There are far more fundamental policy issues where the Sanders/Warren/progressive wing agree rather than disagree, such as:
1) Increasing the number of Americans that have heath care, and making it more affordable;
2) Strengthening the job prospects and security of the middle and working classes, including providing a living wage;
3) Solidifying, if not enhancing, the protections provided to the middle and working classes by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid;
4) Enhancing workers rights, including labor protections and rights to organize.
5) New and good job creation for the middle and working classes that will be brought about pursuing clean energy;
6) Reasonable and compassionate application of immigration laws, and a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform.
These have been core Democratic values for a long time, and seem to be something all would agree on. They and some others provide a solid platform for 2018, with room for local variation.
In other words, 2016 is over and 2018 is just over the horizon. We can avoid the destructive infighting by focusing on the 90% of things we absolutely agree on. And get on with turning our energy toward winning in 2018.
1) Increasing the number of Americans that have heath care, and making it more affordable;
2) Strengthening the job prospects and security of the middle and working classes, including providing a living wage;
3) Solidifying, if not enhancing, the protections provided to the middle and working classes by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid;
4) Enhancing workers rights, including labor protections and rights to organize.
5) New and good job creation for the middle and working classes that will be brought about pursuing clean energy;
6) Reasonable and compassionate application of immigration laws, and a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform.
These have been core Democratic values for a long time, and seem to be something all would agree on. They and some others provide a solid platform for 2018, with room for local variation.
In other words, 2016 is over and 2018 is just over the horizon. We can avoid the destructive infighting by focusing on the 90% of things we absolutely agree on. And get on with turning our energy toward winning in 2018.
22
I came to reading this article rather late in the day. But the headline got me peeved. Then I saw the number of comments and I thought "looks like the NYT is going to be pulled over the coals ... again." Looks like the DNC and Washington Dem elites know that cannot swing the base so they want everyone to think they have a strategy by going after disaffected Republicans. Well maybe they will win over some disaffected Republican but if you lose your base, what have you won???????????
14
By painting a left vs right schism in Democratic ranks, the authors of this piece miss the point. I think Democrats would rally around leaders who clearly and forcefully prioritized pocket book issues for the 90% of Americans left behind in the Great Recession. Doing so, Democrats would peal off enough Trump voters to win back the Mid-West and forge a national message that will work as well Georgia and Ohio as it does in New York and California. To actually deliver, Democrats will have to dial back their trade agenda, refocus Wall Street on financing the real economy rather than Russian Roulette, and provide a public health care option. But, aside from the mistrust, the Hilary and Bernie wings aren't that far apart. So relax ya'll! Its still the economy, stupid!
13
Are there no people in need of Health Care in Mr. Osborne's district? No suffering working class people? No people with pre-existing conditions? Universal Health Care IS the ONLY "decent" political position. In Europe is no discussion about that. What is the substance of Mr. Osborne's platform? Beeing nice to Republicans? What means "largely" small donations? Who are Mr. Osborne's BIG DONORS? Who is he working for? What is a "moderate"? Someone working for BIG Pharma? "People are tired of ideologies?" Manchester Capitalism is the big American ideology. It simply doesn't work for the people.
The Democratic party, my party, has been wiped out at state, local and federal levels over the last eight years, and yet they insist nothing needs to change, re: Nancy Pelosi, "I don’t think people want a new direction."
That's the definition of insanity.
That's the definition of insanity.
19
KEEPING IT THOUGHTFULLY HONEST: Senator Sanders keeps telling us how it really is with middle and working class Americans! " So Bernie and Democrats in conservative-leaning terrain better get with the issues or the continuing "drawn-out struggle over strategy and ideology will spill into primary elections and once again disrupt the party’s path to a majority.or Donald and his lying Republicans that will say and doing whatever it takes to stay in power! Such continuing incompetency by the Democratic establishment may fall short again!
6
For those who respect President Carter as a humanitarian par excellence, for what it matters, he too voted for Bernie in the primaries. Carter liked what he heard from Bernie http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/jimmy-carter-reveals...
12
How about, instead, the dems work to:
-End voter suppression
-Increase voter turnout among minorities and young people
I'm tired of us having to appeal to the rich, white, moderates
-End voter suppression
-Increase voter turnout among minorities and young people
I'm tired of us having to appeal to the rich, white, moderates
12
For me it all comes down to one issue... fix the middle class. There was a time when the middle class reigned. The rich benefited as the middleclass spent, even the rest of the world envied our middleclass. Then the rich decided why earn middleclass money, we could take their worth directly. So taxes were reversed favoring the wealthy. This whole Feel The Burn eve the Trump Phenomenon are all middleclass anger at the system that blindly favors the rich. 100 middleclass persons will buy a weeks worth of grocery versus a rich person buying a weeks worth of groceries, which of the two builds an economy? Reversing the tax trend should be slow, but should be real. Let lobbyist spend, it won't matter if people believe their vote mattered. We didn't think Hillary could get pass her pragmatic side, so folks voted with anger, not self interest.
8
Here's a solution that would solve all Democrats' problems - Bernie should campaign on elimination of First-Past-The-Post elections in favor of ranked choice voting. That way, third parties would be viable. You could have a left party and a centrist party, even coalitions where both agree, without all this "big tent" nonsense stopping the Dems dead in their tracks as Trump wrecks America.
4
The Democratic party is a stodgy organization led by elders. One must prove party loyalty to rise through a hierarchy that writes the platform and chooses candidates. In this moribund clot, there's little chance for fresh ideas to emerge.
Wisdom is good, but the party needs more leaders like Joseph Kennedy III, with fresh voices and new ideas.
Claiming to be the party of "inclusion", in reality, the Dems calculate, in each election, who has the best "odds" of winning, who is the most "marketable", and that's who they back. They gerrymander by ethnicity, and choose candidates by color and sex, not quality.
Dems chose Hillary instead of Bernie--she had name recognition and money-- marketability! They bet her name could override voters' distrust of her. Ignoring Bernie's better ideas, crowds and poll ratings, they lost.
A progressive platform, like Bernie's, sans hostile supporters, might do well in the U.S. now, given the harm Trump's tax cuts bring.
These cuts, popular with him and the wealthy, strip voters of health care, school lunches, free K-12 education, the EPA, Medicare, parks, elder and child care, and more. Voters want jobs--he offers none.
To have what we say we want, people and companies must pay higher taxes, at a progressive rate. Now is the time to discuss this, after seeing the preview of Trump's, and the Republicans', self-serving tax cuts, and how they hurt America.
Will we choose dystopian Trumpworld, or dedication to people and the environment?
Wisdom is good, but the party needs more leaders like Joseph Kennedy III, with fresh voices and new ideas.
Claiming to be the party of "inclusion", in reality, the Dems calculate, in each election, who has the best "odds" of winning, who is the most "marketable", and that's who they back. They gerrymander by ethnicity, and choose candidates by color and sex, not quality.
Dems chose Hillary instead of Bernie--she had name recognition and money-- marketability! They bet her name could override voters' distrust of her. Ignoring Bernie's better ideas, crowds and poll ratings, they lost.
A progressive platform, like Bernie's, sans hostile supporters, might do well in the U.S. now, given the harm Trump's tax cuts bring.
These cuts, popular with him and the wealthy, strip voters of health care, school lunches, free K-12 education, the EPA, Medicare, parks, elder and child care, and more. Voters want jobs--he offers none.
To have what we say we want, people and companies must pay higher taxes, at a progressive rate. Now is the time to discuss this, after seeing the preview of Trump's, and the Republicans', self-serving tax cuts, and how they hurt America.
Will we choose dystopian Trumpworld, or dedication to people and the environment?
7
The GOP has done a great job for many years of ingraining a mantra into their sheep about the word "SOCIALISM". They connect it in peoples minds to "COMMUNISM". Well the thing is why should we pay good money toward taxes, only for most it to be paid to the Military machine. Trump is cutting cutting cutting programs that pay for healthcare for women, poor etc. and giving the money to those that don't need it - the Military complex and the top 1%.
Wanting our good paying taxes to go to more "social" programs like better healthcare, better medicare and programs that help people stay out of "poor" programs is fine by me. Why shouldn't the greatest nation in the world have the greatest single payer healthcare? ...like Medicare for all. The GOP have demonized that idea - they would rather see poor people just die anyway. That's the real truth. The dems should get their fight back and just say that. Show everyone that they are using the term "socialist" to scare you into thinking we have to increase the "government machine". No we don't - we have to decrease the government military machine and put more money into helping healthcare and jobs be the number one priority along with Education right behind it.
Wanting our good paying taxes to go to more "social" programs like better healthcare, better medicare and programs that help people stay out of "poor" programs is fine by me. Why shouldn't the greatest nation in the world have the greatest single payer healthcare? ...like Medicare for all. The GOP have demonized that idea - they would rather see poor people just die anyway. That's the real truth. The dems should get their fight back and just say that. Show everyone that they are using the term "socialist" to scare you into thinking we have to increase the "government machine". No we don't - we have to decrease the government military machine and put more money into helping healthcare and jobs be the number one priority along with Education right behind it.
4
I think everyone in this country is nuts. Given that I'm a psychiatrist, this is good for my business but bad for me in terms of my own stability. Bernie Sanders does not represent me. 45 certainly does not. Did Hillary? Probably not but compared to 45 it was an easy choice. I believe that Bernie supporters will continue to carry around their 20-ton chip on the shoulder for the rest of his life at least & probably theirs. They will not support any other Democratic candidate for the Presidency. I believe that Bernie Sanders would be defeated in a general election because he has been labeled a socialist. I don't think the label is correct nor am I opposed to socialism but I also don't think that Bernie has a viable plan to implement any of the things that he promises will happen if he were to become President.
I also believe that Bernie supporters are as responsible for the election of 45 as were the true "Republicans". And I will believe that until someone convinces me otherwise.
And don't get me started on the people who supported and continue to support 45. That's a whole different level of psychosis.
I also believe that Bernie supporters are as responsible for the election of 45 as were the true "Republicans". And I will believe that until someone convinces me otherwise.
And don't get me started on the people who supported and continue to support 45. That's a whole different level of psychosis.
10
One can argue that Bernie and his supporters are inflexible or that the democratic establishment is inflexible. The fact is the party establishment lost the election to a misogynist bully named Donald Trump. That's no small feat. Hillary and the democrats lost because they ignored Bernie, his young supporters, and the occupy movement. A telling moment in the campaign came for me when Hillary was unwilling to support the Standing Rock Tribe in their efforts to halt the Dakota Pipeline. This symbolized for me everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party. It's not the moderate middle that it is worried about losing by taking principled stands on issues. It is corporate backing that it is worried about losing. Time for the Democratic Party to come home, to make the best choices for the people, such as single payer healthcare. Only then will I come back into the fold and support the party.
17
Today's Guardian has an opinion piece that makes for interesting reading following this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/12/bernie-sanders-win...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/12/bernie-sanders-win...
4
Two words: Jeremy Corbyn.
4
Democratic activists? Why do you equate that term with Bernie supporters? Bernie is not a Democrat and I do not support his agenda yet I have been working for the Democratic party for over 40 years. Bernie and his people should start their own party and leave us alone. Bernie lost the nomination. I was hoping he would shut up after that. The DNC should not have helped him at all, the party owed him nothing. Now, Bernie and his people are trying to destroy the Democratic party. They are not Democratic activists. Give them some other name, please.
10
They are closer to traditional Democrats than are those referring to themselves as "Democrats" today. How about we call Bernie and his supporters Democrats and the party establishment by a more appropriate name like "Republican Liters"?
13
Shame on the Times for calling peaceful optimistic patriotic Americans militants!
18
"Blow it up Bernie" is still with us. If not for his all or nothing. Donald Trump would not be president. If he so wants to lead the Democratic Party, how about registering as a Democrat? Until he puts up, he is revolution for the sake of revolution. I like many of his ideas but I'm tired of him criticizing a party that he hi-jacked just to be on all the state ballots.
8
Why would he register with the party apparatus that has led to his need in the first place?
2
If you read "Our Revolution" by Bernie Sanders, you will see his solutions to our challenges make sense and can be accomplished if we just stop financially favoring the outrageously wealthy over the rest of us. Oh, and first let's, as quickly as possible, remove the financing of political campaigns by the wealthy, the PACs and special interest groups. If other countries can do it, so can we.
17
So let me get this straight, the Party that has been doing nothing but losing in state and congressional elections year after year doesn't want to change because it wants to win? What kind of an argument is that??
18
If Democrats don't come up with a winning strategy for 2018, the rest won't matter. They can't enact a progressive agenda without controlling the House and Senate. Winning is the first priority. Easing in with more centrist candidates may well be the way to go.
4
Barbara Sloan
...except that's what we've been doing! Hillary Clinton - despite her sudden lurch to the left when Bernie started making inroads - is the quintessential centrist candidate (never met a potential war she didn't like).
When you have two possible nominees and the one who is awarded the nomination manages to take an unlosable general election and - well - loses it, maybe it's time to start listening a bit more closely to what the other guy is saying.
...except that's what we've been doing! Hillary Clinton - despite her sudden lurch to the left when Bernie started making inroads - is the quintessential centrist candidate (never met a potential war she didn't like).
When you have two possible nominees and the one who is awarded the nomination manages to take an unlosable general election and - well - loses it, maybe it's time to start listening a bit more closely to what the other guy is saying.
9
It' not about uniting the party, it's ultimately about uniting the country. As much as I like Sanders, the only way to stop the ideological polarization that has rendered our government ineffective is to elect a leader who is a moderate. Many of us are worn down by the bickering and name calling and lies that people on both sides are slinging (though I have seen them more coming from the right wing of the Republican party more).
7
At 52 I would love to see a young (under 50) candidate leading the democratic party. I am sick of my parent's (who I adore) generation running the show. There are some really terrific Senators and Congresspeople rising. I think it's time for the 70+ crowd to lean in and let them take over.
6
Forget "Hope" the Democrats need "Courage" if they want to become viable or make worthwhile change. As it is they are just waiting around for the other party to fail.
9
Discussions like this one seem based on the notion of a fixed electorate, that victory for the Democrats relies on peeling off independents and Republicans to build a winning coalition.
I think mobilization is the better strategy, and it needs to start with young voters. While their turnout rates are generally awful, in off-year elections those rates are abysmal. Forty-three percent of people aged 18-24 voted in 2016; in the 2014 off-year that figure was a mere seventeen percent! Given the strong dislike for Trump among voters under thirty, doing the hard work required to get these young people to the polls has to be the Democrats' first priority in 2018. Sanders can do that even if the Party's candidates overall do not subscribe to his policy views.
I think mobilization is the better strategy, and it needs to start with young voters. While their turnout rates are generally awful, in off-year elections those rates are abysmal. Forty-three percent of people aged 18-24 voted in 2016; in the 2014 off-year that figure was a mere seventeen percent! Given the strong dislike for Trump among voters under thirty, doing the hard work required to get these young people to the polls has to be the Democrats' first priority in 2018. Sanders can do that even if the Party's candidates overall do not subscribe to his policy views.
1
I keep hearing over and over from commenters, no doubt Hillary supporters, that Sanders ideas are not achievable, that is a lie. Single payer health care, education available too all at a reasonable cost, infrastructure, low income housing needs met, (the need for it constantly rising as the wealth all rises to the top). Those are all attainable, it is simply a case of political will to fight back against the special interests( military/ industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about seventy years ago). raising taxes back to the level it was during the golden era of America( I lived in San Francisco then, taxes were high but life was good for everyone including the vibrant African American community in lower Pacific Heights, then known as "The Fillmore") and doing what Trump promised, another lie apparently, stand up to the corporations, either bring back the jobs or you're on your own, you have a problem in South America or China don't call us we're busy taking care of Americans, making ten million a year with Chinese labor fine and laying people off as well, send the c.e.o. and his family packing to live with his new found friends in Beijing or Nahm Pen and add tariffs to level the playing field for labor. Everything Bernie offered is achievable it depends on where you want to spend your money on wars created by us or our allies or on endeavors that benefit all Americans. Trump promised a lot to working people he should either deliver or resign and take Jared with him.
14
Ted -- they are not achievable until and unless Democrats can manage a strong majority in the house and 60 rock-solid votes in the Senate -- no Joe Lieberman serving as that 60th senate vote.
Tell me how you are going to help achieve that ... or stop wasting everybody's time.
Tell me how you are going to help achieve that ... or stop wasting everybody's time.
6
Lee: Make sure no Joe Liebermans gets voted into office in the first place, his agenda was obvious from day one. Incidentally Lee the time wasters of the world are the politicians on both sides of the aisle, like Lieberman who killed single payer or Clinton for that matter who killed Glass Steagel, in our essentially one party system nothing has been done for years except unauthorized wars backed by both Bush and Cheney as well as Lieberman, Clinton and Feinstein, added to of course lots of false promises from everyone. That's what the last election was about, draining the swamp, unfortunately it appears all we ended up with was a businessman making more false promises and lots of Liebermans clamoring for at least a cold war with Iran and Russia. Vote your conscience Lee and I'll vote mine, if you don't like Sanders too bad at least he offered a glimmer of hope whether the bean counters liked it or not and just as apparent Clinton was the wrong choice for the D.N.C. to make, just about anyone else could have beaten Trump.. Not to worry, the status quo looks secure for all parties involved and we can now look forward to four years of bluster and false concern all around. Speaking of accomplishing nothing the bean counters under the A.C.A. have been counting EXACTLY how many drops of eye pressure medicine I need for a three week supply, if I run out tough luck, but these same people can lob a billion dollars worth of rockets at a perceived enemy on a whim. Great system!
4
My God, Dems, get your act together because if you don't, congress and the white house will be kept in GOP hands for a long time.
Please, for the sake of our country, do what you accuse Repubs of not doing: negotiate and compromise.
Please, for the sake of our country, do what you accuse Repubs of not doing: negotiate and compromise.
4
Didn't the DNC more-or-less hijack the primary to favor their chosen candidate?
Excuse me if I think THAT'S militant behavior.
Excuse me if I think THAT'S militant behavior.
13
Let's let the Bernie bros have the party. We can start a new moderate one with the trump-hating republicans - and 3/4 of the voters would come together.
3
What Sanders has been proposing is only extreme by current U.S. standards. His economic proposals would not have seemed so far out of line to a moderate Republican during the Eisenhower administration that they would be completely non-negotiable. It's only when compared to standards that have evolved over the past several decades of talk radio, Fox News, and Democratic Clintonesque (both Clintons) and, to a lesser extent, Obamaite political triangulation that it seems extreme. What good is it to have a booming economy if only 10-15% of the population is enjoying the benefits?
11
Amusing. Democrats still don't get it. They love to promise but have no way of implementing and delivering. ACA is in a death spiral. ACA had good elements, but the democrats burdened it with so many extra regulations that it is far too complex and far too costly (I am now on a bronze plan, for 2018 I think I will get out of insurance all together - costs too much and offers too little). But worse ACA has done nothing to statistically improve the health of Americans - and Democrats don't even see that. Until they are willing to see the real problems that need addressed (health of citizens -not insurance cards) they will continue to waste our money. After looking at data it is clear that some type of national healthcare system (other countries show better health of citizens with a national healthcare system) will likely improve the health of Americans (something ACA failed at). But the democrats biggest base will fight a national system as soon as the union members figure out their extremely generous health insurance plans will go away and be replaced by a national system. How will democrats change taxes so that the money going to insurance companies will go to a national health care system. The process is important - they messed it up in ACA. In governing they relied in edicts rather than legislation and now watch Trump undo many of Obama's edicts. The dream isn't bad - they just don't know how to get there and the electorate knows it.
9
I'm in a union and my employer pays something like $17,000 for my family plan, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd be OK with a switch to a Medicare for All system if
* it covers what my current plan covers
* the additional taxation to cover it was reasonable
and
* a reasonable amount of that $17,000 my employer was paying for my family's health insurance as part of my benefits and overall compensation went to a higher salary.
