The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Washington Resistance Army]

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/3/14084382/keith-ellison-dnc-chair

In the interest of even-handedness, this article makes arguably the best case for Ellison that I've yet seen. It's not enough to move me even though I agree with at least one major portion of the premise, but fine.

If the Ellison backers whose main criteria is that whoever the next chair is has to be a Bernie person want to make that argument, this is the way they should make it: It's very hard to push back on without sounding petty and/or pivoting to support for a low-wattage candidate like Ray Buckley.

Truth be told, I really can't decide if Ellison will be a net gain or detriment for the Democrats.

I feel like he's not a good choice but pretty much anyone would be better than the leadership they've had recently.

[Genivaria]

Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure ANY establishment Republican had a chance. I think the outsider would have done better.

I'm not entirely sure, but it sure seems like it.

And yet the Republican establishment are stronger than ever under Trump.

[Huaxia]

The Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt at this point, and if it continues to try to run bland, centrist technocrats it will dwindle even more into irrelevancy.

American Liberalism is basically dead and cremated. It remains to be seen what if anything will arise from its ashes.

[USS Monitor]

he's had a longer time to adjust to being a loser.

Except he never stopped. He lost, fought for change in the DNC platform, and then fought to get Clinton elected, and now is continuing to fight after she lost.

I think he's still excited about having an audience larger than the state of Vermont. That's still a relatively new thing for him. He hasn't been on the national stage long enough for the novelty to wear off.

[Novus America]

Even had Trump not run, Jeb wouldn't have won the nomination. He simply lacks the charisma and anything "new" so to speak.

It's not like Romney had that much charisma or offered anything new. If Trump had not run, Jeb! certainly would have had a decent chance.

Truth be told, I really can't decide if Ellison will be a net gain or detriment for the Democrats.

Anyone would be an improvement over DWS, to be quite honest.

Jeb! came in a very distant sixth place. Even without Trump he was done before he started. He never got any traction because he never had a message, or anything going for him besides money. The Bush name is now more a curse than a benefit.

[Corrian]

Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure ANY establishment Republican had a chance. I think the outsider would have done better.

I'm not entirely sure, but it sure seems like it.

And yet the Republican establishment are stronger than ever under Trump.

Gotta love that.

Still, from what I've heard, Democrats GAINED everywhere (Except the White House), just not nearly enough. And with that, the Republicans lost the popular vote, too, which, our system being legitimate or not in the eyes of people, is still an immediate thing to make your legitimacy when you're a minority in the eyes of the voters a problem. Plus, as mentioned, the gains that were made.

But alas, here we are.

Nonetheless, while I think the Republicans have put a bandage on the wound that was their divide, I still feel like their party is in their own unstable situation. Its just stitched together temporarily while Democrats completely unraveled. I honestly think after 1 to 2 terms of Trump (Please not 2), Republicans will be more hated than they are already, and there is still a huge split of approach in the party itself.

[Cattle Mutilators]

I'm sure it has to do with him still being in the senate and all, but it still feels to me like how she was more in it to be President, and now that she's not, she's gone. While Bernie was in it for the betterment of everyone.

By tradition, losing Presidential candidates go away. The feeling is that the country as rejected them, and nobody wants to hear from them anymore.

Seriously, her doing anything for the Democratic Party at the moment would be extremely counterproductive.

[Corrian]

Jeb! came in a very distant sixth place. Even without Trump he was done before he started. He never got any traction because he never had a message, or anything going for him besides money. The Bush name is now more a curse than a benefit.

At least the dynasty names are now all a curse. Maybe we won't get more Bush' and Clinton's freaking running.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Jeb! came in a very distant sixth place. Even without Trump he was done before he started. He never got any traction because he never had a message, or anything going for him besides money. The Bush name is now more a curse than a benefit.

At least the dynasty names are now all a curse. Maybe we won't get more Bush' and Clinton's freaking running.

Just wait. Chelsea 2024 is coming.

[Corrian]

I'm sure it has to do with him still being in the senate and all, but it still feels to me like how she was more in it to be President, and now that she's not, she's gone. While Bernie was in it for the betterment of everyone.

