless.

Clinton spent a year sharing ours with the public. As did others. You might be the first I’ve ever seen calling a set of guidelines of what we stand for as a party to be meaningless. It’s actually a really excellent platform.

[JCanete]

129. come on. Our platform was the most progressive after the primary, not before. And she did not.

That isn't what she was out there doing. I know, I know, it was on her website. She was selling something else. She was selling a feeling of inclusiveness and a new era. It was a path of least alienation, except for those who it was calculated could be sacrificed as the enemy of that new era, like deplorables, but certainly not Wall Street or the rich. Saying, not once, but at least twice, "I basically told them to cut it out..." is not strong progressive talk to our banks. Its not even strong spin about that talk.

I agree though, that the platform itself isn't meaningless. We should expect our representatives and candidates to sound like that platform, or better. It is going in the right direction.

[NCTraveler]

131. You are not being honest about Clinton...

And inserted something about timelines that wasn’t in question or being debated.

What video topic can I easily provide for you to show you how wrong you are? Clinton talking the economy? Equality and social justice. Campaign finance? The list goes on. Your attack on Clinton isn’t based in reality. Just another unfounded attack on a Democrat.

[JCanete]

134. actually any of those. I'm telling you what I saw every time I turned her on the TV or pulled a

video up. Every time I listened to her. Obviously I didn't see everything she ever said, and of course I saw her address these issues, say in the debates(though rarely to my satisfaction). And hell, one would hope that these things would come up on a campaign trail. Of course they would, but what I saw her selling...promoting...was something else.

It isn't an attack on a democrat at all. I was non-plussed by her campaigning, but I think it was a strategy employed, and one that pulled in 3 million more votes than her opponent, so not a failure, even if another might have been better. I am not hard on Clinton for losing. Other than her being the unfortunate bearer of GOP shit for the last 20 years or so, I don't find her at fault for the loss. That doesn't change what she appeared to be running on to me.

If you have some concrete examples that contradict me, of course they'd be welcome.

[NCTraveler]

135. "Obviously I didn't see everything she ever said"

That is extremely clear. Not sure what you were watching.

Hundreds of videos of her talking about issues. Literally hundreds that you somehow missed.

[JCanete]

143. okay, YES, based upon the parameters I set, this is absolutely an example of Clinton talking about

these issues. I didn't suggest though(at least in my clarification) that as late as Nevada, in the race, responding to what was getting to be a contentious primary along the terms of all the things she mentioned in this speech, that Clinton just put her head in the sand and didn't touch upon those issues. In fact, I did say she touched on these in the campaign, but my point was that she wasn't running on these issues, and certainly wasn't running to them. And here she is clearly touching on them because of the primary, and because she's appealing to the voters of both candidates. That's pretty clear in the structure of her speech.

[NCTraveler]

144. Thats not a clarification.

It was admittance of being completely wrong while still attempting to push it.

https://m.

[JCanete]

148. Not true, because I don't have an agenda here. I'd rather fully understand these issues myself.

And I'm not comfortable arguing from a place that I feel is wrong. I'd rather evolve. So if something makes me reconsider my perspective, I try to do so.

It was a clarification. My original post was about what she was selling. In my second post I said that of course she had occasion to address issues(such as in the debates), but that they were still not the bread and butter of what she campaigned on. In the video you posted, she is speaking to the existence of these issues, but not to the solutions or her plan to fix them. She mentions 1 plan of hers, regarding students and debt. The rest only speaks to the fact that these issues need to be addressed. And again, it is pretty clear why she is bringing them up here in the first place.

I'll watch your other video.

[RhodeIslandOne]

5. If Donald Trump hasn't made you a liberal yet...

....I don't know what to say....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Then they're hopeless... beyond deplorable.

[JI7]

6. Populism doesn't appeal to minorities much since the target of their attacks

Are usually minorities.

[OilemFirchen]

34. Yep.

The last true Populist to make a serious run for President was George Wallace.

No thanks.

[Fresh_Start]

7. The Democratic Party is already populist

if you mean pro-woman, pro-children, pro-immigrants, pro-minorities, pro-people with disabilities, pro-LBGT.


If you mean that they should be more pro-working class white male, that would be a less populist position and I would revert to independent

[Zen Democrat]

15. Populist Democrats are pro Main Street and anti Wall Street, to simplify.

The Neo-Libs love Wall Street.

