The State of the Democratic Party II

[Tobleste]

I hate being the kind of liberal who uses the s or r word but I can't help but think that the hatred against Kamala Harris is partially down to sexism. Clinton, Pelosi, Gillibrand and Warren all receive the same irrational hatred from the right where they're blamed for every crime committed within 100 miles of them.

No, the Democrats should appeal to the economic interests of working class people of any ethnic or religious background in a meaningful capacity. The key problem is neoliberalism, the secondary, inflaming issue is the identity politics. Both major parties in the United States are neoliberal, its just the GOP is better at rallying the majority population through fearmongering.

I agree but they already do appeal to the economic interests of working class people of all ethnic or religious backgrounds. They are the party that's more supportive of unions, higher taxes on the wealthy, affordable healthcare and education and minimum wages. The problem seems to have been 1) Many voters will vote against those interests because of single issues (abortion, 2nd amendment), 2) Clinton was a discredited messenger who seemed so elitist that Trump could been seen as a 'blue coller billionaire' and 3) Many voters believe reducing immigration would be more good to them than economic policies.

[USS Monitor]

I hate being the kind of liberal who uses the s or r word but I can't help but think that the hatred against Kamala Harris is partially down to sexism. Clinton, Pelosi, Gillibrand and Warren all receive the same irrational hatred from the right where they're blamed for every crime committed within 100 miles of them.

Sexism exists, but there are also other factors at play in the hate for Kamala Harris. A lot of it is because of the way her supporters act. They rub people the wrong way by overselling Harris and talking too much about her race and gender.

I want Warren for president and I don't have a problem with Pelosi, but I still think Harris' supporters are annoying and I don't see what's so great about Harris herself. I think it is possible for a woman to get elected president in spite of sexism, but people need to stop and think about the specific candidate they're choosing and the way they go about promoting their candidate. While Harris supporters were busy talking her up based on race and gender, her detractors have been dominating the conversation about her track record, and Harris comes off looking bad as a result.

[Post War America]

If the economy maintains its present course, and if the DNC insists on running candidates who campaign on neoliberalism and identity politics, ceteris paribus, we'd be heading for a likely Republican victory.

Those are both huge "if"s and you've also left out a big one: "if the Russia stuff doesn't blow up in Trump's face." And can we seriously stop using "neoliberalism" as a buzzword for "anything I don't like"? People seem to think it makes them sound savvy and tuned in. It doesn't.

Given that Mike Pence is better at hiding his jackassery than Trump it might be counterproductive if the Russia stuff takes Trump down, unless it hits the entire administration. As for neoliberalism, I'm well aware of what it actually is. Just because the Democrats are less aggressive in their promotion of marketization does not mean that they are not engaging in neoliberal practices. We have CLinton to blame for welfare reform in the 1990s for example, or the fact that Blue States are just as willing to reduce corporate taxes and have tax holidays to attract business as Red States are.

I hate being the kind of liberal who uses the s or r word but I can't help but think that the hatred against Kamala Harris is partially down to sexism. Clinton, Pelosi, Gillibrand and Warren all receive the same irrational hatred from the right where they're blamed for every crime committed within 100 miles of them.

No, the Democrats should appeal to the economic interests of working class people of any ethnic or religious background in a meaningful capacity. The key problem is neoliberalism, the secondary, inflaming issue is the identity politics. Both major parties in the United States are neoliberal, its just the GOP is better at rallying the majority population through fearmongering.

I agree but they already do appeal to the economic interests of working class people of all ethnic or religious backgrounds. They are the party that's more supportive of unions, higher taxes on the wealthy, affordable healthcare and education and minimum wages. The problem seems to have been 1) Many voters will vote against those interests because of single issues (abortion, 2nd amendment), 2) Clinton was a discredited messenger who seemed so elitist that Trump could been seen as a 'blue coller billionaire' and 3) Many voters believe reducing immigration would be more good to them than economic policies.

I would not argue that there is a not of sexist backlash against Harris et al, but it is a ridiculous assertion to assume that everyone who doesn't vote for her is doing so for sexist reasons. One can despise her policy stances and not really care about her sex or race. It's infuriating and tbqh alienating to be told that one is a sexist for not unequivocally supporting any candidate who is a woman (and a Democrat).

