2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFor the long term and especially the short term, the Democratic party needs to embrace Sanders.
Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 08:12 AM - Edit history (3)
The Republicans are all fascist clowns falling over each other to prove who is the most fascist blustering idiot.
O'Malley cannot get any traction. Webb is honest, but honestly half Republican. Chafee is a lightweight. So that leaves us with Clinton and Sanders.
CNN is a huge contributor to the Clinton campaign. Wall Street is a huge contributor to the Clinton campaign. Drug companies are huge contributors to the Clinton campaign. Rich people in general are huge contributors to the Clinton campaign. If you are at all concerned about wealth inequality and corporate overreach, how can you possibly trust Clinton even to try to govern differently?
The Republicans are so scary that Sanders seems tame in comparison. The American public actually agrees with Sanders' stances on almost every single major issue. The only exception is single payer (only 48% of the US public say they want it), but that's only because people conflate it with unpopular, demonized Obamacare.
Here is the whole problem with "the third way" as I see it. If you compromise your ideals before it is absolutely necessary to do so, just to supposedly appeal to the widest focus group of low information voters, you end up with the complete mess our great nation currently faces. The problem all our recent Democratic leaders face is that they "compromise" before they even put the matter on the table in the interest of a "bipartisanship" that works only one way.
The only way to win is to proclaim your winning position loudly over and over and over. You only compromise, just as you only go to war, as a last resort. If you don't stand up for what is right as strongly and as vociferously as possible, regardless of what the corporate media addled public supposedly "thinks" according to corporate polls, your defeatism becomes self-fulfilling, and you end up with the political mess our country now faces: a government of the 1%, for the 1%, and by the 1%.
If Democrats want to win state and local elections, our candidates are going to have to start working to energize the disaffected masses that the Republicans keep trying to disenfranchise both by law and by apathetic attrition. Democrats are going to have to go after the rich, powerful, and entrenched interests that are ripping Americans off and offer some tangible relief to the average citizen. Simply not being quite as bad as Republicans is no longer a viable strategy. Democrats are going to have to work hard to channel the anger of average citizens against the corrupt oligarchy that currently controls our government at almost every level. Until the rigged system is changed, Democrats have no choice but to reach out to many people who have completely given up on participating politically and give these people some compelling reasons to engage.
Bernie Sanders has said the exact same things he is saying now over and over and over for the last 30 years. During this entire period, he has been derided and marginalized for being too extreme and too radical. His argument against wealth inequality and for a basic level of economic justice has never changed. The only thing that has changed is that the situation has gotten so out of hand that the message now strongly resonates, despite corporate media's continuing best efforts to marginalize and demonize this message.
To me, simply having millions of people exposed to these ideas, many for the first time, is a huge sign of progress, and a sign that maybe, just maybe, there finally is some hope for positive political change in the USA. Accelerating wealth inequality and environmental destruction are just not sustainable. We have to start somewhere to address these issues. Business as usual is simply not an option.
So I say support Sanders until he draws his last political breath if only to wake up one more otherwise apathetic kid to the inevitable battle our nation now faces. Are we going to go quietly into the Banana Republicanism promised by Citizens United or are we at least going to put up a fight?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It's not an exact quote but I'll paraphrase. The conservative party went more to the right and lost. The liberal party went more to the left and won. I feel by going more left the democratic party will win more voters and also head in the correct direction for what's needed now. There's apparently some evidence to back this up in the last Congressional election. The democratic candidates who went to the right lost. The democratic candidates who went to the left won.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)DrBulldog
(841 posts). . . the support of 65% of the 75,000,000 millennials in this country. That means control of Congress is within reach of the Democrats.
Or you can vote just to have Hillary become the first woman President who will then sit in the Oval Office for four years with a dumb smile on her face as she accomplishes nothing with an all-Republican Congress . . .
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Hillary supporters eventual conclusion as to why they're voting for her is because they'd rather do anything it takes to beat the Republicans than actually vote for someone who will win, ESPECIALLY if they put their damn fear behind them and he'd change a hell of a lot more than moderate Hillary would.
my op is still relevant today...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251431753
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)That means he's the only person who stands a chance of turning around the bought-and-paid-for status of our officials, which undermines so much that we want and need.
We need him to get elected and get money out of politics so that government will work for the people again.
Larry Lessig would get money out of politics. He would do it faster and more effectively than Bernie. But it seems the system has ensured that he does not have a chance.
excellent post.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... concrete plans on getting shit done.
HC has outlined EOs to get around congress... that's progress
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Imposing executive power over Congress is a temporary measure, not a step towards developing long-term solutions through accepted channels.
Obama has not been shy about issuing EO's to get the ball rolling on other issues such as immigration and wages. However, my hunch -- and it is a hunch -- is that the reason Obama has not issued any executive orders to impose stricter gun control is that he realizes what a mistake that could be.
Issuing an executive order to impose gun control would further polarize and stir up the worst fears of people regarding gun control. It would be a major step backward in bringing the different sides of the gun issue together to develop a lasting consensus.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... parasitic industry.
8 years of the non permanent or some legislation that gets them to change and cost to much to reverse for instance. Go Hillary !!!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There is a difference between going to Congress with a unified strong plan, and empty showboating and mixed messages and giving away the store from the beginning.
When there is an intractable issue like gun control the only way to put permanent solutions in place is to unify the WH and Congress Dems with a coherent solution and fight for it in the court of public opinion and in the halls of Congress. It will get picked at, like all legislation, and ultimately some form of compromise will come out of it. But if the Dems unify and keep pressing behind a strong position that can appeal to the majority of reasonable people (non gun-nut NRA types) it is quite possible to takes the necessary steps forward.
But of the WH takes a polarizing "my way or the highway" and imposes a feelgood EO, that is only 1)Going to confirm the worst doubts of people who might be on the fence about it and inflame the opponents 2) Be temporary that will be endlessly challenged in courts, further rigidify the GOP and be overturned.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)I don't like guns one bit, but come on.
That plays right into Republicans' wet dreams about Democratic executive "fascism."
And Clinton would never actually do this. It is just the only issue on which she can posture to the left of Sanders without inducing hearty guffaws for all informed observers.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)people simply do not know what it is.
We need to launch a campaign to inform the citizenry what it is. God knows the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry have been lying about what single payer is for year and years.
Single payer is the best feature of the Sander's campaign. Or, it can be.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)No insurance ripoffs.
Huge drug discounts.
Prevention is far cheaper than cure.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)This:
Here is the whole problem with "the third way" as I see it. If you compromise your ideals before it is absolutely necessary to do so, just to supposedly appeal to the widest focus group of low information voters, you end up with the complete mess our great nation currently faces. The problem all our recent Democratic leaders face is that they "compromise" before they even put the matter on the table in the interest of a "bipartisanship" that works only one way.