I'd be OK with a switch to a Medicare for All system if
* it covers what my current plan covers
* the additional taxation to cover it was reasonable
and
* a reasonable amount of that $17,000 my employer was paying for my family's health insurance as part of my benefits and overall compensation went to a higher salary.
8
NYT is scared stiff because "The diverse movement Sanders assembled last weekend looks far different from the lily-white one that first set out to win Iowa and New Hampshire for him. Attendees submitted applications to take part in the summit, and organizers looked for racial and socioeconomic diversity. “If we had open registration to the general public, it would have looked like a Bernie rally in Wisconsin,” said Winnie Wong, a People for Bernie co-founder who helped organize the summit. Just 46 percent of the 4,000 attendees were white and a third were under 30. There were undocumented Latino students, Oglala Lakota “water protectors,” Black Lives Matter activists, and yes, at least one white factory worker from Wisconsin who once voted for Scott Walker."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/why-bernie-sanders-thinks-hi...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/why-bernie-sanders-thinks-hi...
7
Oh you're right about one thing they are scary. They look like trump could win a second term scary.
6
The base wants it all. They're going to destroy their party. Even I won't vote for an ultra liberal.
Hillary lost because the base wanted all or nothing. And nothing is what we got.
Hillary was a marginally acceptable candidate in my view; too beholden to established power blocks. But I voted for her anyway as "least worst".
Time to think about how Macron got elected.
Hillary lost because the base wanted all or nothing. And nothing is what we got.
Hillary was a marginally acceptable candidate in my view; too beholden to established power blocks. But I voted for her anyway as "least worst".
Time to think about how Macron got elected.
4
So you'd approve a second Trump term over giving Bernie a chance?
3
After throwing their full support to the flawed candidacy of Hillary Clinton and throwing the (clearly stronger candidate) Bernie Sanders to the winds, resulting in the election of the corrupt, incompetent, and venal Donald Trump, the NYT might show more humility and recognition of its mistakes. Instead they are following Clinton's example of blaming everyone but themselves.
17
Oh poor Bernie he had all the support of all the Republicans Trump and the Russians and he still lost by 3 million votes.
9
When will the Democrats realize that you have to WIN before you can implement your progressive policies? And Bernie's progressive rhetoric scared off a lot more voters than it energized. A simple message that income and resource inequality is not good for a healthy society is much easier to sell than to use scary phrases like income redistribution. The Republicans have steadily won political power by concentrating on victory over ideology. The consequence is that they now own the majority of elected positions from dog-catcher on up and therefore have the clout to reconstruct our society into one that marginalizes the majority if it's citizens.
6
I don't think progressives want to win. Then they would have to do something and give up their lofty moral superiority complex that eliminates everybody except mother Theresa.
2
I don't know, I think to intelligent people wealth redistribution is the logical next step after understanding the inequality that Republicans and Democrats deliberately created. Not scary at all. Only thing scary is to feel like it could get worse and we can't reverse it.
4
Eliminates everybody but them. Mother Teresa was waaaay too conservative. Angela Davis has cooperated too much.
Nothing and no one could actually do anything that would make them happy.
Nothing and no one could actually do anything that would make them happy.
You do realize this winning strategy of Republican lite that you describe has lost the Democrats over 1,000 seats in the state and federal legislatures in the past 8 years, right? Also, speaking as a Progressive I couldn't give a damn whether Donald Trump gets impeached. So, what? We could get President Pence or Ryan? Also, we can't fined enough money for free public college or health care, but we can spend $600 billion a year on the military? A country that is bordered by 2 allies and 2 oceans. This article was so idiotic it was hard to read.
15
What a tough choice.
Anarchist radicals that riot and smash property if they are forced to admit other opinions even exist, yearning for a safe space to escape the real world or washed up old mentally deficient has beens like Pelosi or Schumer.
How to choose?
Anarchist radicals that riot and smash property if they are forced to admit other opinions even exist, yearning for a safe space to escape the real world or washed up old mentally deficient has beens like Pelosi or Schumer.
How to choose?
5
Hooray for Ossoff! I am pleased that he is not buying into bernie's plan to turn the Democratic Party into his socialist party. What irks the heck out of me is that bernie, having been rebuffed by the Democrats and having louding claimed he was not a Democrat but a socialist, actually thinks he can redo our party. He would have more respect, if he organized his socialist party and ran on their platform.
5
Why Norm? You would still have to come ask Sanders supporters in this new party what they want, because We'll bring half the Democratic Party with us. We'll get our way eventually anyway. Just remember that you were on the wrong side of policies and history.
7
I'm a Democrat.
The Democratic party has become a stodgy organization led by elders. One must prove party loyalty to rise through a hierarchy that creates the platform and chooses candidates. In this moribund clot, there's little chance for fresh ideas to survive.
The party needs more leaders like Joseph Kennedy III, with fresh voices and ideas.
Claiming to be the party of "inclusion", in reality, the party calculates, in each election, who has the best "odds" of winning, who is the most "marketable", and that's who they back. They gerrymander by ethnicity, and choose candidates by color and sex, not quality.
Dems chose Hillary instead of Bernie--she had name recognition and money-- marketability! They bet her name could override voters' distrust of her. Ignoring Bernie's better ideas, crowds and poll ratings, they lost.
A progressive platform, like Bernie's, sans hostile supporters, might do well in the U.S. now, given the harm Trump's tax cuts bring.
While popular with him and the wealthy, they strip voters of health care, school lunches, free K-12 education, the EPA, Medicare, parks, elder and child care, and more. Voters want jobs--he offers none.
To have what we want, people and companies must pay higher taxes, at a progressive rate. Now is the time to discuss this, after seeing the preview of Trump's, and the Republicans', self-serving tax cuts, and how they hurt America.
Will we choose dystopian Trumpworld, or dedication to people and the environment?
The Democratic party has become a stodgy organization led by elders. One must prove party loyalty to rise through a hierarchy that creates the platform and chooses candidates. In this moribund clot, there's little chance for fresh ideas to survive.
The party needs more leaders like Joseph Kennedy III, with fresh voices and ideas.
Claiming to be the party of "inclusion", in reality, the party calculates, in each election, who has the best "odds" of winning, who is the most "marketable", and that's who they back. They gerrymander by ethnicity, and choose candidates by color and sex, not quality.
Dems chose Hillary instead of Bernie--she had name recognition and money-- marketability! They bet her name could override voters' distrust of her. Ignoring Bernie's better ideas, crowds and poll ratings, they lost.
A progressive platform, like Bernie's, sans hostile supporters, might do well in the U.S. now, given the harm Trump's tax cuts bring.
While popular with him and the wealthy, they strip voters of health care, school lunches, free K-12 education, the EPA, Medicare, parks, elder and child care, and more. Voters want jobs--he offers none.
To have what we want, people and companies must pay higher taxes, at a progressive rate. Now is the time to discuss this, after seeing the preview of Trump's, and the Republicans', self-serving tax cuts, and how they hurt America.
Will we choose dystopian Trumpworld, or dedication to people and the environment?
7
Factor in the campaign of hackers who targeted Bernie voters to participate in disqualifying the Clinton campaign as well. It has been well documented.
The choice was not just "marketability" but many voters who considered her a better candidate as hard as that is for some to accept. This included many women voters who do not appreciate having their vote interpreted as an inferior choice.
A better choice at this point to me is for progressive People's Party to be formed with candidates and a straight forward platform. There is no reason not to have a third party with its own agenda and then we can evaluate its relevance for ourselves.
The choice was not just "marketability" but many voters who considered her a better candidate as hard as that is for some to accept. This included many women voters who do not appreciate having their vote interpreted as an inferior choice.
A better choice at this point to me is for progressive People's Party to be formed with candidates and a straight forward platform. There is no reason not to have a third party with its own agenda and then we can evaluate its relevance for ourselves.
3
The tension is not "between Ossoff and the Democratic base. " It's between Bernie Sanders and the Democratic base - women and minorities. Sanders is a fringe candidate who benefited from a backlash against the progress made on equality and empoweting minorities and women. Sanders' followers were young low- information whites who felt their monopoly on power slipping away. Sanders appealed to their fear and anger. Like Trumpsters their desire to return to an earlier time will prove futile. Most well educated millennials voted for her. Intellectually Sanders was never in the same league as leaders like Obama, Hillary or Warreb. The appeal to bros was his "Fight Club"- Young Turk shtick.
8
Correct. Bernie does not care about women or minorities and his supporters are white low educated ill informed people. Bernie is also clueless about race issues. I wish Bernie and his supporters would go form another party and continue being irrelevant.
I'm sorry but I am none of those things and I was a Sanders supporter in the primaries. I also worked for HRC in the fall to try and avoid our current predicament so please do not paint me as some sort of "radical".
If the best that you can do is to dismiss all of Sanders' supporters in this ridiculously cartoonish and dismissive fashion, then you really do not have any standing to speak as a representative of the path forward.
If the best that you can do is to dismiss all of Sanders' supporters in this ridiculously cartoonish and dismissive fashion, then you really do not have any standing to speak as a representative of the path forward.
7
Your narrative is so laughably wrong it isn't even worth addressing. Actual policy proposals for universal benefit instead of neoliberal lip service to minorities? Bah, pie in the sky. Just look at all the Congressional seats our big tent party lost trying to run GOP lite!
3
Calling leftists "militants" is inflammatory and gives the appearance of the Times' putting its big finger on the scale once again. Please step back from the 24-hour cable news standard, which casts journalists as experts and even policy makers. Also please remember the constant breathless press coverage that nominated and elected Trump. Not to mention the Times' blatant coronation of Clinton and disparagement of Sanders, which in the minds of many raised doubts about the legitimacy of the primary process, and may in the end have backfired against Clinton.
Although Times writers are undoubtedly among the most informed and knowledgeable about political issues, it is the paper's prime responsibility to avoid emotional involvement and to maintain ethical standards and editorial policies that are worthy of the brain trust.
Although Times writers are undoubtedly among the most informed and knowledgeable about political issues, it is the paper's prime responsibility to avoid emotional involvement and to maintain ethical standards and editorial policies that are worthy of the brain trust.
20
Input rampant inequality, a lack of reform on Wall Street, increasing Democratic ignorance of economic issues (in favor of political correctness, feminism, and social issues) and the output is populism. The corporatist Dems have it coming for them.
5
Lord, please save us from Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and others. Where are some right-thinking people?????
1
What do right thinking people think? I have a feeling It's not right.
6
All this fiery rhetoric in the comments section about how Dems are supposed to find a way to appeal to voters anew makes me laugh. In what universe could Dems suddenly become appealing to a nauseatingly ignorant rabble that, year in and year out, puts venal, craven, ruthless Republicans in charge of governorships, statehouses, Congress and the presidency? The actual bad news for Democrats - and thinking, rational Americans everywhere - is that we have become a nation that reflexively votes against its own best interests. Consistently. How is that Democrats' fault? How is it the fault of the left that the populace prefers to elect and support wretches like Paul Ryan who don't care a lick whether citizens have heath care, a decent job, a clean environment or a functioning tax structure? Over and over we hear that the Dems need to adapt. Adapt to what - willful ignorance, hatred, divisiveness and misogyny? Please. I'd love to hear someone explain away the fact that America supports these miserable GOPers. It's manifestly NOT the fault of the left.
9
No, It's not the fault of the left. It IS the fault of the Democrats however.
8
As Will Rogers once said: "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
4
"It may be essential for Democrats to reconcile the party’s two clashing impulses if they are to retake the House of Representatives in 2018. In a promising political environment, a drawn-out struggle over Democratic strategy and ideology could spill into primary elections and disrupt the party’s path to a majority."
Not "may be" but will be essential. Democrats must not fall into the same error as Republicans of splitting into opposing groups.
Not "may be" but will be essential. Democrats must not fall into the same error as Republicans of splitting into opposing groups.
1
Speaking as a rhetoric professor, you're misrepresenting the fundamental issue by choosing questionable terms. The party is not simply thinking of electability; it's willing to sacrifice its base principles for power.
The "base" is getting smaller, and the DINO leaders won't learn their lesson. They will inevitably lose, or the country will. Disagreeing with some "liberal" or "conservative" issues is reasonable behavior for any individual candidate; selecting where to stand on issues based on electability is morally corrupt, not merely "pragmatic."
The "base" is getting smaller, and the DINO leaders won't learn their lesson. They will inevitably lose, or the country will. Disagreeing with some "liberal" or "conservative" issues is reasonable behavior for any individual candidate; selecting where to stand on issues based on electability is morally corrupt, not merely "pragmatic."
4
It would be useful if, after a couple of decades in the Senate, Sanders could point to having accomplished something of substance. A law he got passed, some leadership on an issue. All's I find is a professional complainer who likes to promote free stuff as the solution to inequity. Oh, and a guy who advocated unilateral disarmament against the Soviet Union.
What a peach.
What a peach.
9
What has any politician done by himself? Especially the one politician that isn't beholden to donors?
5
I dislike labels that infer one is always conservative, liberal and now pragmatic as a voter can vary across all three depending on the issue. What I prefer is a better system to hear from real Americans what they perceive to be the leading issues and then I prefer to see real innovators and system thinkers lay out how a challenge can be solved as what we get from politicians is garbage. The absence of innovation, real priorities, and a system that is intended to serve real people versus special interests who block innovation, is what is needed. All the sneaky backdoor policy changes and dropping regulations designed to protect working people, our environment, human rights, checks and balances is not what the people voted for. I'd support citizen representatives because the GOP and some Dems have forgotten what that means. I also agree with Hank below that Sanders offered the Dems the best chance to win but they pulled power politics over listening to the passion in the people getting behind Bernie. This is the We economy and only Bernie's platform showed that. I know innovators that have solutions to our economy, healthcare system, better retirements, lower taxes, better corporate benefits and serious reduction to the national debt...but neither party will stick there neck out to say look at this...seriously. Even the media like the NY Times needs to plug into innovation as the way to move our country forward and raise the dialog above all this party over country insanity.
2
Establishment media propping up establishment politics. Nothing earthshattering here. Let's continue with status quo so we can have more people like Donald Trump elected president. Amazing how people do not learn a damn thing.
8
If you want to turn the US into a slow rotting corpse, elect Sanders. One or even two terms of progressives might not do too much damage, but 3-4 terms of progressives can destroy this country and turn it into Europe: an irrelevant economic downspiral with 20% unemployment because they drove out all the employers. You make things difficult for employers, they will leave, plain and simple.
1
Do you have any statistics to back up your claim? Is all of Europe a "rotting corpse" ?
Turn into? We are already there. You think it's a utopia working for WalMart for $10 an hour? You think it's great our healthcare system costs us so much? And college tuition? You like the banks making money off our money and politicians removing consumer financial protections? You think it's a walk in the park having no affordable housing?
You would do well to do some research before you make such ludicrous claims that are blind to the fantasy economic theories of the GOP.
You would do well to do some research before you make such ludicrous claims that are blind to the fantasy economic theories of the GOP.
2
No one said we're a utopia, but we're better off than Europe. We have way better employment rates and we can actually defend ourselves with a military. The answer for better higher paying jobs is to make it as easy as possible for those companies to hire here. Lower corporate taxes, cheap energy. Simply raising the minimum income to 100k will result in massive layoffs and everyone being replaced by computers and robots.
People! People!
This idea of a split is just another ruse.
If one attends any Democratic local policy gathering (as most of us should!) you do not see this acrimony. You see young and old pulling together. You see a multitude of colors all negotiating for the better good. Yes, the swing in the DNC is to the Left. As it should be. Yes, Sanders faction represents just one aspect of the Left. It is a huge tent. With the obvious magnitude of losses suffered by the neo-liberals The People are ready to cast aside the Corp. shackles and those that seek to prolong the losing Status Quo. Incremtalism may be the end result, but it is not the opening gambit to negotiations. The People have had enough of the Wealthy, Connected, Oligarchy running our democracy.
This propaganda of a big split and divisiveness is being shilled by entrenched power players in the DNC. The same story broke all over the Web on the same day. All the Lib./Dem. sites had a version of the same story, on the same day. Seems like another E-mail/story was sent out for the myth makers to rabble rouse and denounce the new Left wing of the Democratic Party ascending. We The People do not want the same ol' same old. Enough with these back room shenanigans. Enough Fraud and media collusion. No more jury rigging and thumb upon the scales Dino's.
People! People!
Don't fall for the lie. We are One! We are together. We are ascending.
Are time is coming and it is ripe for change.
Not me, US!
This idea of a split is just another ruse.
If one attends any Democratic local policy gathering (as most of us should!) you do not see this acrimony. You see young and old pulling together. You see a multitude of colors all negotiating for the better good. Yes, the swing in the DNC is to the Left. As it should be. Yes, Sanders faction represents just one aspect of the Left. It is a huge tent. With the obvious magnitude of losses suffered by the neo-liberals The People are ready to cast aside the Corp. shackles and those that seek to prolong the losing Status Quo. Incremtalism may be the end result, but it is not the opening gambit to negotiations. The People have had enough of the Wealthy, Connected, Oligarchy running our democracy.
This propaganda of a big split and divisiveness is being shilled by entrenched power players in the DNC. The same story broke all over the Web on the same day. All the Lib./Dem. sites had a version of the same story, on the same day. Seems like another E-mail/story was sent out for the myth makers to rabble rouse and denounce the new Left wing of the Democratic Party ascending. We The People do not want the same ol' same old. Enough with these back room shenanigans. Enough Fraud and media collusion. No more jury rigging and thumb upon the scales Dino's.
People! People!
Don't fall for the lie. We are One! We are together. We are ascending.
Are time is coming and it is ripe for change.
Not me, US!
7
The Party needs to be both pragmatic and progressive. Don't run candidates in conservative districts that are sure to lose. After all, congresspersons are supposed to represent their constituents views, not the views of folks in other districts. Bernie Sanders was just as electable as Hillary Clinton insofar as the electoral college was concerned, but may have had an even bigger majority of the total vote count. But as earlier articles in the NYTimes have pointed out, the Party ran candidates in rural NYState districts who were doomed from the get-go.
3
The Democratic base is starting to wake up to the fact that ideologically aligned Republicans in disguise invaded and overtook our party a couple of decades ago and we want it back.
This tripe aimed at marginalizing the base as some sort of uprising against the establishment wing of the party is nothing more than a ploy aimed at delegitimizing the rightful claims of true Democrats to a party that actually represents their ideology and not Republicanism lite.
For a good example of unmasking these masquerading Republicans corrupting the party see "Republicans and Democrats Continue to Block Drug Reimportation – After Publicly Endorsing It"
The one true bipartisan instinct in Washington? Caving to rich industries
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-republicans-and-...
This tripe aimed at marginalizing the base as some sort of uprising against the establishment wing of the party is nothing more than a ploy aimed at delegitimizing the rightful claims of true Democrats to a party that actually represents their ideology and not Republicanism lite.
For a good example of unmasking these masquerading Republicans corrupting the party see "Republicans and Democrats Continue to Block Drug Reimportation – After Publicly Endorsing It"
The one true bipartisan instinct in Washington? Caving to rich industries
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-republicans-and-...
3
If the Democratic Party "leadership" - the so-called pragmatists - want a win then they just better support the base or lose again. The "pragmatists" blew the presidential election by not supporting and subverting Sanders. As Trump showed, to the dismay of all Democrats, we the people want the change Obama promised us. Wake Up, NYT editorial board! Wake Up, Party "Leadership -or become irrelevant. Can't you learn? If not now, when?
4
I believe that once the "new"republican health care comes out;people will realize quickly just how poor a job it does for anyone that is not in top physical condition.Protests will begin anew and likely include many older republicans .Trump's agenda does not allow for helping people in this country,only business.Trickle down economics is the watchword.Kind of reminds me of the Pharaoh's rule over the Jewish people.Moses was the only Jew that made out and he quit to help his people.Just like Egypt Trump is "plagued" with controversy.Trump has spent his life lying to people.It is a habit he is not likely to change.