By tradition, losing Presidential candidates go away. The feeling is that the country as rejected them, and nobody wants to hear from them anymore.

Seriously, her doing anything for the Democratic Party at the moment would be extremely counterproductive.

True enough.

Especially losing to Trump.

[Cattle Mutilators]

American Liberalism is basically dead and cremated. It remains to be seen what if anything will arise from its ashes.

So what, we have to choose between being socialists or fascists from now on?

Can I say fuck that shit? Fuck that shit!

[Ngelmish]

Notice how Clinton has fallen off of the face of the Earth while Bernie is still out fighting?

I mean, I get it, she had a rough campaign and needs the break, but Jesus, Bernie hasn't even stopped. He's posting CONSTANTLY and every day, and is on shows regularly, while continuing to push and push for his movement still.

I'm sure it has to do with him still being in the senate and all, but it still feels to me like how she was more in it to be President, and now that she's not, she's gone. While Bernie was in it for the betterment of everyone.

(Sorry for the non-Trump related ramble, I just don't know where else to post it and I'm just noticing it. And I follow both on Facebook right now)

Maybe Clinton just realized that she wouldn't be helping and the party needs to move on. I don't see what good it would do for anyone for her to be out there making noise. You've got to consider that there is a large right-wing smear campaign against her that is more vicious than anything they've been throwing at Bernie, and that makes it harder for her to accomplish anything good by maintaining a high public profile.

It's not as though Sanders continuing to fight has delivered any policy accomplishments either. If it keeps people politically engaged then that's probably a positive... but surely folks are going to want results eventually? It's what I've never understood about the "Bernie is fighting for us" line of thought.

[Ngelmish]

The Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt at this point, and if it continues to try to run bland, centrist technocrats it will dwindle even more into irrelevancy.

American Liberalism is basically dead and cremated. It remains to be seen what if anything will arise from its ashes.

Would you mind expanding on what your definition of a "bland, centrist technocrat," is?

[Corrian]

It's not as though Sanders continuing to fight has delivered any policy accomplishments either. If it keeps people politically engaged then that's probably a positive... but surely folks are going to want results eventually? It's what I've never understood about the "Bernie is fighting for us" line of thought.

Its not like he can magically conjure policies or anything. Not even if he was President. He can try, and to bring awareness to as many things as possible, but yeah.

[Ngelmish]

It's not as though Sanders continuing to fight has delivered any policy accomplishments either. If it keeps people politically engaged then that's probably a positive... but surely folks are going to want results eventually? It's what I've never understood about the "Bernie is fighting for us" line of thought.

Its not like he can magically conjure policies or anything. Not even if he was President. He can try, and to bring awareness to as many things as possible, but yeah.

It's probably because I've never been a fan, but it seems to me simply perverse to give Sanders credit for fighting the good fight while simultaneously dismissing the policy accomplishments of other politicians as insufficiently liberal like say, in the context of this thread alone, Howard Dean or Tom Perez. In any other context they would be considered rock-ribbed liberals.

Also to be clear, I'm not saying that you, specifically are guilty of that. But it does seem as though Sanders has discovered some magical formula wherein his intentions are more than good enough.

[Corrian]

It's probably because I've never been a fan, but it seems to me simply perverse to give Sanders credit for fighting the good fight while simultaneously dismissing the policy accomplishments of other politicians as insufficiently liberal like say, in the context of this thread alone, Howard Dean or Tom Perez. In any other context they would be considered rock-ribbed liberals.

Also to be clear, I'm not saying that you, specifically are guilty of that. But it does seem as though Sanders has discovered some magical formula wherein his intentions are more than good enough.

Honestly, I wasn't that against Howard Dean. His strategy sounded like a good strategy. Tom Perez I just don't know enough, but I'm weary of things I've seen/heard, but I'm also weary of what I've heard solely because it is coming just from the Bernie circle. I have a hard time keeping up with all the Democrats. I'm bad enough at keeping up with local people.

[Huaxia]

American Liberalism is basically dead and cremated. It remains to be seen what if anything will arise from its ashes.

So what, we have to choose between being socialists or fascists from now on?