As to economic interests I would point out that the Democrats do indeed pay lip service to those ideals, but rarely do they ever follow through. They say they are pro-Union but then consistently fail to do a single thing against aggressive de-unionization. They claim to be for affordable healthcare, but when the opportunity presented itself (In 2009) they passed a bill based on a Republican plan without even considering something more aggressive but also allowing the far right in the Republican party to shift their own paradigm further to the right. Education costs are still ballooning and while Democrats have taken some measures to fix this problem, so too have certain Republicans. Minimum wages are admittedly are area where Democrats have done well, and this should be applauded, however the issue here is that minimum wage increase have not been tied to the Democrats in the eyes of many voters.

As for your points, yeah, you'd be correct in most of them. It becomes clear than that there's a failing among the people who are doing the right thing to demonstrate to voters that they are.

I do not doubt that there is a problem with single issue voters in this country, perhaps then Democrats should do a better job of explaining why the economics are important, grounding it in terms that make sense, and tying it to the communities of these voters. The issue, at least among the single issue types, is that Democrats are being perceived as an existential threat to said communities with their "coastal elitist values" and seeming lack of concern for rural blue collar workers. Which leads to the second point.

Clinton et al, are inherently an issue. Choosing the same establishment faces will continue to be issue for the Dems on two fronts. The first of course is that they have decades of mud to be slung at them. The second here is that they have little in the way of up and coming leadership which not only means that they'll have relative inexperience in future campaigns, but also a lack of new ideas and new tactics going into future elections.

Thirdly, yes, many do believe that reducing immigration would be a boon. That I won't argue. The question is why? I would posit that the answer is because they need something to blame for the decline of rural America. The Republicans provided a convenient scapegoat. The Democrats need to also provide something to blame, or alternatively work harder (and more closely with said rural communities) to create solutions for the problems that are ailing them. This is something the establishment has failed to do, instead abandoning them under the title of "deplorables".

[Thermodolia]

If the economy maintains its present course, and if the DNC insists on running candidates who campaign on neoliberalism and identity politics, ceteris paribus, we'd be heading for a likely Republican victory.

So the Democrats should run Republican Lite? That worked well before.

Also, identity politics is bad when catering to anything besides White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Dems shouldn’t be neoliberal
> they are republican lite!!

Seriously? This is what is wrong the democrats and why they will continue to lose.

[The Rich Port]

In fairness she was hot back in the 90s.

No...
Not in the slightest.

Hate to break it to you Davincia, but Hillary Clinton was a well-established sexy nerd.

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/when-they- ... tion/67375

[Cekoviu]

No...
Not in the slightest.

Hate to break it to you Davincia, but Hillary Clinton was a well-established sexy nerd.

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/when-they- ... tion/67375

She was a College Republican, though, so that ruins it.

[The Rich Port]

Hate to break it to you Davincia, but Hillary Clinton was a well-established sexy nerd.

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/when-they- ... tion/67375

She was a College Republican, though, so that ruins it.

A College Republican that then became the Republican boogiewoman.

HAWT.

[Valrifell]

So the Democrats should run Republican Lite? That worked well before.

Also, identity politics is bad when catering to anything besides White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Dems shouldn’t be neoliberal
> they are republican lite!!

Seriously? This is what is wrong the democrats and why they will continue to lose.

Honestly can we cut the whole "THIS is why they're going to continue to lose" bullshit? It's really fucking annoying.

[Post War America]

Dems shouldn’t be neoliberal
> they are republican lite!!

Seriously? This is what is wrong the democrats and why they will continue to lose.

Honestly can we cut the whole "THIS is why they're going to continue to lose" bullshit? It's really fucking annoying.

Can we also cut the "anybody who didn't vote for democrats is a racist sexist transphobe bigot who's literally worse than Hitler" nonsense too?

[Valrifell]

Honestly can we cut the whole "THIS is why they're going to continue to lose" bullshit? It's really fucking annoying.

Can we also cut the "anybody who didn't vote for democrats is a racist sexist transphobe bigot who's literally worse than Hitler" nonsense too?