[Fresh_Start]

19. In your opinion

Most democrats actually want to have a job and make a living which means we can't be anti-Wall Street
Until the democrats stop saying they are anti-wall street they will lose. We need to work with Wall Street and regulate Wall Street but not be anti-Wall Street

[pandr32]

132. Agreed

We buy cars, use banks, ship freight, watch Netflix, use electronics, sometimes need prescribed medications, use building materials, and on and on--all part of "Wall Street."

[Eko]

38. When you say Neo-Libs

does that equal centrists?

[Garrett78]

59. It equates to this:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism#Neoliberalismis

[OilemFirchen]

41. "Populists" have never heard of Martin Luther King Boulevard...

to simplify.

[betsuni]

93. "The Neo-Libs love Wall Street."

[DonCoquixote]

16. does workign classworking class white male

considering how many women, immigrants and others are in the working class?

[Fresh_Start]

23. Females, immigrants, DACA, minorities, handicapped, and LGBT have bigger issues

than their wage.

Which seems to be largely ignored by the so called populists.
They are fighting for their lives, health, and safety and not just their paycheck.

[DonCoquixote]

28. er...

actually, all of those people have serious issues with the wage, especially as the lower wages are used by white males to ensure they have less power. It is one thing not to sell them out, but it is another to ignore the fact that a large part of helping them out is to ensure they actually get at least a decent wage. In America, having less access to money DOES put your life, health and safety at risk.

[Fresh_Start]

36. really no comparison

and the fact that you can't see that the security of your own skin is more important that the size of your wallet is why the so called populism is not actual populism

[DonCoquixote]

43. with no health insurance or money for food and rent

how are women and minorities going to maintain their safety? I do not mean to be rude, but are you trying to sell the idea that minorities, including and especially women, are going to be safe without the money to hire a doctor, pay rent, and find/keep a job?

It is not just about the wallet, but without the wallet, there is NO civil right that cannot be taken away or undermined but those who DO have the wallet.

side note: I do see past the security of my own skin, I see women and my fellow minorities (latinx here) get run over by those who do have the wallet. Yes, we do need hard, solid, civil rights laws to be on the books and stay on the books, including, but far from limited to, voting rights, employment rights. However, I you want to claim to represent people, you cannot go ahead and say "well I put civil rights laws on the books, my job is done" and then wonder why people are mad at you as you ignore the machinery bought and paid for by7 the same people who will come after you too. THAT is a fact.

[Fresh_Start]

46. No I'm not saying the woman and minorities can live on air

but money will not solve woman, minorities, or LGBT issues.

[lunasun]

88. Amen ! Say it ! And don't us ones who have some $ know it

[DonCoquixote]

125. I do not think you are

BUT, i do think that while you are looking at the genuine epic amount of work it wil take to fix one side of the oppression, it is easy to overlook the other, especially because there are a lot of useful idiots (like mra's) that make people think it is about them, while the ones realy starving are the women and other minorities. Non of the boys signing the "white men blues" have at as hard as women do, or other browns, or LGBT, period. What I am against is the illusions some have that they can do well as long as they got theirs.

[JI7]

39. The biggest reason they don't get it is discrmination because gendet, race etc

[Kentonio]

96. Does this sound like a winning strategy to you?

Why exactly would we expect the white working class to vote for us, if our attitude is 'sit down, other people have bigger problems'?

This isn't an 'A or B' thing, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping us from making sure the issues of both are dealt with, but for some bizarre and mindboggling reason that I just can't wrap my head around, any mention of white working class problems are met here with these endless shouts of 'privilege!' and the implication that they don't really need or deserve help, or at least not as any matter of importance.

The very same 'populists' who get endlessly attacked here were the ones fighting for issues like LGBT and minority rights long before the party as a whole was even remotely interested, so don't try and brand us as bigots because we want to help everybody who is vulnerable regardless of their color, gender or sexuality. And yes, that includes white males.

[LexVegas]

8. ...

[Squinch]

10. Trump is a populist. Why would the Democratic party go populist?

[marylandblue]

11. There is such a thing as progressive populism

Which doesn't look at all like Trump.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/13/right-wing-vs-progressive-populism-how-to-win-in-these-populist-trump-times_partner/

[Fresh_Start]

17. Bernie populism is pretty much also a white male populism

Didn't see Bernie sticking up for bank tellers when ATMS took their jobs
Didn't see Bernie sticking up for secretaries, stenographers, and typists when word processing software took their jobs.