Can I say fuck that shit? Fuck that shit!

Socialism or barbarism, baby. It's always been the only choice.

[Huaxia]

The Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt at this point, and if it continues to try to run bland, centrist technocrats it will dwindle even more into irrelevancy.

American Liberalism is basically dead and cremated. It remains to be seen what if anything will arise from its ashes.

Would you mind expanding on what your definition of a "bland, centrist technocrat," is?

[Valrifell]

Would you mind expanding on what your definition of a "bland, centrist technocrat," is?

I don't think technocrat means what you think it means.

[Ngelmish]

Would you mind expanding on what your definition of a "bland, centrist technocrat," is?

Barrack Obama? Martin O'Malley? Joe Biden? Bill de Blasio?

You'll understand, I'm sure, that at this particular moment in time, contempt for Hillary Clinton is not particularly indicative of a hard and fast definition.

[Kazarogkai]

The difference being that most Clinton supporters would have gladly supported Bernie Sanders, whereas Sanders supporters had a tough time voting for Clinton. Sanders also won Wisconsin and Michigan, so he would have had a better shot of corralling Democrats there during the general election. Plus, Democratic primaries are indicative of what the rank-and-file are anxious for -- not of what independent swing voters would prefer.

There are many reasons to believe that Sanders would have beaten Trump.

The Democratic primary was a pretty good indicator of what independent voters were anxious for if you factor in the fact that a disproportionate amount of Sanders' support came from voters with weak to no affiliation to the Democratic party. Maybe that translates into Sanders having a broader coalition in the general election because partisan Democrats would come home to the nominee, but there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that Sanders would have held up well as the nominee. And as far as primary performance is concerned, Trump won the Nevada caucuses too for all the good that did him in November. And that still doesn't address the underlying point that if Clinton was such a poor candidate losing, Sanders losing to her hardly inspires confidence in him.

To be clear, I increasingly think that both Clinton and Sanders would have lost to Trump this year, though for individualized reasons.

Last I checked Hilary cheated in the primary and effectively created a situation where sanders would lose regardless of how much he tried. That is personally the biggest reason why I refused to come out and vote for that women. Winning fair and square is one thing, I can respect that, but the fact that she cheated completely turned me and I suspect many others away.

[Corrian]

Last I checked Hilary cheated in the primary and effectively created a situation where sanders would lose regardless of how much he tried. That is personally the biggest reason why I refused to come out and vote for that women. Winning fair and square is one thing, I can respect that, but the fact that she cheated completely turned me and I suspect many others away.

I didn't know Clinton single handedly came out and cheated somehow.

Was it favoring her from the get go? Sure. But I think this "She cheated" is overplayed.

[Ngelmish]

The Democratic primary was a pretty good indicator of what independent voters were anxious for if you factor in the fact that a disproportionate amount of Sanders' support came from voters with weak to no affiliation to the Democratic party. Maybe that translates into Sanders having a broader coalition in the general election because partisan Democrats would come home to the nominee, but there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that Sanders would have held up well as the nominee. And as far as primary performance is concerned, Trump won the Nevada caucuses too for all the good that did him in November. And that still doesn't address the underlying point that if Clinton was such a poor candidate losing, Sanders losing to her hardly inspires confidence in him.

To be clear, I increasingly think that both Clinton and Sanders would have lost to Trump this year, though for individualized reasons.

Last I checked Hilary cheated in the primary and effectively created a situation where sanders would lose regardless of how much he tried. That is personally the biggest reason why I refused to come out and vote for that women. Winning fair and square is one thing, I can respect that, but the fact that she cheated completely turned me and I suspect many others away.

You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to, but no. No cheating, in any serious sense of the word, happened.

[PaNTuXIa]

Well, the first thing the Dems should do if they want any chance in 2020 is to stop with the identity politics bullshit.

[Cattle Mutilators]

Last I checked Hilary cheated in the primary and effectively created a situation where sanders would lose regardless of how much he tried. That is personally the biggest reason why I refused to come out and vote for that women. Winning fair and square is one thing, I can respect that, but the fact that she cheated completely turned me and I suspect many others away.

Explain how she "cheated". Be precise.