Do you think we are seeing the end-game of identity politics?

[theboss]

Watching the two primaries this year has been interesting.

Republicans are breaking apart on ideological grounds (mostly).

The social conservatives flocked to Huckabee.
The green-eye shade conservatives flocked to Romney.
The isolationists went to Paul (sorta).
The security conservatives and everyone else went to McCain. And it turned out the "everyone else" crowd actually had the real power.

In some ways, it's interesting to see a party actually fight it out on ideological grounds - even if I find those ideologies repellant. What is at stake with the Republicans is no less than which ideas will dominant. Will abortion, terrorism, border security, or the economny be their #1 issue in the decade ahead? At the moment, they seem to have put their eggs in the terrorism basket. They are going to run on national security...and that's pretty much it.

Meanwhile, Democrats have run pretty much an issue-less campaign in the sense that are no real politicy disagreements among the candidates. Inexplicably, NAFTA - a 15 year old law that no one is going to change - became an issue last week.

All major candidates supported ending the war in Iraq ASAP. The argument is who has the better "plan" and "judgment."

All major candidates supported some form of national healthcare. The issue is who has a better plan that has no chance in hell of being implemented.

All major candidates wanted to raise our standing in the world. The issue is who knows more world leaders at the moment.

So, really the contest is breaking down on who is pissing off a certain voting block more at any given time.

White voters over Wright.
Black voters over Ferraro.
Women voters over a lack of sympathy.
Male voters over a candidate crying.
Gay voters over McCluskey.
Hispanic voters over whatever.
Labor voters over comments on NAFTA.

Is this really what the future of the Democratic Party holds? An endless series of political gang wars?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. It's the history of our party ... inclusive and divisive.

What made you think any symbolic candidate could reverse this?

[theboss]

3. I think these particular candidates actually exploited the fault lines

And the longer the race goes on, the bigger the cracks become.

It was kind of cute in February when it was "a black, a woman, and John." That pretty much described our party. But the longer they fight it out, the bigger the fault lines become as they are now entering a vote by vote type of fight.

"If I can just get 10 percent of white voters in District 11...."

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. That's what conventions are for. You gotta believe in party politics

to get past silly season. I survived it personally, once ... not quite the same but painful nonetheless. The experience improves the candidates.

[sfam]

2. What possibly makes you think this is the end-game?

Its fairly clear that this is going to be our MO for the rest of the primary, the end of which appears to be a long way off. The only potential positive is that if we continue, by destroying our chances this round, we'll step back from the brink earlier in 2012.

[theboss]

7. End-game in the sense of this is where it ultimately leads to...

Different groups yelling at different groups over issues that not really related to public policy in any meaningful sense.

While I find Ferraro's comments racist, I honestly don't think that Hillary Clinton is going to govern in a way that is harmful to black people.

While I think McCluskey is an idiot, I honestly think Obama will have the most "pro-gay" administration in history.

We are now down to using voting blocs simply as clubs.

[Mooney]

4. No.

Maybe in 200 years, but not today.

[butterfly77]

5. This is what happens when...

we let politicians pretend that we are living in a dream world when, we the people are living in the real world..

[Armstead]

6. We're repeating the same old mistakes

Rather than offering an overriding vision, the Democratic Party is yet again getting mired in "identity politics" and personalized attacks that set us against each otehr.

It is stupid, and it reminds the independents out there why they didn;t like the Democrats in the past.

What we should be doing in this primary is setting the basis for a larger vision -- based on the merits of traditional liberal populism on issues of wealth and power -- and going after the GOP. If we were to articulate a CLEAR ALTERNATIVE, we could be winning over voters in droves.

Instead, we're arguing about who is more racist, sexist and who is ruder and cruder.

[Blue_Roses]

8. I think this primary has brought up issues that have simmered

under the surface for many years and by damn, it's time to get them out in the open and hash them and rehash them, until we can either understand them or agree to disagree on the basis of respecting the choice of others to believe what they want.

It's time once and for all to get it all out in the open...