Bernies economic policies are almost as clueless as Trumps.
Protectionism isn't the solution
Calling big business the boogyman isn't a solution.

[DonCoquixote]

22. Bernie may be clueless on some things, but

when big business tries to cut medicare, SS, and public education, yes, they ARE the boogeyman.

[Fresh_Start]

24. you could make that point without saying anti-wall street

stop saying its anti-wall street...that is the wrong message.

[DonCoquixote]

30. well, it is hard not to say that

when many wall street people are backing trump with all that wall street dough

[Fresh_Start]

33. not its not hard

you can say you are against black money in politics
you are against petrochemical billionaires having more control over government than voters
you can say you are pursuing a laws to counter Citizens United so that the government needs to listen to the voters..

and that message is the right message
making a boogyman of wall street is BS.

You can be pro-business and pro-an appropriate regulatory environment to limit business from endangering US citizens and US democracy

[marylandblue]

40. Yes, that's true, which is why I supported Clinton

But I still would like see more of a populist approach in the democratic leadership. They really need to talk about income inequality and lack of opportunities and how to address those.

[Kentonio]

97. Bernie was campaigning for civil rights before most of the party was even born.

So spare me this crap about white male populism.

[beachbum bob]

12. any one who calls them selves NOT A FRICKEN CONSERVATIVE best support democrats no matter

what form they take.....

[mvd]

21. Progressive populism where the middle class, workers and poor are looked

after just as much as the rich and corporations I would wholly embrace. That is where we should be going. I would not embrace a xenophobic populism like Trump's or a going away from key social issues such as choice and equality.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Here, here!!

[SandyZ]

78. "where the middle class, workers and poor are looked after" That would be the Democratic Party.

[mvd]

83. Needs to be more of a focus, IMO

as the OP states, we could be more economically progressive.

[SandyZ]

89. Imo, it is obvious the Dems are on the middle class and poor, side. Small business,

strong economy, jobs. Looking at the policies they presented in 2016 by our candidate clearly showed the Democrats are the party of the people.

Now, the propaganda used to convince the gullible, likes to tell a different story. That would be the smear job so many worked actively to promote.

Look at all the policies that Trump has rolled back, Obama implemented. For the people.

[mvd]

91. More so than the Repukes, for sure

But I stand by my point that we have gotten away from progressive populism too much. The rich have had all the perks for way too long, and we need a major correction. That is what Bernie was about. If you disagree, then I think we'll just have to disagree. I have my disagreements with a good number of DUers now, it seems. Don't want to rehash this too much on a good night.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I'm a liberal, not a populist.

[Fresh_Start]

37. me too!

today populism seems to be pocketbook issues and not more significant issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I despise populism because it needs a foil

For left wing populists it's people with money. For right wing populists it's glbtq people, Hispanics, other nations, and recent immigrants.

I am a small l liberal democrat and a big L Liberal Democrat. Americans at their best work together and don't look for boogeymen. We're all in this together.

[Fresh_Start]

44. thats a good way of looking at it

thx

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I don't dislike rich people. I dislike greedy people.

[Fresh_Start]

48. right there with you

I dislike people who think their own interests are more important than the interests of their community.

and right now that community is the entire globe given climate change

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I don't dislike corporations. I dislike corporations that ignore the public good.

[Fresh_Start]

51. Corporations aren't chartered for the public good

so I forgive them that.

I dislike corporations who are unregulated and are able to push their costs (like population or greenhouse gases) unto the public while reaping only the benefits for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

27. "populists" will have to do a lot better than Bernie Sanders.

#1. Start with a Democrat.
#2...

[Kentonio]

98. Nah, I think he's doing just fine thanks.

[wyldwolf]

128. No. He is not. He'll never again be on a national major party ballot...

... not a primary and definitely not a general. But thanks.

[Kentonio]

138. If he isn't it will be because he chooses not to be

But then deep inside I think you already know that.

[wyldwolf]

147. Exactly - because he wouldn't want to embarrass himself.

But then deep inside I think you already know that.

[LisaM]

32. It really should espouse a range of views...

people can be populist on some issues and more centrist on others, for one thing, and a lot depends on where they live and what they can reasonably expect to accomplish.

I don't like seeing these rents in the Big Tent. I liked being in the Big Tent. It's what 'liberal' means, to have a generosity of spirit, to specifically not be narrow and harsh.

I think a lot of what's hurt the political climate is, frankly, taking the politicians out of politics. By nature, a politician needs to see multiple points of view and decide how to advance an agenda while making concessions here and there. Deals need to benefit both sides or they don't work.