Path to a majority. majority of what? New Yorkers? Keep dreaming, the voters will punish the dims severely in 2018
1
One side needs to realize that the pendulum has moved, but the other side needs to realize that it moves slowly. Compromise is necessary. I consider myself a progressive, but free college tuition makes me nervous because of the money that will be spent on numerous students who will drop out and colleges like Trump University who scam students and government. Money set aside for training in necessary specific skills for those entering the work force and retraining for those whose jobs have become obsolete makes more sense. Health care, LGBT rights, the right to free contraception, the legal rights of women to control their own bodies while recognizing the rights of those do not agree to share their viewpoint are platforms many can stand behind. The party's elected leaders must recognize that the young yearn for change and Mr Sanders must recognize that moderates are necessary to appeal to middle-aged and older voters. By speaking to and promoting compromise, rather than the same extremism we see the right, we can all be in the same party.
3
One Bernie supporter insists (as many do) that the Democrats should not be "Republican lite." He argues that the Party, instead, should seek to establish "workable socialism based on American needs and values."
Good luck with that. ANY program that includes the word "socialism" is NOT going to sell. Very, very few US voters will agree that socialism is compatible with American needs and values. Maybe this commenter thinks it is, and maybe it actually is, but the odds of convincing many US voters of that are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
Bottom line: Avoid the word "socialism."
Good luck with that. ANY program that includes the word "socialism" is NOT going to sell. Very, very few US voters will agree that socialism is compatible with American needs and values. Maybe this commenter thinks it is, and maybe it actually is, but the odds of convincing many US voters of that are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
Bottom line: Avoid the word "socialism."
4
We have socialist fire departments and socialist roads. There some areas of life where socialism makes sense. What American "needs and values" is socialism incompatible with?
1
Hey Dems, if you continue to choose people over policies, you will continue to loose, because the Reps are far, far better (read; unscrupulous) at it.
You need to address the real problems real people are facing, and accept that, yes, some (quite a lot) of you base are gun-loving and some may be casual bigots, racists even. That doesn't make their core concerns any less true or heart-rending. Failing schools, few job prospects, addiction and temptation on every corner, crumbling infrastructure, no public services or affordable healthcare. Plenty of concrete issues, waiting for real, practical solutions.
Connect with the voters, take the fight down to the facts, be real, have faith in the people's plain common sense. Dare to be bold, and to h¨¨¨with the Silicon Valley millionaires or the kale-juice sipping Hollywood stars.
You need to address the real problems real people are facing, and accept that, yes, some (quite a lot) of you base are gun-loving and some may be casual bigots, racists even. That doesn't make their core concerns any less true or heart-rending. Failing schools, few job prospects, addiction and temptation on every corner, crumbling infrastructure, no public services or affordable healthcare. Plenty of concrete issues, waiting for real, practical solutions.
Connect with the voters, take the fight down to the facts, be real, have faith in the people's plain common sense. Dare to be bold, and to h¨¨¨with the Silicon Valley millionaires or the kale-juice sipping Hollywood stars.
1
Who Bernie really is. At his home
http://people.com/celebrity/inside-bernie-sanders-family-and-home-life-h...
Read it, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns.
http://people.com/celebrity/inside-bernie-sanders-family-and-home-life-h...
Read it, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns.
2
Bernie helped Trump get elected. End of story.
5
Nope. Hillary helped cuz if she and her campaign refused to include all those who wanted more than incrementalism.
2
petey - THAT is s a stretch. Hope you find a way to live with the result of your Hillary hatred, which was equally bountiful in Sanders and Trump supporters.
1
This may well be the best course for the Democratic Party, but let's not pretend it's anything different from "tacking toward the middle:"
"This should not be an either/or situation. It should be a "both/and" strategy. Democrats need a bigger tent, not a smaller one."
The Democratic Party ALREADY can say it's got a corner of the "tent" set aside for "militants" (Bernie supporters, for example). And it does -- after all, what are Bernie supporters going to do, vote Republican?
But that doesn't mean those "militant" corner-dwellers in the Democrats' "big tent" will actually get a say in determining party policy. That, it seems to me, is what Bernie supporters are insisting upon -- not just a reserved corner in the "big tent" whose denizens are visited every now and then, and patted on the head, by Democratic Party leaders who live in the middle of the tent.
"This should not be an either/or situation. It should be a "both/and" strategy. Democrats need a bigger tent, not a smaller one."
The Democratic Party ALREADY can say it's got a corner of the "tent" set aside for "militants" (Bernie supporters, for example). And it does -- after all, what are Bernie supporters going to do, vote Republican?
But that doesn't mean those "militant" corner-dwellers in the Democrats' "big tent" will actually get a say in determining party policy. That, it seems to me, is what Bernie supporters are insisting upon -- not just a reserved corner in the "big tent" whose denizens are visited every now and then, and patted on the head, by Democratic Party leaders who live in the middle of the tent.
5
Stop it. Stop it. Stop the bull.... NYT. Bernie Sanders represents the future of the Democratic Party, like it or not. People are tired of the neo-liberal free market ideology that has been crammed down our throats for a generation, and that has been shown time and time again not to work, YET becomes more and more entrenched in both parties. People are sick of it. Sick to death.
14
Really interesting article, but it has me very nervous. I live in the flyover zone - where there will be many Trump voters who now have buyer's remorse on steroids, but still need a viable alternative candidate if they are to vote Democratic.
“We are going to lose every possible winnable seat, in a year where there are many winnable seats, if we come across as inflexible left-wingers” ---is writing on the wall if ever there was.
“We are going to lose every possible winnable seat, in a year where there are many winnable seats, if we come across as inflexible left-wingers” ---is writing on the wall if ever there was.
6
Running Hillary Clinton obviously was not the way for the Democratic Party to win. Possibly a leftward shift will help; possibly a shift toward the center will help; possibly no shift at all is necessary -- just a positive economics-based program to offer voters (something more than "We're not Trump," and "Have you noticed that Trump uses dumb words like 'covfefe' and 'excoriate?' Elect us and we won't use those dumb words, or any other dumb words!")
Whatever the answer is, it doesn't involve Hillary Clinton.
Many commenters blame "militant" Bernie supporters for Trump's win: Not enough of them voted for Hillary.
But what if Bernie supporters HAD turned out for Hillary in bigger numbers, and Hillary had won? Would Democratic Party leaders have concluded those voters really preferred someone like Bernie, but voted for Hillary only because their other choice was Trump? Or would they have counted those votes as an endorsement of Hillary, and thus looked around for another Hillary (maybe even the same old Hillary) to offer up next time?
Whatever the answer is, it doesn't involve Hillary Clinton.
Many commenters blame "militant" Bernie supporters for Trump's win: Not enough of them voted for Hillary.
But what if Bernie supporters HAD turned out for Hillary in bigger numbers, and Hillary had won? Would Democratic Party leaders have concluded those voters really preferred someone like Bernie, but voted for Hillary only because their other choice was Trump? Or would they have counted those votes as an endorsement of Hillary, and thus looked around for another Hillary (maybe even the same old Hillary) to offer up next time?
6
“The Democratic Party must finally understand which side it is on." Exactly.
Whether they run as progressives or moderates, Democrats should put the economic well-being of working-class and middle-class voters front and center.
Whether they run as progressives or moderates, Democrats should put the economic well-being of working-class and middle-class voters front and center.
6
As long as the Dems are fixating on winning and not on representing their electoral base there's no hope. The political and cultural populism that swung the fringe right and their "independent" /"outsider" representative into power last November cannot be fought with strident left wing activism (which is just as grating as the alt-right) or a fresh new blue coat of paint covering the slightly red one, but with new faces, with having re set the Democratic party firmly on the center left, and centered firmly around a pragmatic capitalist ideology with strong social values. I'm not sure that's possible though. Maybe a new, credible Center Left has to rise here.
1
Bernie tapped into the same angst in the middle class that Trump tapped into. Who would want running the country?!
1
As the old saying goes, "divide and conquer." If the Democratic Party cannot bridge internal divisions, it will remain vulnerable to the impact of third party candidates. Further, if the party cannot unite itself around a compelling vision of the future, how can it expect to unite our deeply divided nation?
7
James, people behave as though they have never heard the word coalition. It means bringing together people of different views opinions and stripes to work together towards a common irritant Donald Trump and his party. Everything else should be secondary.
2
Agreed, 100%.
The "liberal" center-left represents a deep refusal to engage with the actual problems our nation - and species - is facing. When you follow the environmental reporting and look at what's happening to our resources, the food system, the war and pollution machines, and basic quality of life in this country, you soon learn the hard truth that if we had a Clinton-esque leader who succeeded in getting every compromise she asked for, we would still be on course for collapse within your child's lifetime. There is no "pragmatic" centrism. I've argued before (many times) that a genuine hard push for justice would sell better than the Democrats' usual weak tea, pandering, and betrayal. But now I think it's a red herring to play that game. The truth is that the rightwing is destroying the future of the human species and the odds of America continuing as a project; the center will do the same thing with a little less sexism.
7
Precisely. In a battle with far right so called conservatives in the Republican Party and almost as far right neoliberals in the Democratic Party "there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos".
4
Most of their readers make six figure salaries. They don't understand privilege if it hit them in the face. But by do they defend their class privilege to the detriment of everyone else - just look at the recent opinion column about class and all of the whiny commenters making $200k a year crying poor and "how dare they call me rich?! I can't afford private school for my kids im not rich!"
After their treatment of bernie during the primaries, im glad I cancelled my subscription. They can go pander to the six figure class, im still trying to figure out how to pay my rent on minimum wage despite my bachelors.
After their treatment of bernie during the primaries, im glad I cancelled my subscription. They can go pander to the six figure class, im still trying to figure out how to pay my rent on minimum wage despite my bachelors.
9
Exactly right Ashley. Paul Krugman, the so called conscience of a liberal, proved himself to be a fraud during the Democratic Party primary. He had a chance to endorse and support a real liberal running for president, instead he savaged him. That showed me his true colors, and left me a little bit ashamed that I use to think so highly of him.
8
Most of Bernie's ideas reflect my own (he's not an extremist but an old-style Dem), and I agree the party needs to flush out its present, rotting structure and return us to our roots. But the notion that politics is all-or-nothing is precisely what brought Trump into the White House. Idealism is great as an energizer. And then there's political reality: get as much as you can without shattering the structure that allows you to win at all. Sadly, ours is not a parliamentary system. You vote for someone closest to your ideals or you get Donald Trump.
Those are your only choices. You'll never get a winning coalition if you break off. You'll lose every time...and help further our present national tragedy. We'll soon have 2-3 more Gorsuches and another anti-women, anti-environment, anti-minority, anti-vote, anti-middle-class president, and likely the continuation of an extreme-right Congress. Those are impacts that will linger for generations, i.e., your kids.
Not to mention that shrinking the party will likely speed up the world-wide meltdown of inundated cities, climate refugees, coastal chaos, failing crops, dying reefs, the spread of disease.... That used to be "wild-eyed catastrophizing." Not any more.
Don't abandon your one real path to change. (Re)join the party, use your passion to clear out the corruption. Get in their faces and demand change. Run your own candidates. Take over. Just please don't walk away.
Those are your only choices. You'll never get a winning coalition if you break off. You'll lose every time...and help further our present national tragedy. We'll soon have 2-3 more Gorsuches and another anti-women, anti-environment, anti-minority, anti-vote, anti-middle-class president, and likely the continuation of an extreme-right Congress. Those are impacts that will linger for generations, i.e., your kids.
Not to mention that shrinking the party will likely speed up the world-wide meltdown of inundated cities, climate refugees, coastal chaos, failing crops, dying reefs, the spread of disease.... That used to be "wild-eyed catastrophizing." Not any more.
Don't abandon your one real path to change. (Re)join the party, use your passion to clear out the corruption. Get in their faces and demand change. Run your own candidates. Take over. Just please don't walk away.
4
I will walk away if they hold on to their lobbyist donors with all of their being.
3
As often happens, this article exaggerates the point. After all, if roughly 70,000 votes had been different, Hillary would be sitting in the White House today and we'd be reading articles about deep divisions among Republicans that threaten the party's very survival.
This reminds me a bit of a Time magazine article from several decades ago, reporting the disturbing increase in doggie doo-doo on New York City sidewalks. One reader "did the math," and reported in a letter to the editor (which I credit Time for publishing) that, if Time's numbers about this frightening doggie doo-doo trend were correct, every square inch of Manhattan sidewalks would already be covered in roughly 15 inches of doggie doo-doo. Apparently that was not the case (though it may seem that way to some NYC residents).
I learned from that article -- more accurately, from that letter to the editor -- to take journalists' reports of ominous trends with a very large grain of salt.
This reminds me a bit of a Time magazine article from several decades ago, reporting the disturbing increase in doggie doo-doo on New York City sidewalks. One reader "did the math," and reported in a letter to the editor (which I credit Time for publishing) that, if Time's numbers about this frightening doggie doo-doo trend were correct, every square inch of Manhattan sidewalks would already be covered in roughly 15 inches of doggie doo-doo. Apparently that was not the case (though it may seem that way to some NYC residents).
I learned from that article -- more accurately, from that letter to the editor -- to take journalists' reports of ominous trends with a very large grain of salt.
3
Please NY Times, don't start a war among us Democrats.
And don't start labeling what I consider conservative policies as "hard" leftist.
For example, single-payer health insurance makes economic sense. It's absurd and inefficient to have businesses (employers) come between an individual and their health insurance. As a small business owner, I can tell you that it adds a huge and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I don't mind paying my share, but I do mind having to try to manage other people's health insurance.
Raising certain taxes is also conservative. For our economy to succeed, we desperately need to update our infrastructure. This costs money, unless you finance it totally with increasing the national debt.
In addition, aren't we suppose to be a democracy, where everyone plays on a level playing field? But the reality is that most of the wealth is in the hands of a very small group of people. Without an estate tax, America will permanently become a de facto economic aristocracy. Income levels are similarly divided, and on top of this, the highest-earners actually pay lower taxes. We all know this. I'm a conservative, I want things the way they used to be, when everyone had more of an opportunity to succeed.
Free college education needs defining, but it would be better than now when kids wind up with massive, high-interest debt.
So again, please don't label as leftist or militarily leftist or hard left these very normal aspirations of the Democratic party.
And don't start labeling what I consider conservative policies as "hard" leftist.
For example, single-payer health insurance makes economic sense. It's absurd and inefficient to have businesses (employers) come between an individual and their health insurance. As a small business owner, I can tell you that it adds a huge and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I don't mind paying my share, but I do mind having to try to manage other people's health insurance.
Raising certain taxes is also conservative. For our economy to succeed, we desperately need to update our infrastructure. This costs money, unless you finance it totally with increasing the national debt.
In addition, aren't we suppose to be a democracy, where everyone plays on a level playing field? But the reality is that most of the wealth is in the hands of a very small group of people. Without an estate tax, America will permanently become a de facto economic aristocracy. Income levels are similarly divided, and on top of this, the highest-earners actually pay lower taxes. We all know this. I'm a conservative, I want things the way they used to be, when everyone had more of an opportunity to succeed.
Free college education needs defining, but it would be better than now when kids wind up with massive, high-interest debt.
So again, please don't label as leftist or militarily leftist or hard left these very normal aspirations of the Democratic party.
17
The NY Times didn't start a war among democrats. Bernie Sanders did. And he's not even a democrat.
1
@AM-- How did he start a war? With good ideas? Lol.
3
The last paragraph, almost an afterthought, is actually the most important. Dems need to focus on winning state legislatures so that in 2020 they can undo damage caused by Republican gerrymandering. Otherwise, no matter what their ideology, Democrats in congressional elections will continue to win more votes but lose more seats.
7
What part of you need our votes to win don't you understand?!
We don't serve the politicians. The politicians are supposed to serve us. Democratic entitlement to our vote lost them the election (plus primary fraud, calling us basement dwellers, making up fake news stories about us, telling us they didn't need or want our votes). I'm glad trump won - he's exactly the kind of awful, embarrassing candidate clinton needed to lose to in order to prove her neoliberal irrelevance.
I'm 28 years old. I just got fired from my job without cause or warning. I haven't had stable employment in a decade. I have a useless bachelors and $30k in debt. I am uninsured. I am about to lose my apartment unless family steps in to save me or I find a miraculous well paying job, that are few and far between.
Be happy we aren't coming for your heads yet. We will if this doesn't change.
We don't serve the politicians. The politicians are supposed to serve us. Democratic entitlement to our vote lost them the election (plus primary fraud, calling us basement dwellers, making up fake news stories about us, telling us they didn't need or want our votes). I'm glad trump won - he's exactly the kind of awful, embarrassing candidate clinton needed to lose to in order to prove her neoliberal irrelevance.
I'm 28 years old. I just got fired from my job without cause or warning. I haven't had stable employment in a decade. I have a useless bachelors and $30k in debt. I am uninsured. I am about to lose my apartment unless family steps in to save me or I find a miraculous well paying job, that are few and far between.
Be happy we aren't coming for your heads yet. We will if this doesn't change.
22
With all due respect for your frustrating situation - A question would also be why is this happening to you in Vermont, home of Mr. Sanders? Another is why are you uninsured - do you not have access to Obamacare? Why is your degree useless and why did you choose that? You are glad Trump won so there is no EPA, no protection of National Forests, no healthcare for lots of women? Sounds like you came for your own head.
7
You have a useless bachelors and $30k debt because.....?
I am now 66, very close to retirement, from what has been an "interesting life."
I got out of college near the end of the Viet Nam war with a BS degree in engineering from UC -- not something one tends to call a 'useless degree.'
My specialization was flight dynamics and control, aeronautical engineering, and I got bounced around very badly in the first three years I tried to work in the field, post Viet Nam -- I had two jobs that didn't pay me my last paycheck because they'd gone bankrupt. I threw in the towel on aerospace, went back to grad school to become a scientist -- my marriage failed, it was a bunch of hard years living dirt poor. I did make it and have had a good life since.
My reason for telling you this is that you must not assume that somehow it was all so easy-peasy a generation ago. It wasn't.
I am now 66, very close to retirement, from what has been an "interesting life."
I got out of college near the end of the Viet Nam war with a BS degree in engineering from UC -- not something one tends to call a 'useless degree.'
My specialization was flight dynamics and control, aeronautical engineering, and I got bounced around very badly in the first three years I tried to work in the field, post Viet Nam -- I had two jobs that didn't pay me my last paycheck because they'd gone bankrupt. I threw in the towel on aerospace, went back to grad school to become a scientist -- my marriage failed, it was a bunch of hard years living dirt poor. I did make it and have had a good life since.
My reason for telling you this is that you must not assume that somehow it was all so easy-peasy a generation ago. It wasn't.
1
These cult followers are not Ds. Their hero worship goes against everything we believe in. Bernie remains an Independent and not a member of our Party. He and his followers think they can take over our party. Our party is made up of us..and we will not go along with this aberration
6
Oh, I'll follow Bernie. And I know plenty of other Dems who will.
8
The party leadership, along with the writers of this article, believe the partycan continue to do what it has been doing and expect a different result. There's a word for that.
6
Not much point in electing people who are just going to do the same - regardless of party affiliation. The same isn't working. Hello, Trump got elected President because a large segment of people wanted to blow it up. Polls toward DC are about as low as Trump's favorable if not worse.
4
If you think HRC was just going to do the same you were probably NOT listening to HRC and just listening to Bernie tell you she was just going to do the same.
4
What the Democrats lack more than anything else is clarity. A concrete vision they can sell to the voters. Running against the Republicans is simply not enough, they need to give the people something to rally around, something to vote for.
That's the part Bernie had down and that's why he inspired. His calls for single payer healthcare, free college tuition, and full employment are laudable and I broadly support each of these causes.