Sure thing.

Though I don't particularly indulge in that kind of behavior anyway.

[The Rich Port]

Honestly can we cut the whole "THIS is why they're going to continue to lose" bullshit? It's really fucking annoying.

Can we also cut the "anybody who didn't vote for democrats is a racist sexist transphobe bigot who's literally worse than Hitler" nonsense too?

That is patently true.

I didn't vote Democrat, I voted for myself.

It's anybody who voted for Trump that is a racist sexist transphobe bigot. Keep up. :D

[Kramanica]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

[Cekoviu]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

I honestly don't see why Russia would want to back Bernie Sanders. He's an anti-establishment globalist social democrat, quite far from the goals of the Russian government. I don't know enough about the case to formulate a proper opinion on it, but it just seems strange that they would support him (whereas they actually have reasons to support Trump).

[MERIZoC]

Hate to break it to you Davincia, but Hillary Clinton was a well-established sexy nerd.

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/when-they- ... tion/67375

She was a College Republican, though, so that ruins it.

Proof of how bad college republicans are

[MERIZoC]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

lmao talk about a leading headline

"Kramanica silent on claim that he's a rapist and a serial killer. Why won't he acknowledge this?? What's he hiding??"

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

I honestly don't see why Russia would want to back Bernie Sanders. He's an anti-establishment globalist social democrat, quite far from the goals of the Russian government. I don't know enough about the case to formulate a proper opinion on it, but it just seems strange that they would support him (whereas they actually have reasons to support Trump).

Because he's not Clinton and it causes further problems in our political establishment if the Dems are busy hating each other.

[Genivaria]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

Talk about assuming your conclusion there Kram.

[Northern Davincia]

She was a College Republican, though, so that ruins it.

Proof of how bad college republicans are

We're not that bad.

[Deral]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

I honestly don't see why Russia would want to back Bernie Sanders. He's an anti-establishment globalist social democrat, quite far from the goals of the Russian government. I don't know enough about the case to formulate a proper opinion on it, but it just seems strange that they would support him (whereas they actually have reasons to support Trump).

The Russians probably picked him based on the fact that he was the most controversial candidate on the Democrat side of the field, just as Trump was the most controversial Republican candidate, with the goal of causing as much disruption as possible.

[Cekoviu]

I honestly don't see why Russia would want to back Bernie Sanders. He's an anti-establishment globalist social democrat, quite far from the goals of the Russian government. I don't know enough about the case to formulate a proper opinion on it, but it just seems strange that they would support him (whereas they actually have reasons to support Trump).

Because he's not Clinton and it causes further problems in our political establishment if the Dems are busy hating each other.

Ah, that does make sense.

[Telconi]

Because he's not Clinton and it causes further problems in our political establishment if the Dems are busy hating each other.

Ah, that does make sense.

Doesn't matter what the ideology of the U.S. president is if the country is too crippled by infighting to implement it.

[Senkaku]

Sanders silent on claim that Russia backed him in 2016
Oh, Bernie...

I honestly don't see why Russia would want to back Bernie Sanders. He's an anti-establishment globalist social democrat, quite far from the goals of the Russian government. I don't know enough about the case to formulate a proper opinion on it, but it just seems strange that they would support him (whereas they actually have reasons to support Trump).

He shakes things up. More sound and fury, more confusion, more infighting among Dems and ammunition for the GOP, more problems for Hillary, more controversy, et cetera. That's Russia's game.

[Tyrassueb]

DNC, DCC continue to give money to Clinton-backed groups even as they hemorrhage money that could help state parties

[Johnson and Reid]

I'll be voting Democratic regardless of nominee, but I am really hoping Biden gets the nomination. He has years of legislative/executive branch experience and has the ability to connect with Obama-turned-Trump voters in the Rust Belt states. Plus, he seems like a fundamentally decent human being.

[Bakery Hill]

I'll be voting Democratic regardless of nominee, but I am really hoping Biden gets the nomination. He has years of legislative/executive branch experience and has the ability to connect with Obama-turned-Trump voters in the Rust Belt states. Plus, he seems like a fundamentally decent human being.

How does he have this ability out of interest?