Injecting novices and business people into politics has been an abject failure. I don't like it. It's poison.

[Madam45for2923]

47. I have come to not like that word.

[tirebiter]

53. California liberals have gone to a lot of effort to make California Centrist

Jerry Brown headed up the effort and Democrats that took a shot at running as Greens and came back are serving successfully as Democrats now.

[MatthewG.]

55. Not at all.

Nope

“Centrists” can be used to describe a lot of groups, and most analysts I’m aware of would say Americans who political views considered “Centrist” in most of the industrialized world basically all vote Democratic already.

That said, if by “centrists” we mean the average not-especially political American who doesn’t really stress that much about government, they basically assume that the Democrats will always define left and Republicans will always define right and they aren’t going to be swayed much by a more populist Democratic Party platform

[MerryBlooms]

57. You shouldn't come over here to troll. Tsk.

Your JPR post-

Billsmile (57 posts)
November 7, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Profile photo of Billsmile Donor
If The Dems Went All Populist would the Centrists Jump Ship?

I posed this question to Site Voldemort. What do JPR folks think?

[betsuni]

92. "Site Voldemort"? That's not very nice. I agree, JPR should stay at JPR.

Here on "Site Voldemort," we don't hate Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

58. We are what we are...not going anything... Tonight is about victory...no more

please...winning should stop this nonsense.

[Tavarious Jackson]

60. I won't vote for a Bernie.

I may just not vote.

[Garrett78]

61. Let's stop and define "populism," because it's a pretty vague concept.

When Googling the term, the first definition of populism reads, "support for the concerns of ordinary people."

So, that begs a couple of questions. Which "concerns?" What constitutes "ordinary?"

[GulfCoast66]

62. Populist always equal nationalist. No matter how you spin it

There is ALWAYS a scapegoat. That can be in the left or right. That can include but not limited to the following:

Blacks
Illegal immigrants
Millionaires
Liberals
Jews
Atheists
Muslims
Billionaires
Christians
Industrialists
Southerners
Gays

You get the idea. Show me one populist who does not rail against an evil ‘group’ and you will not be showing me a populist.

You will be showing me a liberal which is what I am.

[Kentonio]

99. The fact you put billionaires in the same list as Jews, Blacks and Gays is deeply troubling

So basically if we dare complain that the levers of power in our society and democracy have been handed over to the super rich, then we're equivilent to racists, anti-semites and homophobes.

Sorry, fuck that noise.

[betsuni]

100. "deeply troubling"

[Kentonio]

101. Good intellectual reply.

You really contributed a lot to the discussion.

[betsuni]

107. What intellectual discussion? "Fuck that noise"?

[David__77]

63. Not most.

I don't necessarily agree with your terminology "populist" and "centrist." That said, I think that if "leftist" forces were to capture the party leadership, most self-identified Democratic centrists or moderates would continue to vote Democratic.

The "leftists" may or may not have the political will and discipline and seize control and operate the party. I hope that they do.

[scheming daemons]

64. Trump is populist. Populism is not good governing.

[Garrett78]

66. See post #61. It depends on what is meant by "populism."

I certainly don't think Trump is representing the "concerns of ordinary people," but it all depends on how we define that phrase.

[emulatorloo]

68. He campaigned as a populist, and to deny he did is revisionist history.

That was his rhetoric.

We may have had this conversation before lol

[Garrett78]

73. Calling himself a populist, or the media calling him one, doesn't make it so.

What did he campaign on that suggested he was all about "the concerns of ordinary people?"

I suppose "concerns of ordinary people" means "bigotries of white folks."

The media was, overall, an epic failure during the campaign...such as failing to offer any sort of critical analysis of what they meant by referring to Trump as a "populist." This thread isn't much different, as I don't know that anyone else has bothered to define the term.

And, let's be clear, I'm not an advocate of "populism." The term is too vague to advocate for it.

[emulatorloo]

74. Drain the swap, evil globalist bankers

[Garrett78]

75. Trump did campaign against Wall Street malfeasance.

Putting aside the fact that anyone with a working brain knew he was lying through his teeth, I don't know that that's enough to warrant the label "populist."

I would say the Democratic Party platform is much more populist. Again, though, it all depends on how one chooses to define the term.

[NurseJackie]

67. Lord.

[L. Coyote]

70. The Democratic Party is populist and centrist, and we are welcoming everyone to join us.

Where do you think Social Security came from, the Republicans?