Unfortunately, to anyone who is not an ardent Bernie supporter, his message came off as like pie in the sky rhetoric. It fails to recognize that the presidency is not a magical wand and the country as a whole is simply just not that liberal (yet).
The Democrats needs a Bernie style campaign that paints a clear (marketable) vision of the future. *That* is what the party needs to learn from Bernie. But winning in many states requires convincing the centrists. Bernie 2020 is not the way forward here, and the "People's Party" will only help the GOP maintain power.
That's the part Bernie had down and that's why he inspired. His calls for single payer healthcare, free college tuition, and full employment are laudable and I broadly support each of these causes.
Unfortunately, to anyone who is not an ardent Bernie supporter, his message came off as like pie in the sky rhetoric. It fails to recognize that the presidency is not a magical wand and the country as a whole is simply just not that liberal (yet).
The Democrats needs a Bernie style campaign that paints a clear (marketable) vision of the future. *That* is what the party needs to learn from Bernie. But winning in many states requires convincing the centrists. Bernie 2020 is not the way forward here, and the "People's Party" will only help the GOP maintain power.
7
Sanders transformed the political landscape! Single-payer and tuition free college has become mainstream. Nevertheless, it is more than that and until politicians grasp it, there will be more upheaval. Give the base what it wants!
9
"...Mr. Sanders — who was met with chants of “Bernie, Bernie” and pleas of “2020!” — crowed that while he may have lost the 2016 primary, “we have won the battle of ideas and we are continuing to win that battle.”
Crowed ?
The Times primary taint lingers.
Crowed ?
The Times primary taint lingers.
10
Typical - the Democrats are chasing their own tails, going in circles. I am inclined to think that Trump did not win the election: the Democrats handed it to him on a platter. Due to inter-party mistrust and lack of goals and direction. And I am a long-time Democrat. Without much hope for 2018 or 2020.
4
The following is from a person I frequently encounter on The Atlantic's discussion boards. It's pretty spot on to me:
"You could also make that point about the gulfs between the self-styled progressives, mainstream liberals who don't go quite as far as progressives, and the Clintonesque centrist wing of the Democrats. Yes, there certainly was enough bad blood to go around in 2016 and well before that, but if we don't find a way to patch up these still-festering wounds and establish some common grounds for policy prescriptions, all we're doing is ensuring that Trump and the GOP will have even better chances of staying in power longer and further screwing everything up. I'm a card-carrying progressive myself, but some of the demands for purity tests among the left really annoys and disgusts me."
"You could also make that point about the gulfs between the self-styled progressives, mainstream liberals who don't go quite as far as progressives, and the Clintonesque centrist wing of the Democrats. Yes, there certainly was enough bad blood to go around in 2016 and well before that, but if we don't find a way to patch up these still-festering wounds and establish some common grounds for policy prescriptions, all we're doing is ensuring that Trump and the GOP will have even better chances of staying in power longer and further screwing everything up. I'm a card-carrying progressive myself, but some of the demands for purity tests among the left really annoys and disgusts me."
5
Political systems are competitive ,no holds barred sporting events,where the winning partys primary agenda is to distributes the spoils of victory(key positions in the government bureaucracy) as a means of installing and controlling favorable policies for their leaders and most influential supporters.........However.all party ideology and strategy is subservient to the primary goal of holding on to power.
The promises of social stability and safety, guaranteed jobs and increased wealth security,with a strong army for protection ... a rallying call to patriotism..... are the main themes of all political party policies (with variations of the theme for each state and voter constituency).
The process described above is reflected perfectly in the election of Donald( Trump........who still openly flaunts his overt deceptions and empty promises that got him elected....incredibly maintaining a loyal following.........even while under threat of impeachment for obstruction of justice and potentially treasonous contacts with Russia.The Republicans pretend, all is well ,also almost treasonously clinging to Trumps executive power.
Until all Americans of both parties,realize they are being continuosly conned.......especially,as exemplified, with the empowerment of Don the Con.......and take back their political and social rights by mass demonstations ..............they will be ruled by the cunningly clever and self serving 1%!
The promises of social stability and safety, guaranteed jobs and increased wealth security,with a strong army for protection ... a rallying call to patriotism..... are the main themes of all political party policies (with variations of the theme for each state and voter constituency).
The process described above is reflected perfectly in the election of Donald( Trump........who still openly flaunts his overt deceptions and empty promises that got him elected....incredibly maintaining a loyal following.........even while under threat of impeachment for obstruction of justice and potentially treasonous contacts with Russia.The Republicans pretend, all is well ,also almost treasonously clinging to Trumps executive power.
Until all Americans of both parties,realize they are being continuosly conned.......especially,as exemplified, with the empowerment of Don the Con.......and take back their political and social rights by mass demonstations ..............they will be ruled by the cunningly clever and self serving 1%!
Yeah right wingers like me, Obama, Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Nancy Pelosi, all the Democratic senators and congressmen, we all wanted Hillary. How dumb of us!
We should listen to the millennials. MDR
We should listen to the millennials. MDR
4
All out of touch celebrities, politicians and millionaires, except for the not rich dupes that go along with them.
5
Mick,
Well, you said it and I agree. (Even if you meant it as snark.)
1000 lost seats and elections in 8yrs. and the establishment power players that gave us the Mango Madman are still trying to stay the course.
With that losing track record maybe it is time to look elsewhere?! Maybe?!
Well, you said it and I agree. (Even if you meant it as snark.)
1000 lost seats and elections in 8yrs. and the establishment power players that gave us the Mango Madman are still trying to stay the course.
With that losing track record maybe it is time to look elsewhere?! Maybe?!
2
The Republicans have formed a coalition government - fiscal conservatives have joined forces with isolationists, social conservatives, and the religious right. Why is it so difficult for the Democrats to also form a coalition consisting of socially liberal people who have a variety of positions on fiscal matters? Neither the far left nor the moderates should be taking a "my way or the highway" approach. Why doesn't each group focus on the districts that are sympathetic to their respective position? Then the coalition can work together toward common goals once the Democrats are in power.
10
What is the point of beating a neoliberal Republican by electing a neoliberal Democrat?
$23 million wasted.
Taking the Democratic party far enough to the right to win right wing voters - the Clinton way, the Blair in the UK way - denies the opportunity for moving away from the neoliberal policies of the past 40 years.
Might as well just do nothing and let the Republicans win.
$23 million wasted.
Taking the Democratic party far enough to the right to win right wing voters - the Clinton way, the Blair in the UK way - denies the opportunity for moving away from the neoliberal policies of the past 40 years.
Might as well just do nothing and let the Republicans win.
8
The headline (and most of this article) is a Trump era joke; right? The established DNC -- that lost to Trump a few months ago and has lost about 1,000 races throughout the country in recent years -- wants to keep doing what they are doing because they "want to win." That's a good one.
And the "base" -- including millions of new voters energized by candidates that might actually make their lives better -- "want it all." You know, like a living wage, health care, a slight light toward access to what once was widely accepted as a shot at the American dream."
Of course, this bizarre, upside down framing of the issue as what most consider the definition of insanity as "pragmatism" and middle class priorities as mad, unattainable dreaming has been consistent in advertisement-driven media for some time, including in last year's primaries and general election. But to continue to write the same nonsense now further blurs the line between real and fake news.
And the "base" -- including millions of new voters energized by candidates that might actually make their lives better -- "want it all." You know, like a living wage, health care, a slight light toward access to what once was widely accepted as a shot at the American dream."
Of course, this bizarre, upside down framing of the issue as what most consider the definition of insanity as "pragmatism" and middle class priorities as mad, unattainable dreaming has been consistent in advertisement-driven media for some time, including in last year's primaries and general election. But to continue to write the same nonsense now further blurs the line between real and fake news.
7
Everyone who thinks they are liberal or progressive or who feels threatened, insulted and infuriated by the brutality of the current GOP and its president should read the comments posted here. Ignore the goofy, slanted article and dive into the real issues that thoughtful and informed readers are exploring here. I'm saving a copy to share with family and friends.
5
Democrats don't turn the page easily. They ran William Jennings Bryan in 1896. He lost. So, they nominated and ran him two more times. He lost both those times too.
Doesn't look like Hillary is planning on going away. I am sure there are many who will want to run her again.
Doesn't look like Hillary is planning on going away. I am sure there are many who will want to run her again.
2
A first principle of political organizing is to energize the base. But what do you do if the base is shrinking? While both parties have lost popular support, the Democrats especially have suffered embarrassing loses at the polls, largely at the state and local level. Perhaps a place to begin is for the party's political leadership to remember that the American electorate, by and large, is centrist. It tacks a little left and a bit right depending on the issue, the personalities of the candidates, and perceived self-interest. Democrats can restore their standing when they are believed to be listening to - and not merely preaching to -- voters across the country.
4
it is fascinating that for 8 years, the Democrats preached that Republicans were as good as extinct for demographic reasons, i.e. their base was dying off and the Dems' New Majority of minority groups and young women constituted a rapidly expanding base. I think they just wanted Republicans to roll over.
The fundamental problem is that the party establishment doesn't really care about "winning" in the same sense that most of us would mean that word. The party's goals are twofold - protecting incumbents, and keeping the donation cash flowing in. How many articles have been written in the last several months detailing how donations to the party have increased since Trump took office? To the insiders in the Party establishment, that constitutes "winning". The lesson the party is learning is that being the minority opposition is far more profitable than being in the majority. (Ironically, the GOP is learning the same lesson.)
This is why the party has very little motivation to support non-incumbent candidates - it means cutting the donation "pie" into more and smaller slices, while risking being placed into the position the GOP is in now - holding across-the-board majorities and therefore being expected to actually accomplish something in return for those donations.
This is why the party has very little motivation to support non-incumbent candidates - it means cutting the donation "pie" into more and smaller slices, while risking being placed into the position the GOP is in now - holding across-the-board majorities and therefore being expected to actually accomplish something in return for those donations.
4
Whatever happened to the New Left and "Power to the People". When I hear a slogan such as the "People's Party" I cringe. Neither Democrats or Republicans have been interested in addressing the cozy relationship between DC power and corporations. While Sanders touts European democratic socialism, many countries he holds up as examples have more decentralized governments than the US. It's easy for us to get enthused by slogans, but are we willing to take responsibility for being part of the problem?
2
Democrats must move firmly to the left, giving Americans good reasons for why it is in their best interests to establish workable socialism based on American needs and values. Democrats cannot be "Republicans lite".
6
The past fall less that 25% of the electorate voted for Clinton and slightly smaller number voted for Trump. Sanders is speaking to that other 50% who are voicing their deep sense of betrayal by the Democrats who proclaim that funding their election treasure-chest with big corporate dollar is the important path to getting elected.
Yet we see over and over that elected democrats step back from doing the work of the people because it gets in the way of funding their re-election treasure-chest, so they betray the people again and a again. For decades now, government has failed at providing a fair and just society for the majority of our people, as both major parties elevate financial elitism over fairness and justice.
It also is appalling that Democrats running for office continue to see their work as that of winning over a portion of the quarter of the electorate that votes Republican, rather that reaching out to that half of the electorate who won't vote for a Republican nor a neo-libral-Democrat. That was the strategy of the Clinton Campaign, loaded down with corporate funding, and we now see the results.
And there is growing resentment of news sources like the Times who continue to berate those who voice any opposition to the neo-libral Democrats while ignoring the political reality of this past fall's election.
Yet we see over and over that elected democrats step back from doing the work of the people because it gets in the way of funding their re-election treasure-chest, so they betray the people again and a again. For decades now, government has failed at providing a fair and just society for the majority of our people, as both major parties elevate financial elitism over fairness and justice.
It also is appalling that Democrats running for office continue to see their work as that of winning over a portion of the quarter of the electorate that votes Republican, rather that reaching out to that half of the electorate who won't vote for a Republican nor a neo-libral-Democrat. That was the strategy of the Clinton Campaign, loaded down with corporate funding, and we now see the results.
And there is growing resentment of news sources like the Times who continue to berate those who voice any opposition to the neo-libral Democrats while ignoring the political reality of this past fall's election.
7
I read this column with dismay. While Bernie and his supporters rallied in GA, many more of us gathered to phone bank for Ossoff, Parnell, and to protect the ACA. The Democratic Party has many dimensions. We're in the trenches everyday trying to make a difference, not rallying to tear down the Party. When Bernie Sanders and his acolytes spend less time bashing the Democratic Party and more time figuring out how to prevent the horrors that will result from the GOP Congress, I will consider supporting them. Until then, I ask the NYT to stop creating more division and to acknowledge all the hard-working Democrats who are working to unite the Party and take over Congress in 2018.
6
You're not going to take back Congress or state governments in a big way until you join progressives that demand that Democrats turn their backs on corporate and Wall St donors that want to be looked after after they are elected.
5
Progressives are threatening to form their own party. I think they should. I don't see anyone losing from that because both sides will have their say. They will both still have to come together to win in some cases but not always. I decided to become an Independent myself.
4
While the Republicans give power to their sneaky wheels, the DNC speaks patronizingly and carries a big can of WD-40. Both parties alienate an ever-expanding population. The result? Well, it sure isn't representative democracy. And therein lies the fatal flaw of the two-part system.
3
In planning their future strategy, Democrats should heed the words of Pogo 'Possum when he said "We have met the enemy, and he is us"!
The party's incessant rhetorical focus on the divisive politics of identity and envy are self-inflicted wounds. More and more citizens are recognizing it and are weary of it. Donald Trump is a symptom of that weariness, and there will be more such backlash if the Democratic Party fails to improve its flawed ideology.
The party's incessant rhetorical focus on the divisive politics of identity and envy are self-inflicted wounds. More and more citizens are recognizing it and are weary of it. Donald Trump is a symptom of that weariness, and there will be more such backlash if the Democratic Party fails to improve its flawed ideology.
2
It's not envy to want to return ti the ideals of the New Deal, it's common sense and decency.
2
Disagree. The "Democratic Party" is just one arm of the body politic with the "Republican Party" being the other arm. The reason the Democrats lost to Trump is because the "party" submarined Bernie. Let rural America continue to be suckered by supply-side voodoo economics. They will eventually reject GOP on their own.
3
sp ck "radical" not radial
I don't buy your narrative--that it's pragmatists vs. idealists. That's a nice tidy little package for comsuption. Too bad it doesn't reflect the reality that it was the country club Dems that lost to Trump.
7
Bernie Sanders is calling for full employment. He should look at news of the economy. We have full employment already. Anything under 5% unemployment is considered full employment by economists and we now have 4.6% unemployment. Employers are finding it difficult to fill jobs that they are offering. Bernie should update his demands.
5
Ther May be full employment but we need higher wages.That is what Bernie is talking about.A better way to educate our people with free college and make it easier to pay college loan.A single payer health plan( not one like the rep's would stick on people).
4
Um, he's calling for full employment at decent wages. Employment at minimum wage doesn't count.
3
Can you define "decent wages?"
Thanks Bernie, for keeping the focus on issues that affect the "average" person: healthcare, just wages, education and the environment, to name a few. As it was during the 2016 election cycle, it is clear that the New York Times does not "get it" regarding the "average" person's needs and concerns at this time in America.
17
NYT does not get it because of loyalty to the Clintons. You know the same "loyalty" that Trump demanded of Comey? Well, the Clintons already have it. Ask the democratic establishment, media and pundits. They are drenched in Clinton loyalty, its called soaking. Don't even try to squeeze a drop of Bernie out of them, no point they have sworn not to "get him nor his followers". That is why my millennials, their friends, colleagues refuse to read NYT opinion or political news coverage.
4
Now he tries to keep the focus on healthcare after throwing millions of our most vulnerable - children, the elderly under the bus by enabling a Trump presidency? He should have thought of that before he cynically attacked HRC with Republican propaganda. He is a repulsive, narcissistic egomaniac.
4
What in the world is wrong with a political party that offers a variety of political points of view? I remember when there were liberal and conservative Democrats and liberal and conservative Republicans. Who says that Bernie Sanders and Jon Ossoff can't co-exist in a single party - especially one that has never walked in lockstep. We've seen what happens when a political party turns into a party of apparatchiks - all moving in lockstep and each interested more in his or her advancement than in the advancement of the nation. I applaud the Democrats for having room in their "big tent" for a wide range of political thought.
12
"especially one that has never walked in lockstep"
Look at the voting records in Congress - you will find that the Democrats have voted as a bloc much more often than the Republicans. Theirs is a lockstep the Tory party would admire.
The left, which in America is represented by the Democrats, has always feared intellectual diversity even more than the right, and I see no sign of that changing.
Look at the voting records in Congress - you will find that the Democrats have voted as a bloc much more often than the Republicans. Theirs is a lockstep the Tory party would admire.
The left, which in America is represented by the Democrats, has always feared intellectual diversity even more than the right, and I see no sign of that changing.
1
Look at the voting records in Congress - you will find that the Democrats have voted as a bloc much more often than the Republicans."
Simply false.
Simply false.
Bernie Sanders is not going to run for President in 2020; however healthy he may be, he's going to be pushing 80. And as so many here have eagerly insisted, he is not a true Democrat, especially if you think today's Democratic Party represents true Democrats.
But Bernie is leading a movement. During the campaign he hammered on the economic issues and ideals and tended to paint the social issues with a broader brush rather than emphasize the hot-button issues that the Twitter-Tot used against us. For example, far from being a misogynist, as some here would have us believe, he is concerned with the lives of women everywhere: see https://www.sandersinstitute.com/issues/social-justice
To depict Bernie's goals as somehow radical is to deny the FDR underpinnings of the Democratic Party that he espouses (and to which IMHO we should return) and ignore the fact that the most successful countries have long embraced those ideals. We have a two-party system--never mind that the Founders feared the whole notion of parties and there's no mention of the concept in the Constitution--and Bernie saw that the only way to run was within that system. Why would Democrats find it so strange that in running as a Democrat, he promoted the ideals of the quintessential Democrat?
But Bernie is leading a movement. During the campaign he hammered on the economic issues and ideals and tended to paint the social issues with a broader brush rather than emphasize the hot-button issues that the Twitter-Tot used against us. For example, far from being a misogynist, as some here would have us believe, he is concerned with the lives of women everywhere: see https://www.sandersinstitute.com/issues/social-justice
To depict Bernie's goals as somehow radical is to deny the FDR underpinnings of the Democratic Party that he espouses (and to which IMHO we should return) and ignore the fact that the most successful countries have long embraced those ideals. We have a two-party system--never mind that the Founders feared the whole notion of parties and there's no mention of the concept in the Constitution--and Bernie saw that the only way to run was within that system. Why would Democrats find it so strange that in running as a Democrat, he promoted the ideals of the quintessential Democrat?
19
Bernie is not a greedy man, as the Hillary supporters try to portray of him. He is such a patriot he wants the best for his country and all the millennials who are going to inherit the country understand Bernie 1000%.
5
He's not a misogynist? When Trump said women should be punished if they have an abortion, Bernie said that was a distraction from the serious issues. When his acolytes referred to HRC supporters as democratic whores he barely batted an eyelid. Sorry, but there won't be equal rights until women are not treated as second class citizens. Women's rights don't fall under the umbrella of equal rights. It's the other way around. Until Bernie and his vicious minions get that, all IS lost. You can't fight for equal rights while women are still pinned under the bus!
4
Donald Trump won and Bernie Sanders lost their respective party presidential nominations because the leadership of both parties are insufficiently concerned about the problems of the people they represent. Both parties simply argue to their constituencies that "you don't want the opposition candidate to win, do you? An "obviously flawed" candidate, Donald Trump, won the Republican Party nomination and then the national election for President because of this fact.
Did the Democratic Party leadership give Bernie Sanders a fair chance to win that party's nomination? No! The superdelegates - the party establishment composing almost a third of the votes needed to achieve that party's nomination - committed their votes almost unanimously to Hillary Clinton before the first primary vote had been cast. And, thanks to the Russians, everyone now knows how the DNC operated so slyly behind the curtains to get Hillary elected. And, in the critical primary state of New York, where Governor Cuomo and the corrupt Democratic Party legislature controlled the primary voting rules, three million Independent supporters of Bernie Sanders were denied the opportunity to vote for him in that state’s Democratic primary.
The leadership of both parties tried once again to maintain their controlling iron grip on power. The Democrats were able to do so with Hillary Clinton's nomination; the Republicans were unable to do so with Donald Trump's nomination.
Did the Democratic Party leadership give Bernie Sanders a fair chance to win that party's nomination? No! The superdelegates - the party establishment composing almost a third of the votes needed to achieve that party's nomination - committed their votes almost unanimously to Hillary Clinton before the first primary vote had been cast. And, thanks to the Russians, everyone now knows how the DNC operated so slyly behind the curtains to get Hillary elected. And, in the critical primary state of New York, where Governor Cuomo and the corrupt Democratic Party legislature controlled the primary voting rules, three million Independent supporters of Bernie Sanders were denied the opportunity to vote for him in that state’s Democratic primary.
The leadership of both parties tried once again to maintain their controlling iron grip on power. The Democrats were able to do so with Hillary Clinton's nomination; the Republicans were unable to do so with Donald Trump's nomination.
15
The Democratic party needs to go back to the fundamentals: affirm a clear mission, vision and values. Run on those and those alone.
Instead of a defensive, "we're not the Republicans", Dems need to be able to consistently state why people should support and vote for them.
Sanders does this, and establishment Dems do not. Sanders compromises; establishment Dems acquiesce.
Sanders has had a consistent message congruent with his platform; establishment Dems are all over the map. Sanders is an easier yes/no choice. Establishment Dems are murky, murkier and murkiest, and this often leaves voters to support people who turn out to be horrible representatives and legislators, but who had clear messages, even when they were false.
Instead of a defensive, "we're not the Republicans", Dems need to be able to consistently state why people should support and vote for them.
Sanders does this, and establishment Dems do not. Sanders compromises; establishment Dems acquiesce.
Sanders has had a consistent message congruent with his platform; establishment Dems are all over the map. Sanders is an easier yes/no choice. Establishment Dems are murky, murkier and murkiest, and this often leaves voters to support people who turn out to be horrible representatives and legislators, but who had clear messages, even when they were false.
5
Yea except they've tried corporatist candidates and lost. Gore, Kerry, Hillary. Bernie beats Trump because Trump's fake populist campaign works against a corporatist tool of questionable ethics and with no message like Hillary but not against someone with a strong message like Sanders. Corporate Democrats have lost to two of the worst major party presidential candidates of my lifetime (Bush II and Trump). The corporatist lurch of the party has also coincided with their loss of Congress, something they controlled at least one house of for pretty much all of the Cold War period... and almost none since.Why do corporate Dems and their corporate newspaper think that this is a winning formula?
14
If people in the Dem party aren't willing to budge to the left, then we need a new party. The Dems party is hopeless. The ongoing narrative that Bernie and his followers took down Clinton and is a group of militants is ridiculous. Clinton won by 3 million votes, people. Russia interfered. Clinton should be in the WH. Can we move on now? Establishment Dems are no more democratic than Republicans. Dems are leaning more and more to the right. Big money talks too loud. Bernie showed that WE DONT NEED BIG MONEY. So let's craft a real, true democratic agenda, a govt by the people, of the people, for the people. Let's get progressive Dems in office.
10
But for the intransigence of Bernie et al, the Russians, the Republicans and Comey would have been unsuccessful.
1
It seems the Democrats still don't get it. JOBS JOBS JOBS
I truly detest Trump, and the tone of his inaugural address was off putting, to say the least. But when he mentioned "hollowed out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape,' he wasn't far off. Visit Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit. These cities were American gems just fifty years ago. I've spent most of my life in upstate NY, the Finger Lakes and the Southern Tier, and it is one thing to see a Utica, Binghamton, or Auburn falling apart. It is an entire different thing to see Buffalo. Miles of empty factories, block after block of blighted urban neighborhoods. This is repeated across the east into the midwest, and gallons were spilled after the election about the plight of working class white people. These are the Democrats natural constituency, and not a word in this article about it. These are the Trump voters.
The reality is that global capitalism is not working for the majority of people and communities. Retraining, "downtown revitilizations," it's not going to be enough. Until decent paying jobs are available, this downward spiral will continue and Trump won't be the last demagogue. I don't know what the answer is, but I know it's not unrestrained, zero-sum capitalism.
Single payer would be nice, but let's get some jobs first. Free college tuition would be great, my family would benefit, but let's get the primary schools in order first.
I truly detest Trump, and the tone of his inaugural address was off putting, to say the least. But when he mentioned "hollowed out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape,' he wasn't far off. Visit Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit. These cities were American gems just fifty years ago. I've spent most of my life in upstate NY, the Finger Lakes and the Southern Tier, and it is one thing to see a Utica, Binghamton, or Auburn falling apart. It is an entire different thing to see Buffalo. Miles of empty factories, block after block of blighted urban neighborhoods. This is repeated across the east into the midwest, and gallons were spilled after the election about the plight of working class white people. These are the Democrats natural constituency, and not a word in this article about it. These are the Trump voters.
The reality is that global capitalism is not working for the majority of people and communities. Retraining, "downtown revitilizations," it's not going to be enough. Until decent paying jobs are available, this downward spiral will continue and Trump won't be the last demagogue. I don't know what the answer is, but I know it's not unrestrained, zero-sum capitalism.
Single payer would be nice, but let's get some jobs first. Free college tuition would be great, my family would benefit, but let's get the primary schools in order first.
4
Once again, the NYT shows its true colors in naming supporters of Bernie Sanders and his ideas as the "militant wing". This is no surprise, as clearly the paper represents the corporate Democratic Party, a party which increasingly stands for little other than crumbs for most. What a pity to have America's "paper of record" be this.
21
"Militant wing" of the party? Do you mean the part of the part that actually stands for something? The part of the party that wants the party to fight for regular people, instead of big monied interests? The part of the party that things American, the richest nation in history, can provide the same basic programs that every other modern nation provide? The part of the party that opposes endless war?
NY Times, you have become an attack dog of the failed status quo. Shame on you!
NY Times, you have become an attack dog of the failed status quo. Shame on you!
15
Sanders and his supporters spend more time complaining about Clinton and the Democratic Party than they do about Trump and the Republicans. This gets us no where now and it got us Trump in the last election. The only thing that motivates most people to vote is economic issues. Get an achievable economic program that addresses the problems Americans face, get local people with roots in the area to run as Democratic candidates, and then register people and convince them that local and midterm elections exist and that they should vote In them. (Good luck with the latter, by the way!). Quit forming circular firing squads. The Republicans are the opposition, not the Democratic Party. If you can't say something constructive, shut up already!
13
Republicans are the opposition. Democrats are the enemy.
1
Actually, the democrats are the enemy. They rigged the primaries, shoved clinton - WHO COULDNT EVEN FILL A GYMNASIUM - down our throats, and have blamed everybody but themselves for their loss.
The Democratic Party is dead. Thank god. That's what you get when you commit political suicide and alienate the majority of your base.
The Democratic Party is dead. Thank god. That's what you get when you commit political suicide and alienate the majority of your base.
3
Clinton supporters and democratic party establishment folks are in "grieving and mourning stages". Bernie's supporters did all their grieving and mourning between the primaries and the general, so they are way way ahead of the Hillary folks. They are in action mode, sprinting into making things happen instead of moping about Hillary loss or blaming Comey, the Russians, the weather, the earth and the sun.
5
Many folks like me are Democratic progressives who also understand the need for solid pragmatic (and yes 'old school') political tactics to accomplish a progressive agenda. This understanding is something that Sanders' hasn't demonstrated to me. Honestly, during the election cycle the similarity between Trump 'style' of rabble rousing and Sanders' was too easy to identify. I'm tired of mavericks and demagogues and self-righteous harangers. The 'new' Democratic Party would do well to hang their hopes on politicians like Keith Ellison, Tammy Duckworth and Kamala Harris - find them at the local and state level and nurture.
4
Three things:
1) F.
2) D.
4) R.
1) F.
2) D.
4) R.
8
Er...
But you know what i mean...
But you know what i mean...
"They" "want it all"? "They" want to win? Oh, you mean like Hillary? Yeah, that wins.
Imagine if these party aparatchniks were negotiating on behalf of your kidnapped daughter. What would they be willing to bargain away -- perhaps a few toes instead of the whole foot? I say fight hard, fight straight, and win over the electorate, even if it takes 20 years. We have lost so badly, the barbarians have spilled into the castle keep, the future of our children -- health care, education, the environment -- has been put to the sword. What is there left to lose?
We must drive them out, and anyone who is not ready to fight tooth and nail, hammer and tongs, would be best advised to leave now with the marauders. We don't want you. You can't help. You have failed us.
Imagine if these party aparatchniks were negotiating on behalf of your kidnapped daughter. What would they be willing to bargain away -- perhaps a few toes instead of the whole foot? I say fight hard, fight straight, and win over the electorate, even if it takes 20 years. We have lost so badly, the barbarians have spilled into the castle keep, the future of our children -- health care, education, the environment -- has been put to the sword. What is there left to lose?
We must drive them out, and anyone who is not ready to fight tooth and nail, hammer and tongs, would be best advised to leave now with the marauders. We don't want you. You can't help. You have failed us.
8
"“Unity for unity’s sake,” she warned, “is not going to happen.”"
How about unity for winning's sake??
I supported Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary. But, I am very disappointed that he stayed in personal campaign mode now when unifying the party for the 2018 election should be our and his priority. Sanders could have won against Trump in 2016 but would not have come even close to a traditional sane Republican candidate, like Romney. An arrogant far left orthodox Democratic party, which Sanders and hiss supporters seemingly aims for, has no chance to win back either houses of congress in 2018, and that would lead to continuing disaster for our country. I thought Sanders is less egotistical and smatter than he seems to be lately. I am also at a loss why he does not join the Democratic party the direction of which he seems to want set.
How about unity for winning's sake??
I supported Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary. But, I am very disappointed that he stayed in personal campaign mode now when unifying the party for the 2018 election should be our and his priority. Sanders could have won against Trump in 2016 but would not have come even close to a traditional sane Republican candidate, like Romney. An arrogant far left orthodox Democratic party, which Sanders and hiss supporters seemingly aims for, has no chance to win back either houses of congress in 2018, and that would lead to continuing disaster for our country. I thought Sanders is less egotistical and smatter than he seems to be lately. I am also at a loss why he does not join the Democratic party the direction of which he seems to want set.
3
No, Sanders just understands that winning is pointless if you are going to deliberately be three quarters as bad as the party or candidate you just beat...and lie when you say you are that much different from them. The American people are still owed Obama's "yes we can"...which was a slogan he used to just get elected...but the people still want what they were want...what they were promised...what most of the western world has / had...before infected with American corporatism / neoliberalism.
3
Sanders would not have beaten Trump he would've won one state Vermont and that's it.
1
Why did so many of the poles last spring put him way, way ahead of Trump in the general election?
Could it be because a good number of the 50% of those who stayed home on election day were voicing their support for Sanders last spring, voters who would have tipped the scales all the way to Sanders?
Could it be because a good number of the 50% of those who stayed home on election day were voicing their support for Sanders last spring, voters who would have tipped the scales all the way to Sanders?
2
The time has come for politicians to stop following the fringes of their respective parties and to start being leaders. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as republicans or democrats and start being Americans. Instead of working together to solve the immense challenges our country faces, we have devolved into a couple of tribes throwing rocks at each other while other countries laugh at us and tale our place on the world stage.
Like Trump, I was a Democrat most of my life until I saw a guy who thought just like me: Trump. I changed my party affiliation--not because I am in love with Republicans--but because I liked the policies of DJ Trump. Now I hate Dems...for their hypocrisy, for their laissez-faire attitude towards Those People Who Shall Not Be Named, for their pro-brown favoritism and often anti-white racism, for their tendency to tax the rich to give to the poor who are often here illegally, for their pro-moocher stance, for their anti-police stance. I see a party so consumed with human rights for all that it doesn't even understand it is stomping on the human rights of people like me. The Dems don't understand that much of the non-western world does not understand our warm and fuzzy Judeo-Christian ethics of being good to others and takes our attitude as being a sign of weakness. We are in a world of good vs evil and we are the good guys. Republicans understand this; Democrats don't. Good guys are true to their team and even if we bicker amongst one another, we sure don't want to give all we have to the other side who will take what we have and kill us. I've lived half my life outside the US; the outside world is not a nice place. Dog eat dog. Nothing changes.
8
This is a remarkably astute comment.
3
Obviously people who are left of Ossoff are donating to his campaign because Democrats want to take back Congress. I should know, because I'm left even by California standards, and I'm excited about him. Why is that so difficult to respect?
Why is this news??
Why is this news??
7
The candidates and "wings" need to boil it down and find common cause (winning, anyone?). Once they all find what they have in common, that is the party plank. Leave it to the primaries to find a winner. THAT is what a party leader does. He or she does not try to pick a winner before the primaries. Leave that to us. Once the choice is made (again, by us), the DNC leader leader has to rally the party to that winner.
This is not rocket science and the NYT is not helping by sowing discord before we even get to the primaries.
To me, the party represents humanitarianism, responsible taxation, *real* economic growth (as opposed the Brownbackian death march), and, most of all, winning!
This is not rocket science and the NYT is not helping by sowing discord before we even get to the primaries.
To me, the party represents humanitarianism, responsible taxation, *real* economic growth (as opposed the Brownbackian death march), and, most of all, winning!
7
Irony is I was a Bernie supporter and I had very high respect for the liberals. Conversely, I thought the Republicans and right-wingers are just loonies. But my perception is completely changed. However, two people changed that perception. Bernie, who fought for the Democrats, was cheated through collusion in the DNC. Now, they blame the collusion on Russia. Bernie and his supporters are castigated interestingly by the liberal media, mainly by NYT and WP. In doing so, those lying media agencies, unabashedly, justified Hillary's criminal actions in every possible way. Bernie supporters were called the same horrible things like the Trump supporters. At least, the liberal media showed their true 'ugly' face on what they are standing for by supporting a corrupt, lying criminal called Hillary. When they endorsed Hillary, I lost any faith I had on the liberal media and the liberals. In contrast, Trump stood strong and fooled the liberal media's bubble predictions. Now, after they fake news exposed, they are acting Trump and his administration. But I and many other supporters will stand behind Trump, not for his ideas, but it is better to stand behind Stalin to defeat liberal media's Nazi propaganda. Keep believing that democrats will win without Bernie supporters, and you liberal bubble dwellers are in for a shock. May be liberal media and liberals will be only left with coastal states and end up ranting aliens, big foot, and lizard people.
5
Bernie did a great job brainwashing you. He's no different than Trump in that regard.
2
This article reeks of corporate centrist right bias. Since Roosevelt the dems have rightfully embraced a progressive inclusive social peoples agenda until beginning to move centrist-then right of center-post Reagan. It briefly worked at least economically but has now become a slightly less aggressive form of corporate cancer capitalism that the GOP is infected with. All we want is "our" party to get back to its roots and serve its people. You write here in this maligned article that that is some kind of "radial" request. Maybe you two are in the wrong party, did you ever ask yourselves that?
15
Mr. ego Bernie Sanders does not have the qualifications to be president of the United States. His low information millennial voters did not know that the only person that could've given them the gifts that he promised was Hillary Clinton. and although Bernie was supported by the Trump, the Republicans and the Russians and he still got beat by Hillary by 3 million votes. Now he's way to gleeful about the results. Because Hillary loss and he's glad about it because now he thinks he's the leader. Bernie Sanders is a loser. And all we can do is make the leading Democrat lose. How stupid do you have to be to promise the things he did with both houses being Republican. all he did was use right wing tactics and innuendo the cost Hillary the election of abou all he did was use right wing tactics and innuendo that cost Hillary about 1 million votes in the election.
He gave credibility to all the terrible things that Trump and the Republicans and the Russians said about her. He's a stooge. By the end him and all his Bernie Brose sounded more like Republicans than Democrats. Go away Bernie.
He gave credibility to all the terrible things that Trump and the Republicans and the Russians said about her. He's a stooge. By the end him and all his Bernie Brose sounded more like Republicans than Democrats. Go away Bernie.
6
So Mick, you prefer lobbyist beholden faux centrist Democrats to Bernie Sanders?
Of the People
By the People
For the People.
I'm not returning to the Democratic Party until they understand and fight for that again.
The American people want things that are realistic. You are supporting a Democratic Party that quietly agrees with Republicans that these things cannot or should not be done.
Because they are bribed and corrupt.
Of the People
By the People
For the People.
I'm not returning to the Democratic Party until they understand and fight for that again.
The American people want things that are realistic. You are supporting a Democratic Party that quietly agrees with Republicans that these things cannot or should not be done.
Because they are bribed and corrupt.
5
Bernie lost to Hillary. Hillary is also ran for President, twice, loser.
2
Bernie rocks!!!!!
3
Rhe statement in the headline, to wit, "The Base Wants it All, The Party Wants to Win," reflects the NY Times' editorial bias -- the very same editorial bias that was evident in this paper's dismissive and demeaning coverage of the early part of Bernie Sanders' primary campaign.
The implicit suggestion that the progressive wqng of the party doesn't want to win just as much as the centrist Democrats who currently runt the show is dishonest and scurrilous. In case the writerzs haven't noticed, the current leadership's record of 'winning' is rather less than impressive. There is the recent presidential election, of course, and the drubbing Democrats took in the House and Senate; there is also the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats in state legislatures across the country over the past 10 years. All of this happened while centrist, corporate-friendly faction of the party was in charge. So I am not at all convinced that any of the current party apparatchiks have Clue No. 1 about what it takes to win.
And we progressives understand as well as anyone else that we won't get everything we want. But we also know this: if we expect to get any of what we want, we had better fight for all of it. If we fight only for a position we will accept as a compromise, the result will ber unacceptable -- every time.
The implicit suggestion that the progressive wqng of the party doesn't want to win just as much as the centrist Democrats who currently runt the show is dishonest and scurrilous. In case the writerzs haven't noticed, the current leadership's record of 'winning' is rather less than impressive. There is the recent presidential election, of course, and the drubbing Democrats took in the House and Senate; there is also the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats in state legislatures across the country over the past 10 years. All of this happened while centrist, corporate-friendly faction of the party was in charge. So I am not at all convinced that any of the current party apparatchiks have Clue No. 1 about what it takes to win.
And we progressives understand as well as anyone else that we won't get everything we want. But we also know this: if we expect to get any of what we want, we had better fight for all of it. If we fight only for a position we will accept as a compromise, the result will ber unacceptable -- every time.
7
Bernie supporters militant? How about patriotic? How about wanting to return our government to the people and get money out of politics?
Bernie was right: he would have beaten Trump.
But because the NYT and other media outlets ignored and belittled him, we have Trump trying to act as President.
Thanks NYT. You haven't learned have you? People are fed up with corporate politics and want fairness. We are not stupid.
Bernie was right: he would have beaten Trump.
But because the NYT and other media outlets ignored and belittled him, we have Trump trying to act as President.
Thanks NYT. You haven't learned have you? People are fed up with corporate politics and want fairness. We are not stupid.
15
If the headline is accurate then the Democratic leadership is alienated from its base and no party alienated from its base can expect to be victorious. The headline is not technically accurate as the base also wants to win, it just doesn't think the present party leadership has enough mojo to get the votes out.
2
Bernie's agenda of universal health care and education can be very resonant with the voters if these are messaged properly.
For example for Universal Health Care, we are all fed up as the premiums are so high ($15,000 + to cover a family) only to also have to pay huge deductibles, out of pocket maximums, etc. Also the private sector wants to get out of paying for employees' health care and this will appeal to the businesses; next we can talk about complexities of a private system like network rules, multiple billings when one goes to hospital or ER for treatment, 5 tiers of drug coverages, etc. Enough to make our head spin. Without healthcare we remain sick and can't look after our families, become dependent on government safety nets.