STOP being divisive, be a Democrat!

[AlphaCharley]

76. +1000 I think this thread should be removed. Do we even know the author?

[joshcryer]

72. They didn't flee Obama.

[RandySF]

77. Can we do this tomorrow?

I'm having too much fun.

[Hekate]

85. Apparently not. This is a hit and run post...

...and it's doing damage.

[grantcart]

86. it is tomorrow in Russia

[pnwmom]

84. Populism isn't the same as progressive. George Wallace was a populist. n/t

[Hekate]

87. Garbage argument, Billsmile. "So let's have at it"? Come back and say this again...

Democrats are not going to "become Republicans." And the Party is not going to "become populist" unless it wants to commit suicide. We're a big tent.

[lunasun]

90. Celebration time . Sorry please call back later

[brush]

94. Populism isn't a political philosophy. There have been both Dem and repug populists.

We has a repug one in the WH now.

[Kentonio]

95. ..

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

103. DEMOCRATS elected a trans woman and a socialist in VA

Danica Roem did not meet the standards for an endorsement from Nina's organization and was not on the list of the worthy. She won as a Democrat.

Democrat Lee Carter, a member of the Manassas City Democratic Committee ran and won as a Democrat. Whether Nina Turner's imprimateur or the DSA endorsement of the Democratic candidate made any difference is unclear.

But by all means Conor, grab the credit. Spinners gotta spin.

[betsuni]

108. I guess "leftists" really like the word "fuck."

[GaryCnf]

102. Are you questioning centrists' loyalty to our party?

Are you suggesting that centrists would resort to spreading lies about the Democratic candidate to excuse not voting for a populist?

Are you saying they have some sort of "I will never vote for a populist" or "I would hold my nose and vote for a populist, but even if they were the nominee, I wouldn't lift a finger to help" litmus test?

How can you even suggest such a thing?

I mean, you are practically accusing centrists of being every bit as much ideological purists as they FALSELY accused the left of being in 2016.

Their response to this outrageous question will show how wrong you are.

Let me jus go up-thread and read some to you

. . .

oops

Never mind.

[Sancho]

110. The premise is confounded: economic populism or diversity populism....

when you say, "move to the left" do you mean socialism focused on money or do you mean opening the doors to immigrants and diversity?

The primary battle appears to me to be the Archie Bunkers who embrace an economic solutions vs those would put social change first.

Either could "move to the left". The two "liberal" viewpoints are not entirely compatible, as we have seen.

In practice, progressive Democrats will achieve NOTHING if we keep electing tRumps!! It's a bit of a mute point until people quit running off to vote for outliers who are perfectly aligned with their personal experience, but cost the election.

Most eligible voters don't vote. The percentage of young voters is particularly dismal. Most people don't care or don't know.

Of those who vote, a large number of people vote against their best interest because 1.) they are one-issue voters (guns, abortion, etc.); 2.) they are affiliated with some organization that tells them what to do (NRA, etc.); 3.) they fall prey to propaganda (fake news, FOX, etc.).

If the relatively small number of "liberal-progressive-Democrats" continue to divide themselves over who's ass is more "left", then they will continue to lose elections. Democrats would be better served to have ANY of the leading possibilities than tRump. I am very pissed off at people who jump ship because they don't think the candidate is "left enough" or "too left" or whatever.

I will vote straight Democrat.

[Adrahil]

114. Don't confound "populist" and "progressive"

Trump is a populist. He's a right-wing populist.

And don't assume that anyone who opposes leftist populism is a centrist. I think I am fairly progressive on most issues.

[MineralMan]

120. Aw, Gowan Witcha!

[lagomorph777]

126. First of all, WTF is "populism?" It seems to be a word to describe something extremely unpopular.

As in low 30's unpopular.

[JustAnotherGen]

127. We pulled the Centrists in

In NJ. I guess I'm not understanding . . .

Have you looked at Phil Murphy's platform? Have you seen the Union members, the income levels, the minorities that voted for him?

That primary showed - getting up in the grill and go for the 'others' and those left behind BY - very important - a former Goldman Sachs banker who grew up in poverty and wants everyone to have a decent head over their roofs and 3 squares a day - is the way to go. He ran on allowing sanctuary cities and standing up to racists, a paycheck fairness act and a $15 minimum wage.


Key - he included EVERYONE. And he won on that premise.