On Education - well very simply that is the future of our country; without affordability we will slip into the lower rungs of the economic order. It is the country's nourishment for vitality in the future. Businesses who look for talent abroad could support it too.
Why can't we make a case for these programs to the voters instead of divisional politics?
For example for Universal Health Care, we are all fed up as the premiums are so high ($15,000 + to cover a family) only to also have to pay huge deductibles, out of pocket maximums, etc. Also the private sector wants to get out of paying for employees' health care and this will appeal to the businesses; next we can talk about complexities of a private system like network rules, multiple billings when one goes to hospital or ER for treatment, 5 tiers of drug coverages, etc. Enough to make our head spin. Without healthcare we remain sick and can't look after our families, become dependent on government safety nets.
On Education - well very simply that is the future of our country; without affordability we will slip into the lower rungs of the economic order. It is the country's nourishment for vitality in the future. Businesses who look for talent abroad could support it too.
Why can't we make a case for these programs to the voters instead of divisional politics?
Isn't it possible that many people who voted for Trump did so because he was promising things like affordable health care for all and improved employment opportunities--the same things that Bernie Sanders wants. The difference is that progressive Democrats mean it. When will party leaders wake up to the fact that traditional definitions have changed with the times.
5
This should not be an either/or situation. It should be a "both/and" strategy. Democrats need a bigger tent, not a smaller one. Whatever it takes to win each congressional district for the Democrats, is the direction we need to take for that particular district. Keep your eyes on the damage the Republicans will do in the next year and a half. Think about that, and do whatever we need to do win each individual congressional district.
4
Democratic Party, what's that? Oh, the sleepy circle of boring politicians with no new ideas? Bernie Sanders was and continues to be the best option to shake them and light a fire under their philosophy or Same old-Same old. Mr. Sanders' ideas are based on a shift to New and Improved. Agreed. his views are radical in the eyes of the Democratic Establishment, but so is whole wheat bread. If he cannot get to the presidency, give him space to inform, incite, and inspire. The most the Dems did during the campaign was to open their mouths and swallow whole the lies that Trump et.al. shoveled down their throats. Now they are in hibernation, digesting. Mr. Sanders if a man who will open his mouth to talk sense, not to sip the poison that Mr. Trump and his administration are passing off as government.
8
The final tag on the article, regarding redistricting (accomplished through the brilliant Rove strategy to reshape state houses), plus voting rules that strip the vote from those who aren't geographically complacent, force the party to skew away from positions that will relieve the pain of the less comfortable. The folks quoted in the article might be right that you have to abandon health care to attract the "voters." But the issue that raises is, why are the ranks of the voters so skewed away from including the young and others less complacent? How about online registration in NY for a start? Do Dems want to keep being forced to sell out to the landed suburbans because the rules discourage such broad classes of potential voters?
2
It would seem that Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin do not remember who was responsible for the 50 State Strategy in 2006, and who got rid of it. Or perhaps it doesn't suit their argument?
It was Howard Dean's strategy. Obama and Rahm picked Tim Kaine for DNC chair to do away with it. They replaced it with Rahm's favored "support right-wing and Wall St. candidates only" approach.
So it continues: The Dem establishment backed Ossoff from the beginning, in contrast to other Sanders-style candidates who have run recently. This isn't winning. It's protecting the establishment at the cost of losing elections.
~
It was Howard Dean's strategy. Obama and Rahm picked Tim Kaine for DNC chair to do away with it. They replaced it with Rahm's favored "support right-wing and Wall St. candidates only" approach.
So it continues: The Dem establishment backed Ossoff from the beginning, in contrast to other Sanders-style candidates who have run recently. This isn't winning. It's protecting the establishment at the cost of losing elections.
~
11
I always wonder how Obama gets such a pass for all the damage he did to the Dems? When will people wake up and place the criticism where it is due...from him keeping the cheaters DWS and Donna Brazile at the top of the DNC to counseling Biden not to run since he thought Hillary had a better chance of securing his legacy, to losing 1000 plus seats on his watch (due in no small part to the disaster of keeping DWS at the head of the DNC), he's done his part.
3
Many Democrats are concerned about extremism. Mr. Sanders' message is troubling and may very well split the party. We should be talking together to solidify our message if we want to make progress and unite this country. We need a candidate that will do just that in these difficult times.
1
The Democrats just never learn. I guess that might be a good thing. Although I like Bernie and would have voted for him.
3
FDR followed Hoover and led America out of the Great Depression. Obama followed the disasters administered by George W. Bush and healed the Great Recession. In between, the nation suffered its greatest inflationary period under "trickle-down" Reagan. History is the only truth in all this "party-politics" stuff. And right now the Republican party has given us the latest remake of Humpty Dumpty . . .
1
The way to win is by stopping gerrymandering, voter suppression, false reporting, Russian intervention, the electoral college, the assumption that economic equality will create equal rights for women or people of color, the idea that we should fight for all or nothing giving up the art of compromise so we can actually accomplish something - if we change all of the above we have a chance, otherwise we are doomed to be lead by people like Trump, Ryan, & McConnell.
2
So accept economic misery because Democrats are corrupt and beholden to their donors?
And you monumentally underestimate how much economic relief would help millions of women and people of color.
And you monumentally underestimate how much economic relief would help millions of women and people of color.
3
Where are the new strategies emerging among the Democrats? Where are the likes of the impassioned Joseph Kennedy III with their fresh voices and ideas?
The Democratic party is a stodgy organization led by elders. There's a hierarchy one must rise through to create the platform, choose candidates, and an unspoken demand for party loyalty. In this moribund clot, there's little chance for fresh ideas to survive.
Always claiming to be the party of "inclusion", in reality, the party calculates, in each election, who has the best "odds" of winning, who is the most "marketable", and that's who they back.
Hence, the Dems had Hillary instead of Bernie -- she had name recognition and money--marketability! They thought her name could trump voters' distrust of her. They ignored the fact that Bernie had the best ideas and best ratings in the polls.
A progressive platform, like Bernie's, without hostile supporters, would do well in the U.S. Trump's tax cuts, popular with him and the wealthy, strip voters of health care, school lunches, free K-12 education, the EPA, Medicare, parks, elder and child care. He offers no new jobs, which is what voters want.
But to truly care for the country, people and companies must pay higher taxes, at a progressive rate. Now is the time to discuss this, after seeing the preview of Trump's, and the Republicans, self-serving tax cuts, and their harm to Americans.
Will we choose dystopian Trumpworld, or dedication to people and the environment?
The Democratic party is a stodgy organization led by elders. There's a hierarchy one must rise through to create the platform, choose candidates, and an unspoken demand for party loyalty. In this moribund clot, there's little chance for fresh ideas to survive.
Always claiming to be the party of "inclusion", in reality, the party calculates, in each election, who has the best "odds" of winning, who is the most "marketable", and that's who they back.
Hence, the Dems had Hillary instead of Bernie -- she had name recognition and money--marketability! They thought her name could trump voters' distrust of her. They ignored the fact that Bernie had the best ideas and best ratings in the polls.
A progressive platform, like Bernie's, without hostile supporters, would do well in the U.S. Trump's tax cuts, popular with him and the wealthy, strip voters of health care, school lunches, free K-12 education, the EPA, Medicare, parks, elder and child care. He offers no new jobs, which is what voters want.
But to truly care for the country, people and companies must pay higher taxes, at a progressive rate. Now is the time to discuss this, after seeing the preview of Trump's, and the Republicans, self-serving tax cuts, and their harm to Americans.
Will we choose dystopian Trumpworld, or dedication to people and the environment?
2
Bernie's views are mainstream America; the Democratic Party establishment is out of touch with the American People - and this article is, too. A key issue is single payer health care, supported by most of the public and medical profession, hundreds of labor and business groups, and all human rights organizations. It is also supported overwhelmingly by 75% of Democratic Party voters, most independents - and, supported by more Republican Party voters than those opposing it. So give us a break with your 'radicalism' baloney. Universal health care is the humane norm in every developed nation except the U.S. - the reason being, not because establishment Democrats - or establishment Republicans, for that matter - are 'sensible' and 'moderate' - but because they are radically sold out to a radically perverse system. If the Democrats had passed single payer when they had the House, the Senate and the Presidency, they wouldn't have lost all three. The time has long passed for them to throw these sharks overboard and stand with the American People, instead.
8
Really, the many who are commenting on the word "militant," finding it offensive, are educated and know full well that it is imbued with a number of meanings.
One of those well-accepted meanings is "aggressively active, as in a cause." Doesn't that well-describe the Sanders-wing of the Democratic Party? Other political activists around the world (e.g., in Europe, Venezuela, etc.) embrace this term to describe their commitment to political change.
The Sanders-wing describes itself as a progressive-left "movement." They have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise with others factions (if that is also not too "militaristic" a term) in the Democratic Party. They should proudly wear this shoe, it fits.
One of those well-accepted meanings is "aggressively active, as in a cause." Doesn't that well-describe the Sanders-wing of the Democratic Party? Other political activists around the world (e.g., in Europe, Venezuela, etc.) embrace this term to describe their commitment to political change.
The Sanders-wing describes itself as a progressive-left "movement." They have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise with others factions (if that is also not too "militaristic" a term) in the Democratic Party. They should proudly wear this shoe, it fits.
1
That the party's two most recognizable faces are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tell you a lot about where the energy is and the future direction. Both are old white north east liberals.
1
The Democrats, are going to have a very difficult uphill battle to regain the majority in the House, because Congressional Districts are currently set up to give the Republicans a distinct advantage. However, it can be done if the Democrats concentrate on bringing in Independents and Moderate Republicans, (such as myself).
There are a lot Moderate R's and Independents that are disgusted with Trump and the Republican Party leaders, at this time and the Polarization of Politics, as a whole. Believe it or not, they are coming to believe Universal Health Care and Environmental issues are top priorities. If Democrats can expand their Center, by enlisting the support of both Moderate R's and Independents, like Marcon did in France and hopefully Ossoff in GA. Only then can America become a more Civil and Progressive Country, step by step.
There are a lot Moderate R's and Independents that are disgusted with Trump and the Republican Party leaders, at this time and the Polarization of Politics, as a whole. Believe it or not, they are coming to believe Universal Health Care and Environmental issues are top priorities. If Democrats can expand their Center, by enlisting the support of both Moderate R's and Independents, like Marcon did in France and hopefully Ossoff in GA. Only then can America become a more Civil and Progressive Country, step by step.
2
We'rec tired of crumbs, of incremental politics, of trickle-down nothing.
3
Looking ahead to 2020, someone philosophically left of center, yet also appealing to the more cautious side of the Party, might serve to get both wings of Democrats and a huge swath of independents to vote for the Democrat for President in 2020, if only to oppose the Twitter-Tot or the Wingnut Pastor, whoever is in the Oval at the time. Think white, male, Midwest, middle-aged, educated, experienced, enlightened, no skeletons, and not beholden to Wall Street, with a running mate from, say, the Pacific Northwest. Let's face it--a lot of men in this country feel threatened by powerful women, Hated Hillary aside, so, much as I hate the idea of accommodating in any way to misogyny, we must field a man for President in 2020.
2
Imagine… wondering if the Juan Williams of this world are anything more than the shallow characters we see cleverly spouting their rhetorical hatred daily regards any and all not sharing their socialist ideology.
Imagine… having a queasy feeling regards Svengalis’ distorting the truth or spinning a web of lies to suit a diabolical hatred toward any and all not in their ideological camp, it’s as if rhetorical fog of lies and innuendo is drifting across the land.
Imagine… having a queasy feeling regards a political party gone the way of a cult, in search entitlement pawns to manipulate with offers of freebees. Or thinking the former Director of the F.B.I. may have been influenced by leftwing leanings, in lieu of the Laws of the Land.
Imagine… watching all the hullaballoo surrounding this or that hearing, you get the distinct impression; that Comey was not the righteous cavalier of truth and justice we all imagined. Turns out he is just another sad cult member in search of believers and a job.
Imagine… having a queasy feeling regards Svengalis’ distorting the truth or spinning a web of lies to suit a diabolical hatred toward any and all not in their ideological camp, it’s as if rhetorical fog of lies and innuendo is drifting across the land.
Imagine… having a queasy feeling regards a political party gone the way of a cult, in search entitlement pawns to manipulate with offers of freebees. Or thinking the former Director of the F.B.I. may have been influenced by leftwing leanings, in lieu of the Laws of the Land.
Imagine… watching all the hullaballoo surrounding this or that hearing, you get the distinct impression; that Comey was not the righteous cavalier of truth and justice we all imagined. Turns out he is just another sad cult member in search of believers and a job.
2
Reads like the Times coverage of Bernie during the primaries. Very biased reporting, which is not what a paper with the prestige of the Times should stoop to. If the Democratic Party wants to continue with wishy-washy middle of the road pablum, then it will go the way of the Whig party and we will need a new party expressing the clarity, integrity, and high principles that Bernie embodies.
8
Here we go again, the left splitting into waring factions which allow the right to take and keep power. All factions must unit behind the 2016 democratic platform to vote all republicans out of all political offices.
"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good" voltaire
"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good" voltaire
2
The democratic party failed spectacularly in 2016. It nominated a candidate who could not beat Donald Trump...a man who is woefully unqualified, manifestly corrupt, and outrageously bigoted. This was the highest profile failure but just one of many in a year when democrats were supposed to be able to retain the white house and maybe even regain the senate.
The party may want to win but it has not demonstrated that it knows how. Why should we trust the democratic establishment to deliver in 2018 or 2020 l when they can't beat trump in 2016? Perhaps the party could take a lesson or two from the base rather than casting blame on its membership.
The party may want to win but it has not demonstrated that it knows how. Why should we trust the democratic establishment to deliver in 2018 or 2020 l when they can't beat trump in 2016? Perhaps the party could take a lesson or two from the base rather than casting blame on its membership.
2
“Inflexible left-wingers?” It’s the right that’s inflexible. It’s not that complicated. Do you want your Social Security cut; you're Medicare reduced; your medical insurance increasing, or losing it all together; or not? The “inflexible right-wingers” want your money to give more tax cuts to the rich. It’s not that complicated. What’s important to you?
1
The Grey Lady wants everybody to look like her, while the rest of prefer to let a billion flowers bloom. "Conservatives and Liberals and Progressives ... oh my!"
1
Sanders and his supporters are -not- winning the war of ideas. That is precisely the fact-free mindset that keeps Republicans in office. There is no revolution.
Where is the common sense among far-left Democrats? A "People's Party" would have the status of another third party and simply drain votes from the actual Democrat candidate. Who do you suppose wins that election? Neither one. Pretending otherwise is the road of failure.
Getting moderate Republicans and independents to vote for Democratic candidates cannot be done with far-left candidates. Field moderate candidates, not ideologues, if you want to win elections.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Where is the common sense among far-left Democrats? A "People's Party" would have the status of another third party and simply drain votes from the actual Democrat candidate. Who do you suppose wins that election? Neither one. Pretending otherwise is the road of failure.
Getting moderate Republicans and independents to vote for Democratic candidates cannot be done with far-left candidates. Field moderate candidates, not ideologues, if you want to win elections.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
2
No mention of Tom Perez? National Dem Chair? That's odd in itself.
7
Apparently the NY Times still believes that Sanders supporters were limited to absurdly idealistic youth & hasn't yet got a clue about why so many registered democrats didn't vote for president in 2016.
8
Actions -- or in this case, inactions -- have consequences. I obviously don't have insight into everyone's decision to abstain, but according to some millennials I've spoke with, they assumed Clinton was going to win and sat it out to "protest."
I would guess that most who did so would have found Clinton's governing policies and agenda corresponded with their own values far more than Trump's do.
I would guess that most who did so would have found Clinton's governing policies and agenda corresponded with their own values far more than Trump's do.
That's why they got what they deserved. They will live with the results of their immature petulance for decades.
1
I didn't support Sanders but I would have voted for him if he was the candidate because I knew that Trump would be far worse.. . It's because of Sanders supporters not voting that we have Trump. I have more respect for Trump voter than the Liberals who did not vote. The next time you see an older person who no longer has healthcare because of Trump's policies please apologize to them and wish them good luck well because their good health will be in jeopardy.
2
Liberals are as clueless as conservatives, but manage to lose elections more often than conservatives. By liberal I refer to well left of center equivalents to well right of center ideologists, both of which lack practical, rational, reasonable positions in a democracy dominated by mainstream voters who simply don't vote for candidates at either end of the political spectrum. The "base" of the Democratic party is its own worst enemy.
Note to Bernie supporters. You have the perfect recipe for not taking back congress in 2018. Have you learned nothing from 2016?
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Note to Bernie supporters. You have the perfect recipe for not taking back congress in 2018. Have you learned nothing from 2016?
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
6
The Democrats still don't get it. They come out with all these fine plans to save America, but then they forget that all these plans are so much air unless they get their registered Dems to actually vote. In my Congressional District 2 in Southern Arizona we have some 23,000 registered Dems. In the past 4 elections some 9,000 of them didn't vote and we lost our Congressional seat by 167 votes in the 2012 election. Makes you sick to think that so many older Dems who are living off Franklin Roosevelt's Social Security don't give a damn as they reach for another beer and tune the TV. I don't care if you have to hire taxis and limos to get them to the polls. Stop wasting campaign cash on ineffective commercials when you should be renting transportation for your lazy members.
5
The Democrats are trying very hard to lose the 2018 elections by sticking with Hillary and the DNC's republican lite agenda. November taught them nothing at all except to blame Bernie, Comey, Russia, etc. for their failure. They would rather stick their heads in the sand, continue as they are now and daydream about all those midterm victories that will not happen unless they change. A Hillary supporter told me before the election that people did not want change, that the Democratic party was right to stay the course and ignore Bernie's agenda. If the media. with the DNC's collusion, hadn't blacked out Bernie we wouldn't have this moron in the White House today. Nothing makes me angrier when I read the words, "Bernie is not a REAL Democrat" as if being a real Democrat means forgetting who you are fighting for, not for your own personal gain (Hillary) but for the middle class and the poor citizens of this country.
I am no longer part of the Democratic Party's base. Following its demonstrated serial corruption in the 2016 presidential primaries, I #DemExited. I am an FDR New Deal Liberal, and as soon as a new party forms that supports those values, I will join it.
I have a question for the headline writer: If the Democratic Party, unlike its misguided base, wants to win, why did they cheat its most popular candidate out of the nomination only to foist upon us a corrupt, charisma-free corporatist? That doesn't sound like wanting to win. That sounds like a deathwish.
I have a question for the headline writer: If the Democratic Party, unlike its misguided base, wants to win, why did they cheat its most popular candidate out of the nomination only to foist upon us a corrupt, charisma-free corporatist? That doesn't sound like wanting to win. That sounds like a deathwish.
11
I don't think that's what happened. Fake news much?
2
Never take seriously ANY post that contains the word "corporatist."
1
Why do you keep showing Bernie Sanders as the face of our party? He isn't even a Democrat. He had nothing to do with the women's march. Ever wonder what that was about. There's something going on here & you don't know what it is. Do you, New York Times.
6
Hillary wasn't part of the women's march.
Ever wonder what's up with that?
Bill and Hillary destroyed my party with their insistence on running it like a for -profit business venture. For one who railed against the Citizen's United decision, she certainly made out like a bandit with all her PACs because of it.
That Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat in the style of the Clintons is a wonderful thing, thank you.
Ever wonder what's up with that?
Bill and Hillary destroyed my party with their insistence on running it like a for -profit business venture. For one who railed against the Citizen's United decision, she certainly made out like a bandit with all her PACs because of it.
That Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat in the style of the Clintons is a wonderful thing, thank you.
11
It's not radical left-leaning for many of us to retain what gains we have made in the past forty years. At the least, we are deeply disturbed by the Undoings of 45and his gang.
3
BERNIE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!! DEMS NEED TO PUT HIS FEET TO THE FIRE!!! He can start by joining the party, rather than merely trying to divide it and destroy it. Until then, we need to stop making him a "spokesperson." for our party. He speaks only for himself.
9
Wake up. Bernie is out to destroy the Democratic Party as part of his narcissistic belief that he, and only he, carries the essence of justice for all.
2
Actually, Bernie speaks for progressives, which is decidedly not the Democratic party anymore.
@Don-- The Democratic party has been wiped on the state, local and federal levels over the last eight years. They didn't need Bernie to destroy the party. They did that all by themselves.
@Don-- The Democratic party has been wiped on the state, local and federal levels over the last eight years. They didn't need Bernie to destroy the party. They did that all by themselves.
10
Bernie Sanders has no concept of how to implement his very few ideas. I was interested- I hung on every word. Only to discern that his agend is all pie in sky, repetitive feel-good talking points. I pointed that out to a true believer who told me that nobody expected anyone to keep their campaign slogans! This country has real problems that need practical solutions. This country doesn't need phony ideals without any way of implementation. Bernie Sanders is, and was, a spoiler. It is past time for him to launch his pie-in-the-sky party and quit trying to simultaneously infiltrate and destroy the Democratic party.
5
Bernie Sanders doesn't know how to get things done? He has served in both the House and the Senate since 1998. His nick name is "Amendment King". He gets plenty done. Why do other Senators trust him? He states what he believes in, acts on what he believes in. They know where he stands and he won't stab them in the back. Develop trust with other politicians. That is how you get things done.
5
When the Burn was interview by Chris Mathews he proved to wholly uneducated in the working of government. When asked how he would accomplish the things that he promised he said,
" there will be millions of people on the streets demanding it".
Yeah OK Bernie where are they now? How dumb!
" there will be millions of people on the streets demanding it".
Yeah OK Bernie where are they now? How dumb!
Who said we Democrats had to be "liberal". I challenge that being "progressive" in thought and process does not equate to being so far left of center. My values may not be your values but my logic (or freedom to think for myself) should be based on substantial reality measurements.
Nothing but a bunch of losers who only want free stuff from everybody else.
4
There there are many actual Democrats who dislike or hate Bernie Sanders and consider him a meddling fraud. Who is he to tell the Denocrats what their Party should do or be when he refuses to be a member? Why should anyone but fools listen to advice from a fraud who decries wealth when he is a millionaire himself and squandered campaign funds on a junket to Rome for a fake pope meeting? I am sick of this old scold and his worshipping hordes. The media should give up on pushing Holy Bernie forward as if he's the second coming. He will never attract the majority of Democrats and only attracts worshippers for his own glory.
6
Yes, how dare they call us militants, when everyone knows we must be called "Political Revolutionaries" and "Democratic Socialists"!
Comrades! The Party has ordered that we must all immediately quit our subscriptions to the corporatist, neo-liberal mainstream media New York Times and make it pay for its counter-revolutionary crimes. Chop chop!
Comrades! The Party has ordered that we must all immediately quit our subscriptions to the corporatist, neo-liberal mainstream media New York Times and make it pay for its counter-revolutionary crimes. Chop chop!
2
You have it exactly backwards. The base wants to win. It's the fringe of the party--or, to be accurate--outside the party--that wants it all.
They should remember the old adage about "pigs get nothing," because that's what will happen again if they try the same tactic again.
When the Democrats close ranks, they win (e.g. 2008). When they split apart, they lose. Maybe someone needs to pay a little more attention to who's doing the splitting, and who isn't, and why. The problem is not millionayahs, billionayahs, Hillary, Goldman or Sachs.
They should remember the old adage about "pigs get nothing," because that's what will happen again if they try the same tactic again.
When the Democrats close ranks, they win (e.g. 2008). When they split apart, they lose. Maybe someone needs to pay a little more attention to who's doing the splitting, and who isn't, and why. The problem is not millionayahs, billionayahs, Hillary, Goldman or Sachs.
Sadly, isn't this a similar dynamic to what we've seen already in the GOP? At the same time, the comments here seem to have a short memory--not long ago, the Dems controlled Congress and the Presidency, and it was the GOP that appeared on life-support (it still is--they won't get the pinata named Hillary next time around).
Anyway, what's clear here is that the Dems are moving the opposite (same?) direction...toward the culture war our dear Baby Boomer leaders want so badly. And we'd be wise to stop letting them...
Anyway, what's clear here is that the Dems are moving the opposite (same?) direction...toward the culture war our dear Baby Boomer leaders want so badly. And we'd be wise to stop letting them...
2
Why do I feel that the Democratic Party is the "Pencil Necked Geek" climbing into the wrestling ring with "Haystack Calhoun" (Sorry; haven't watched "professional wrestling" in quite some time) and the "Geek" then has his body pummeled by the giant?
Adding more to the analogy is the thought that both the wrestling match AND the election were "rigged" but not by the stand up guy, the "Geek", but by the bully, "Haystack".
Word of caution to the Democrats; stop bringing a water pistol to a gun fight. You're going to lose every time.
Adding more to the analogy is the thought that both the wrestling match AND the election were "rigged" but not by the stand up guy, the "Geek", but by the bully, "Haystack".
Word of caution to the Democrats; stop bringing a water pistol to a gun fight. You're going to lose every time.
For the past four months my local Corpodems have been calling for the base to Resist! [TM], by which they meant we should go to the local Gay Pride March and write letters to our congressmen in support of repealing excessive taxation for their group. Now, all of of a sudden, it's dawned on them that by Resist! we mean: "resist." Time for Plan B.
4
I can sympathize with Democrats who have to fight elections in conservative constituencies. But I have no faith left in the top leadership of the Democratic Congressional caucus and the present leadership of DNC. And at over 70, I'm no young rebel. I believe the top leadeship of DNC is nothing but absurd manifestation of their failed PCism, and their leaders in the House and Senate are too timid, with no fire in the belly.
Heck, if Trump can attract working classes by being rude, vulgar and outrageous, why can't the Democrats be more outspoken about Trump's character and policy failiings. I suggest they try Trump's methods for a month, insult him, as a person, drag him through the mud, and then see for themselves the effectiveness of their new approach among the working classes.
Heck, if Trump can attract working classes by being rude, vulgar and outrageous, why can't the Democrats be more outspoken about Trump's character and policy failiings. I suggest they try Trump's methods for a month, insult him, as a person, drag him through the mud, and then see for themselves the effectiveness of their new approach among the working classes.
4
Fine. But this would require them to give up their most cherished possession: the belief in their own moral
superiority.
OK, just kidding. They'll never give it up. But maybe try some self-awareness?
superiority.
OK, just kidding. They'll never give it up. But maybe try some self-awareness?
Can I get a refund on my Ossoff campaign contribution? It's a sad state affairs when you have to hope that the person you have been supporting is a liar.
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
6
Sanders is not a Democrat. (So basically Clinton almost lost an uncontested primary: let that sink in about what a horrible candidate she was.)
Both Clintons wrecked the Democratic party with their triangulation and corporatist money grubbing.
We lost our way when the only thing that defined Democratic was abortion on demand.
The Democratic Party RIP (1828-1992). Time to move on.
The New Democratic Party could start with a reexamination of RFK as the founder, Pope Francis as our philospher chaplain, Jerry Brown and Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter as the bridges between the past and the future. Our models could be Lincoln, Dorothy Day, MLK, and Thomas Merton. Obama tried but he really couldn't fix the party, because he has no institutional connection to the remnants of what good was left in the party. Even if guys like Axlerod could reorganize the RFK coalition as a one off.
It was clear when I worked for the DNC in 84-85, that the party was dying.
Both Clintons wrecked the Democratic party with their triangulation and corporatist money grubbing.
We lost our way when the only thing that defined Democratic was abortion on demand.
The Democratic Party RIP (1828-1992). Time to move on.
The New Democratic Party could start with a reexamination of RFK as the founder, Pope Francis as our philospher chaplain, Jerry Brown and Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter as the bridges between the past and the future. Our models could be Lincoln, Dorothy Day, MLK, and Thomas Merton. Obama tried but he really couldn't fix the party, because he has no institutional connection to the remnants of what good was left in the party. Even if guys like Axlerod could reorganize the RFK coalition as a one off.
It was clear when I worked for the DNC in 84-85, that the party was dying.
12
The primary was not close. Why can't Bernie supporters accept that?
3
We're tired of waiting. "Next year" has become "next century". The party has grown fat on making promises. Less work than actually keeping them. But that will all change after we re-elect them - "next year".
Promise.
Promise.
4
Bernie Sanders , a Jeremy Corbyn clone. Heck but the world is going backwards ! Dreadful.
1
This negative attitude toward Bernie followers and their ideas is exactly why the Democrats will not be uniting anytime soon. Obviously many would-be supporters were sick of the Democratic party's dirty politics and the continued dismissal of the needs of the working class. We paid dearly for that, and the Democratic party has only itself to blame. Keep on harping about the good old days. The Republicans love it.
2
Losers both!
1
Mick not as big a loser as Mrs Clinton who despite the name brand, narrowly lost. Bernie is not a known brand nor label, but Clinton is a household name, even in villages in India, Bangladesh and in black churches, barber shops in the south.
2
The inability to reason and compromise, for either party, is the stuff which loses elections, and loses popularity. All of us, no matter which party we belong to, are sick and tired of bull-headed stubbornness from our "representatives" in Washington. None of them represent us -- they only represent themselves, and how they may keep themselves in office, and power, as long as possible.
The Congress was not created for lifetime positions. It was created to bring the will of the people to a central governing body, so that all ideas might be debated and decided upon. This, unfortunately, has not happened for many, many years.
And no one will be happy with it until this is restored.
The Congress was not created for lifetime positions. It was created to bring the will of the people to a central governing body, so that all ideas might be debated and decided upon. This, unfortunately, has not happened for many, many years.
And no one will be happy with it until this is restored.
2
The use of the word 'militant' to describe the progressives among the Democrats is erroneous and incendiary. Responsible journalism requires understanding of the effects of language and the resulting distortions in the perceptions of the intended and unintended audience. Throwing people out of rallies is militant, but calling for universal health care and responsible leadership is not.
8
Where is the outrage over evidence that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz actively undermined Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton? Even the Justice Department intervened to make sure that Mrs. Clinton's email problem was a "matter." Bernie's true enemies are not conservatives.
10
The Clintons raised enough funds from celebrities and super wealthy donors that all the DNC mischief, Wasserman, Brazille, etc all taken care of. Money makes things vanish. And media gag orders work like magic for them folks.
3
So sad that many liberal-leaning voters seem to have learned nothing from the recent election debacle and its aftermath. In our conservative Congressional district we have a do-nothing rep who could be defeated by a centrist Democrat. Who are we running? A flaming liberal who has already alienated much of the local population with his extreme views as head of the city council. The party seems uninterested in supporting moderate candidates who can win, as exemplified by their failure to support Mr. Ossoff.
1
The leadership of the Democratic Party is supporting Ossoff to the tune of millions of dollars. He's their poster boy for pragmatic politics--and he may be a good fit--a country club Democrat for a country club Republican district. An economic populist might be a better fit for s more blue collar district but it seems that the party leaders refuse to support such candidates.
3
Democrats seem to know how to snatch defeat from victory. The 2016 election is one example. Think of the Gore vote, where Floridians out to prove how progressive they were voted for Nader. They made sure that the hanging chads and some ineptitude lost Florida, perhaps elsewhere, helping the Republican win. Then, there was the 1980 election, where Ted Kennedy's supporters tried during the convention to get a vote that would make Kennedy rather than Carter President. After the convention, having gotten Carter to adopt a more progressive platform, many of these same individuals walked out of the convention, swearing to vote for John Anderson. They knew that their decision would result in the election of Ronald Reagan, but they thought that the election of a real Conservative would result in the election of a real liberal Democrat the next time around. Democrats also have no loyalty to their people and often do not support them not only when they run for office, but also when they are looking for a job after a loss. Contrast that to Republicans, who often find their losing candidates positions from which they can build up a career and, if opportune, run again in the future. Perhaps President Trump's alleged request for loyalty is just an overt, extreme example of a general common practice among Republicans - loyalty to leadership and the Party. Perhaps, if the progressives and the party regulars respected each other's opinions, the Democrats might actually win.
I don't see a problem here. We need different views; it's a big, diverse country we're representing. I do wish Sanders (who is not a Democrat, NYT) was less of an attacker ( and let's please remember that he decisively lost the Democratic primary).
Jon Ossoff is the right guy for GA-6. Someone else is right for Santa Monica, CA. Voters aren't voting for a President next year; they're voting for their Congressperson.
Jon Ossoff is the right guy for GA-6. Someone else is right for Santa Monica, CA. Voters aren't voting for a President next year; they're voting for their Congressperson.
4
@Carol--you don't see a problem? Democrats have lost thousands of seats. Bernie lost decisively? The DNC made sure of that. Ossoff is the right guy? He doesn't even live in the district he's "representing". But as long as you "don't see a problem"...that's GREAT news!
1
He grew up in the district and lives within 5 miles of the district line (is currently out of the district to support the future Mrs. Ossoff in her rigorous medical training). No, I don't see a problem either.
1
I think a great starting place for both Democratic Party unification and appealing to moderates/independents is changing the majority leaders in both the Senate (Schumer) and House (Pelosi).
1
It wasn't long ago that Democrats actually controlled the Senate, House and Presidency. If unification of the Democratic Party is the goal, why not start with something small, like having Bernie actually become a member?
1
Go Bernie - we are living with the results of an election that the Democratic Party lost by not embracing the future of the party.
The Superdelegate system was set to support Hillary way before any primaries, to the voters' disadvantage.
Bernie beat Hillary in those midwestern states that she later lost to Trump, yet the same old, same old establishment in the party continues to control it.
Time for the Dems to 'drain the swamp!'
The Superdelegate system was set to support Hillary way before any primaries, to the voters' disadvantage.
Bernie beat Hillary in those midwestern states that she later lost to Trump, yet the same old, same old establishment in the party continues to control it.
Time for the Dems to 'drain the swamp!'
It comes down to the baby boomers-- they already have their health care, their houses, their free or inexpensive education, their retirement.
And they vote.
But they are the past, not the future of this country.
The future of this country is saddled with insurmountable student debt, which means they'll never be able to buy a house, afford health care, send their own children to college or have a decent retirement. Exactly what the boomers have.
But they vote. And they are, literally, suffocating our future.
So, stop blaming Sanders and his supporters for wanting what you already have. To be kind, it's... unattractive.
But who cares? You vote, right? I'll tell you who cares...
Democrats running for re-election.
And they vote.
But they are the past, not the future of this country.
The future of this country is saddled with insurmountable student debt, which means they'll never be able to buy a house, afford health care, send their own children to college or have a decent retirement. Exactly what the boomers have.
But they vote. And they are, literally, suffocating our future.
So, stop blaming Sanders and his supporters for wanting what you already have. To be kind, it's... unattractive.
But who cares? You vote, right? I'll tell you who cares...
Democrats running for re-election.
3
Gimme a break. The "young people" have sacrificed the present and hurt middle aged and older because they imagine only they can get it write in some imaginary future.
Selfish.
Selfish.
2
Democrats have to embrace the message that Trump ran on - that Americans are struggling. Most folks are earning LESS than two decades ago, speaking in relative terms. People do not have as many safety nets (example: pensions, etc) and need good and cheaper healthcare. They want to know HOW and what jobs can be brought into their states. Just tell the dems in the states that they are running races for congress and senate to embrace the message that Bernie and Trump fought: the unfairness of the top 10% vs. bottom 90%.
Describe in a tailored way how they can help their state achieve greatness and jobs jobs jobs. Don't deny them healthcare, and don't talk about reducing medicare. Embrace the message about cheaper college tuition or even free tuition for state schools. Show them how many jobs their state is losing due to federal cuts. It's all about jobs, healthcare, education.
Describe in a tailored way how they can help their state achieve greatness and jobs jobs jobs. Don't deny them healthcare, and don't talk about reducing medicare. Embrace the message about cheaper college tuition or even free tuition for state schools. Show them how many jobs their state is losing due to federal cuts. It's all about jobs, healthcare, education.
8
After a day of comments jeez Democratic Party get your act together. Less Hollywood in the forefront, Hillary, Bill and yes Chelsea back seat, your brand is not helpful. More Obama and Biden voice and drop the overkill on feminist issues and illegal immigrant complexity while just trying to appease and draw voters. More humanity, health and environmental issues. The planets in despair perhaps irreparably. The US Constitutional exists, let's protect it. Illegal immigration has been ignored by both parties for decades. Anyone protesting anything while holding a mask or model severed head is an idiot. Anyone burning the American flag is an idiot beyond counter intuitive.
2
Jerry Brown "I like to keep the canoe in the middle of the river, so I paddle on both the right and the left."
Jerry Brown, principled, liberal, progressive and electable. No ageism. #jerrybrown2020
Jerry Brown, principled, liberal, progressive and electable. No ageism. #jerrybrown2020
2
The Democratic Party needs a good purge or colonic to rid itself of the Clintons and the rest of the corporate-influenced Democrats. It appears to be happening, thankfully, and ironically Hillary is leading the charge. Like any campaign she has been in, the more people hear her and listen to her, the more they dislike her and see her for the ethically challenged, flip-flopper, corporate lackey that the Podesda emails have shown her to be. She is so out of touch with real Democrats that she laughably thinks that she is part of the resistance as opposed to what is being resisted.
5
Times: Why don't you do a story on why Sanders is the most popular politician in the US?
7
Bernie Sanders ...Militant... get out of town... I anything is Militant it is the attitude the NYT takes towards the progressive wing of the Independent Dems tired of the Hillary's and the serpentine Debby's hiding behind their selfish blinders... for what just to say a woman won the presidency... They had their chance and lost what was their's for the taking. They lost because they got cocky and didn't reach out to certain voters that would have voted for them instead of not voting at all or worse for mr. golden hair... Their idea of Democracy is old and in the way... If they do not make room for progressives then they'll continue to lose...
5
Who will be the first to admit it? OK, I will:
"Sanders is misogynistic socialist usurper..."
How often (as in "ever") did you use the word "misogynist" before the 2016 election? If the answer is "zero" (as, I'll confess, it is for me), here's a follow-up question: Had you even heard of the word "misogynist" before the 2016 election.
If you're still with me for yet another question, here it is: Did you know, until a day or so after the 2016 election, that if you didn't support Hillary Clinton, you were a "misogynist?" You might have thought you were just a Putin-lover, or perhaps a Comey-lover, or a racist, or perhaps someone who thought Hillary Clinton was a mediocrity who wouldn't have been given the time of day if she hadn't been married to a former President (what I've always thought), but the day after the election you learned you'd been a "misogynist" all along.
If nothing else, at least we all learned another fifty-cent word.
"Sanders is misogynistic socialist usurper..."
How often (as in "ever") did you use the word "misogynist" before the 2016 election? If the answer is "zero" (as, I'll confess, it is for me), here's a follow-up question: Had you even heard of the word "misogynist" before the 2016 election.
If you're still with me for yet another question, here it is: Did you know, until a day or so after the 2016 election, that if you didn't support Hillary Clinton, you were a "misogynist?" You might have thought you were just a Putin-lover, or perhaps a Comey-lover, or a racist, or perhaps someone who thought Hillary Clinton was a mediocrity who wouldn't have been given the time of day if she hadn't been married to a former President (what I've always thought), but the day after the election you learned you'd been a "misogynist" all along.
If nothing else, at least we all learned another fifty-cent word.
3
The neocon Drmocrats don't understand Zeitgeist that has bernn revealed by the csmpaigns of Sanders, Melanchon and Corbyn.
1
Here we go again. The crazy Republicans are finally overstepping, giving us Democrats an opening to break the Reagan stranglehold on the electorate. What happens? We are getting ready to blow the opportunity by splitting the party into a realistic faction and a fantasy faction. This has all happened before with predictable results. Why do I even bother writing? We lost the 2016 election in part because of these pitiful shenanigans. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Advantage GOP lockstep liars.