[Paladin]

133. Flamebait. God forbid we should enjoy our victories, even for a full day. (nt)

[brewens]

136. A few that we don't need anyway would leave. You know the type, they tell us we can't

have single payer in this country, though it's been proven around the world. They'll say we can't have a populist candidate either, though the republicans can. Hopefully our populist would a be more trustworthy than Trump, not be a pervert, and be considerably more popular than Trump.

[BainsBane]

137. How many threads are we going to see

that use only labels and discuss nothing of substance?

[Wwcd]

145. The Party is made of a lot of views. It has always moved forward

with all on board.
Who is it that keeps trying to section it off into a, b, c, & d ?

If you've followed the Dem Platform at all you wouldn't be here dividing our great Party of all people into warring factions.

Who is it that keeps dividing thevDem Party?

Here try this. Its what the Dem Party stands for, their Platform moving forward.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9818689

----
Hortensis
18. Oh, our party platform contains FAR more and is FAR stronger.
This is just the table of contents:

RAISE INCOMES AND RESTORE ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS
Raising Workers’ Wages
Protecting Workers’ Fundamental Rights
Supporting Working Families
Helping More Workers Share in Near-Record Corporate Profits
Expanding Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership
Protecting and Expanding Social Security
Ensuring a Secure and Dignified Retirement
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Postal Service

CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS
Building 21st Century Infrastructure
Fostering a Manufacturing Renaissance
Creating Good-Paying Clean Energy Jobs
Pursuing Our Innovation Agenda: Science, Research, Education, and Technology
Supporting America’s Small Businesses
Creating Jobs for America’s Young People

FIGHT FOR ECONOMIC FAIRNESS AND AGAINST INEQUALITY
Reining in Wall Street and Fixing our Financial System
Promoting Competition by Stopping Corporate Concentration
Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
Promoting Trade That is Fair and Benefits American Workers

BRING AMERICANS TOGETHER AND REMOVE BARRIERS TO OPPORTUNITIES
Ending Systemic Racism
Closing the Racial Wealth Gap
Reforming our Criminal Justice System
Fixing our Broken Immigration System
Guaranteeing Civil Rights
Guaranteeing Women’s Rights
Guaranteeing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights
Guaranteeing Rights for People with Disabilities
Respecting Faith and Service
Investing in Rural America
Ending Poverty and Investing in Communities Left Behind
Building Strong Cities and Metro Areas
Promoting Arts and Culture
Honoring Indigenous Tribal Nations
Fighting for the People of Puerto Rico
Honoring the People of the Territories

PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS, FIX OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM, AND RESTORE OUR DEMOCRACY
Protecting Voting Rights
Fixing Our Broken Campaign Finance System
Appointing Judges
Securing Statehood for Washington, DC
Strengthening Management of Federal Government

COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, AND SECURE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Building a Clean Energy Economy
Securing Environmental and Climate Justice
Protecting Our Public Lands and Waters

PROVIDE QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE EDUCATION
Making Debt-Free College a Reality
Providing Relief from Crushing Student Debt
Supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions
Cracking Down on Predatory For-Profit Schools
Guaranteeing Universal Preschool and Good Schools for Every Child

ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL AMERICANS
Securing Universal Health Care
Supporting Community Health Centers
Reducing Prescription Drug Costs
Enabling Cutting-Edge Medical Research
Combating Drug and Alcohol Addiction
Treating Mental Health
Supporting Those Living with Autism and their Families
Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
Ensuring Long-Term Care, Services, and Supports
Protecting and Promoting Public Health
Ending Violence Against Women
Preventing Gun Violence

PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND KEEP FAITH WITH OUR VETERANS
Defense Spending
Veterans and Service Members
Military Families
A Strong Military

CONFRONT GLOBAL THREATS
Terrorism
Syria
Afghanistan
Iran
North Korea
Russia
Cybersecurity and Online Privacy
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons
Global Climate Leadership

PROTECT OUR VALUES
Women and Girls
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People
Trafficking and Modern Slavery
Young People
Religious Minorities
Refugees
Civil Society
Anti-Corruption
Torture
Closing Guantánamo Bay
Development Assistance
Global Health
HIV and AIDS
International Labor

A LEADER IN THE WORLD
Asia-Pacific
Middle East
Europe
Americas
Africa
Global Economy and Institutions

To mine for some good slogan material, the document:
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#wall-street

[brooklynite]

146. Centrist Democrats? No.

Center-right Independents? Maybe.