I left the Democratic Party after seeing how much damage progressives have done to my home city, which is turning into an open air homeless encampment/lunatic asylum under their stewardship. The party needs to care about WORKING people who are seeing their neighborhoods destroyed by blight and endless tolerance of bad and uncivil behavior, such as injecting drugs in front of the supermarket and tossing needles on the sidewalk. When the party shows some concern about the working people who have to clean up those needles then i'll consider going back.
12
@ScottD. :.I feel your pain except I finally threw in the towel, closed my business and left the city I no longer recognized nor loved after sixty plus years. I decamped for Portland, but only briefly, the effects of feel good liberalism, EB5 and other visas allowing wealthy Chinese to buy up condos to get money out of their own country and away from among other things the polluted cities they have created in the name of "too be rich is to be glorious ", and globalization have pretty much ruined Portland as well, a few short years ago Portland was a charming , clean, affordable small town full of the nicest, politest people imaginable(and yes it was very "white" although like San Francisco in the sixties there was a healthy presence of Middle and upper middle class African Americans, but today it's just a smaller version of San Francisco, homeless everywhere, needle depositories in bathrooms so I presume they aren't reused or no one pricks their finger, Chinese in their B.M.W.s, wealthy Middle Eastern kids sitting out the War "the deplorables" are fighting for them, techies everywhere forcing the rents up and the "nice Portlanders" onto the street or out of the area. The neo liberal Democrats and neo con Republicans have done a helluva job, for the one percent. The techie generation trying to climb the capitalist ladder will find out (just as factory workers from the previous generation), they get to ride along as long as their useful: hopefully they plan for the future.
2
So progressives are militants now? How long until the drone strikes?
6
The Democratic Party is not going to win the House if they chase the mythical
bipartisan voter.
bipartisan voter.
3
I'm pretty darn sure that not one of the commenters herein is truly happy with the Democratic Party establishment. You would think there would be a meaningful share (somewhere between 10% and 20%) of comments completely supporting the Democratic Party as it is constituted today. That should give every non-Republican voter pause. The Democrats do not have a single unifying message or cause. If there is, I'm not aware of it. The Dems are in a word, squishy.
There is one unifying message that should unite all of us, both Democrats and Republicans: ideally, the Constitution, and pragmatically, government. A case can be made that Republicans fundamentally do not respect or support the Constitution, and they are on record of their desire to metaphorically drown government in the bathtub. Unfortunately, Democrats are squishy about defending the Constitution, and advocating the importance and necessity of government.
The only commonality between both parties is they have acquiesced to the needs and wants of their wealthy donor class. Money and lots of it, is a political necessity for campaigning. Our political system is broken and has led to an unprecedented level of income and wealth inequality. To make matters worse, wages for nearly half the country are insufficient to cover basic living costs. Opportunities for advancement have diminished.
The solution is to adhere to the Constitution, and restore faith in government by making it work for all Americans.
There is one unifying message that should unite all of us, both Democrats and Republicans: ideally, the Constitution, and pragmatically, government. A case can be made that Republicans fundamentally do not respect or support the Constitution, and they are on record of their desire to metaphorically drown government in the bathtub. Unfortunately, Democrats are squishy about defending the Constitution, and advocating the importance and necessity of government.
The only commonality between both parties is they have acquiesced to the needs and wants of their wealthy donor class. Money and lots of it, is a political necessity for campaigning. Our political system is broken and has led to an unprecedented level of income and wealth inequality. To make matters worse, wages for nearly half the country are insufficient to cover basic living costs. Opportunities for advancement have diminished.
The solution is to adhere to the Constitution, and restore faith in government by making it work for all Americans.
5
The level of denial and thick-headedness of Pelosi, Schumer and the so-called "leadership" of the Democratic Party is astounding. What won't they do to protect their corporate and Wall Street friends. The most easily winnable election in history with the most flawed of Republican candidates, and what did the Democrats do? They blew it by feathering the bed of the most flawed of Democrat candidates.
The problem isn't that progressive democrats are radical or "militant"...what they want is for the party to return to its roots by standing up for the middle class and working poor, proudly offering government solutions like Medicare, Medicaid, anti-trust and environmental legislation. We want the Democratic party back, not the one that was hijacked by Bill and Hillary Clinton and has been delivering "Republican light" neo-liberalism for 25 years and losing state and local elections left and right.
We're 6 months into this administration and the Democrats have not articulated what they stand for, only what they stand against. The party leadership tolerates and tries to manipulate progressive voters as long as it suits them, but could care less about that the base wants. When are Democrats going to lead? There should have been Democratice sponsored universal healthcare and economic recovery bills introduced January 21st. So far, nothing except words and the same old tired rhetoric. If the Democrats can't lead, the base will find another place to hitch its wagons.
The problem isn't that progressive democrats are radical or "militant"...what they want is for the party to return to its roots by standing up for the middle class and working poor, proudly offering government solutions like Medicare, Medicaid, anti-trust and environmental legislation. We want the Democratic party back, not the one that was hijacked by Bill and Hillary Clinton and has been delivering "Republican light" neo-liberalism for 25 years and losing state and local elections left and right.
We're 6 months into this administration and the Democrats have not articulated what they stand for, only what they stand against. The party leadership tolerates and tries to manipulate progressive voters as long as it suits them, but could care less about that the base wants. When are Democrats going to lead? There should have been Democratice sponsored universal healthcare and economic recovery bills introduced January 21st. So far, nothing except words and the same old tired rhetoric. If the Democrats can't lead, the base will find another place to hitch its wagons.
10
It's like the reporters and the party leadership are unaware of their complete inability to win legislative majorities at the federal level or in most states in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. So yeah, the base wants it all because the "party" hasn't shown it can win in 6 years with the warmed over platitudes about clean air and water. Really? That's your aspirational platform? Dear Lord.
4
The Republicans are in a good position to keep seats or add seats if this disarray continues for Democrats. Liberal Bernie Sanders does not seem to want to compromise with his party which will only further divide Democrats.
The Republicans must support one another and not cause any turmoil within their own party. If they can all try to get along, keep their constituents happy, pass the appropriate bills for the country they should be sure to stay in power. Go Republicans.
The Republicans must support one another and not cause any turmoil within their own party. If they can all try to get along, keep their constituents happy, pass the appropriate bills for the country they should be sure to stay in power. Go Republicans.
The party did not compromise with Senator Sanders when they hijacked the majority of Superdelegates before any primary.
Sanders won the working class states in the primaries that Hillary later lost to Trump.
Perhaps the party wrongly predetermined who their candidate would be and lost a generation of voters and an energized progressive base.
Republican light doesn't cut it any more.
Sanders won the working class states in the primaries that Hillary later lost to Trump.
Perhaps the party wrongly predetermined who their candidate would be and lost a generation of voters and an energized progressive base.
Republican light doesn't cut it any more.
3
2016 is the past. Moving forward, get candidates in the working class states who represent the needs of the people who they represent.
Middle America and the tax payers sees Democrats only wanting to give their hard earned money to Europe (Climate Change) or have open borders to give to endless people from other country's a better living then the ones that pay for it. I am barely making it in the US and only wish I could receive the endless benefits that non-citizens receive. Can we take care of our own for once?
3
The Hoyer/Pelosi Democrats seem to prefer politics that are GOP-lite. If they had the power to control legislation, it is very likely all the cuts to social security, disability and survivor benefits that the GOP wants now would have been made by the Dems. The Dems bought into the GOP theory that these benefits are ruining the country. The only reason they pretend to be outraged now is because people have been galvanized by Sanders and are speaking out. If the current Dems regain the majority we can get ready for "kinder" version of cuts to the social safety net. Also, Pelosi and Hoyer have stated publicly that they support candidates who want to limit the choices women can make over their own biology. If they now pretend to support the vulnerable it is just that....pretense. The only vision for America that current Dem politicians and operatives see is one in which all the lobbying money goes into their pockets, they remain in office, and pretty much don't have to ever discuss policy.
4
A pathetic article, with all the same flawed reasoning that took the Democratic Party from majority to minority party years ago. Democrats are being beaten by continuing to take Republican light positions, like this article suggests. To win back control of Congress, a majority of state governments and the Presidency, Democrats have to offer an actual alternative not stale and watered down Republican ideas. Espousing the notion that only ideas somewhere on the spectrum of the right are legitimate, is not a prescription for victory but one for collapse.
6
New York Times - Stop, catch your breath, and don't repeat your mistakes of 2016 by down-playing Bernie Sanders! You refer to Bernie's "youthful, often raucous" supporters. I will be 84 in a few days, and I certainly am a supporter of Bernie - voted for him in the Primary, then voted for Hillary in the Election. I'm not a Hillary hater either. Our healthcare is a disgrace - among other things.
9
Pat, like you I know many folks in their 60s who just loved what Bernie has to offer. One of his oldest fans is Dick Van Dyke. Even Obama's own youth coordinator Kal Penn threw his entire support behind Bernie. As an Obama insider you would expect him to automatically adopt Hillary, but no thanks, siree.
3
It's obvious, at least to me, who the author of this article favors when he paints the base of the Democratic Party like this: "The growing tension between the party’s ascendant militant wing and Democrats competing in conservative-leaning terrain, . . ." "Militant Wing?" and "Liberal activists?" Please spare me. This is the blood of the party trying to change the "Old Guard" DINOs that are tied to Wall Street and have stopped listening to their constituents. The present status quo party doesn't want to change their losing strategy of losing seats in the House and Senate. They seem very content playing defense rather than being in the Majority.
We need new leadership and that's obvious. We saw what happened when Mr. Sanders did so well across this country. The DNC had to help Ms. Clinton win and there's plenty of proof to support it. We need to remove the corrupt politics out of the Democratic Party and let the Liberal Base show what they can do when they lead once again. It won't be with Wall Street money.
We need new leadership and that's obvious. We saw what happened when Mr. Sanders did so well across this country. The DNC had to help Ms. Clinton win and there's plenty of proof to support it. We need to remove the corrupt politics out of the Democratic Party and let the Liberal Base show what they can do when they lead once again. It won't be with Wall Street money.
6
The democratic party elite, like Senator Dianne Feinstein and and ex-Speaker Barbara Boxer, both of whom are married to hedge fund managers, need to be kicked out of office. They are out of touch with the rank-and-file. A Republican would have better represented the working class.
1
It really is exhausting to watch TV news and read this constant stream of newspaper articles looking for the worst possible outcome for everything. It's beyond depressing
2
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, with a 60% approval rating overall, 80% of democrats, 73% of black voters, and 68% of hispanics. Yet the New York Times, and the Democratic Party, continue to discount him as they did in the 2016 election. What is the matter with you people?
11
While Cleaver does have a point when saying "the party should give “some leeway” to candidates to match the politics of their districts", the main obstacle is that in order for there to be some balance restored to a true center line in politics, the Democrats need to swing left, and swing hard. Why? Because for too long the Democrats have stood by while the Republicans have moved that center line further and further to the far right. Democrats lost there backbone and cowered to Republican tantrums year after year losing their core beliefs of defending the working class in the process.
No one truly believes there will be single payer or free college tuition or a fair tax system overnight but to dismiss those ideas as ludicriss like Pelosi and the Democrat establishment has is self defeating for the Party. We need to elect politicians ready to gamble and fight/vote for those ideas first.
No one truly believes there will be single payer or free college tuition or a fair tax system overnight but to dismiss those ideas as ludicriss like Pelosi and the Democrat establishment has is self defeating for the Party. We need to elect politicians ready to gamble and fight/vote for those ideas first.
3
As a California Dem I voted for a Republican for the California legislature for the first time this year......the candidate could have been a Democrat 10 years ago. The far left with their identity politics is a big turnoff...
4
Good luck with that, SMA. It's a Dem majority at all levels of state government here - and we are now solvent, well governed, with climbing scholastic test scores and declining energy costs (as well as rapidly moving to a low carbon energy system).
3
The Republican I voted for won the seat.
3
Count your blessings:
"Their is no justification for labeling the progressive wing 'militant' other than to smear it..."
Now why would anyone want to "smear" Bernie Sanders. Just because that "anyone" happened to be a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton?
Besides, it could have been worse. Being a "militant," after all, just means you like to throw bombs and that sort of thing. It doesn't really say anything about your beliefs. Maybe you're a nice person with good beliefs and all that, but you just like to throw bombs now and then. Who doesn't?
"Their is no justification for labeling the progressive wing 'militant' other than to smear it..."
Now why would anyone want to "smear" Bernie Sanders. Just because that "anyone" happened to be a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton?
Besides, it could have been worse. Being a "militant," after all, just means you like to throw bombs and that sort of thing. It doesn't really say anything about your beliefs. Maybe you're a nice person with good beliefs and all that, but you just like to throw bombs now and then. Who doesn't?
1
It's clear from the framing of this article which side the New York Times is on. Why can't you face that "strategic" centrism has failed so badly it's almost comical? The upper middle class which Dems have relied on to be cowardly and easily-scandalized is too small now, and no one else is impressed by the "strategy" of selling out and doing everything big business wants. The Democrats' model is 2006? Not only was that a fierce rejection of the Iraq War - the kind of neocon defense industry cash-war that both parties now stand for unreservedly - it was over a decade ago. At some point you're not being "pragmatic," you're not being "strategic," and you don't have a better plan for winning against the right. You're just a concern troll, defending the wildly unsustainable and globally violent status quo that you've stood for all along.
5
Nice try, NY Times. See you've learnt NOTHING from 2016. Characterising Bernie's movement which calls for integrity in politics, compassion, care of the planet and fair economics as 'militant hard left' No. Just no. We are the majority, and we are the future. Stop peddling the corrupt corporatist propaganda, or you will soon be as irrelevant and obsolete as the Corporate Democrats.
Sanders is the leader of the movement, but he's not even a members of the Democratic Party. In fact, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other party elites sabotaged the race, in favor of Clinton. We need a third party - now!
Go away, Bernie. You damaged Hillary's candidacy by dragging your doomed campaign to the convention.
Hillary spent 40 years working inside the Democratic party while Mr Sanders jumped into the party for a quick ride with his self-righteous, and untenable programs.
Bernie Sanders campaign: the perfect being the enemy of the good incarnate.
Hillary spent 40 years working inside the Democratic party while Mr Sanders jumped into the party for a quick ride with his self-righteous, and untenable programs.
Bernie Sanders campaign: the perfect being the enemy of the good incarnate.
4
Alan, if working inside the democratic party means dancing with celebrities and mega donors instead of campaigning on the ground in swing states, then no thanks, Hillary herself alone hurt her candidacy, don't blame Bernie.
2
Here is what I want in a candidate: honesty.
I supported Hillary, but she was sadly lacking in honesty. The private email server was a non-issue until it showed how she would dodge and weave questions about an issue that people were genuinely worried about. Hillary claiming to be the person to reform campaign finance was clearly dishonest too. She should have vowed to name sanders as the person to lead that. The sheer honesty of this action would have earned he serious credit.
Having said that, I also don't rate Bernie as totally honest either. Fighting for blue collar manufacturing jobs that you wouldn't want any of your own children to have (and they don't have) is peddling a lie to rally people up. Not having any clue how to fund programs (hint simple math says it cannot primarily come from the 1%) is dishonest too. Pretending that free college is progressive when it simply taxes poor people who don't attend college to subsidize those that do is also dishonest.
Trump is obviously a pathological liar who may not even have the capacity to recognize the truth. But the democrats can't just simply be less dishonest than that disgustingly low standard.
From decency and honesty many good things like careful policy work will follow.
I supported Hillary, but she was sadly lacking in honesty. The private email server was a non-issue until it showed how she would dodge and weave questions about an issue that people were genuinely worried about. Hillary claiming to be the person to reform campaign finance was clearly dishonest too. She should have vowed to name sanders as the person to lead that. The sheer honesty of this action would have earned he serious credit.
Having said that, I also don't rate Bernie as totally honest either. Fighting for blue collar manufacturing jobs that you wouldn't want any of your own children to have (and they don't have) is peddling a lie to rally people up. Not having any clue how to fund programs (hint simple math says it cannot primarily come from the 1%) is dishonest too. Pretending that free college is progressive when it simply taxes poor people who don't attend college to subsidize those that do is also dishonest.
Trump is obviously a pathological liar who may not even have the capacity to recognize the truth. But the democrats can't just simply be less dishonest than that disgustingly low standard.
From decency and honesty many good things like careful policy work will follow.
2
Not one mention of Obama in this article.
Everyone mentions the division in this country, which the Left and Obama encouraged every day during his eight years. Identity politics. Labeling people. The last big issue for Obama wasn't terrorism, the economy, or promoting business, it was TRANSGENDER BATHROOMS.
Why doesn't the Left just come out and admit they want to implant a barcode on everyone so Hillary and the rest of the DNC will know exactly how to pathetically pander to each person?
While Hillary was complaining about how tough she had it and calling non-supporters Irredeemable Deplorables, Trump talked jobs, economy, healthcare and tax reform, and actually called terrorism what it is.
Instead of the Left disagreeing, it just screeched every epithet in the book. with zero message of what they were about or for. All we heard was how everyone was a victim except "white men with their white privilege" and how horrible the police were. Every police shooting was instantly blown up to always cast the police as trigger happy murderers and every thug was made into an enshrined martyr.
Any Trump supporter on TV who hoped for or predicted a Trump win was ridiculed and laughed out of the studio. The NYT always had Hillary's chances of winning well over 80%.
Debbie W-S was fired as DNC Chair, Donna Brazille fed Hillary debate questions, Tom Perez can't stop swearing.
The Left has to stop using each person as a label.
Everyone mentions the division in this country, which the Left and Obama encouraged every day during his eight years. Identity politics. Labeling people. The last big issue for Obama wasn't terrorism, the economy, or promoting business, it was TRANSGENDER BATHROOMS.
Why doesn't the Left just come out and admit they want to implant a barcode on everyone so Hillary and the rest of the DNC will know exactly how to pathetically pander to each person?
While Hillary was complaining about how tough she had it and calling non-supporters Irredeemable Deplorables, Trump talked jobs, economy, healthcare and tax reform, and actually called terrorism what it is.
Instead of the Left disagreeing, it just screeched every epithet in the book. with zero message of what they were about or for. All we heard was how everyone was a victim except "white men with their white privilege" and how horrible the police were. Every police shooting was instantly blown up to always cast the police as trigger happy murderers and every thug was made into an enshrined martyr.
Any Trump supporter on TV who hoped for or predicted a Trump win was ridiculed and laughed out of the studio. The NYT always had Hillary's chances of winning well over 80%.
Debbie W-S was fired as DNC Chair, Donna Brazille fed Hillary debate questions, Tom Perez can't stop swearing.
The Left has to stop using each person as a label.
5
There will always be a divide as long as bitter white people cling to their historical supremacy, refusing to allow people of color a fair share in the wealth of the stolen continent. It does not matter if the bitter white people mouth liberal platitudes: they must make way, literally, for the oppressed. If this means being passed over for promotion, so be it. If this means not prosecuting a violent assailant who is justice-deprived, so be it. If this means handing a functional illiterate a diploma, so be it. There is no other way to rectify history. It is incumbent on all socially aware white people to practice social justice at the personal level by negating the advantages of whiteness every day, everywhere. How else can we save the planet?
1
Unless this is ironic, it exemplifies exactly why the Democrats will--rightly--continue to lose. What a nauseating mishmash of cliches and victim ideology.
4
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, not a fresh face, nor is his message new. His nomination would give Trump a second term...he already 'helped enough' the first time round. Let new voices come forward who are actually willing to work with others in the room and hijack the proceedings.
2
I do not blame anyone for the problems and hopeless situation faced by the Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton was the major problem for the future of Democrats. If Bernie Sanders was the presidential candidate we probably would have won the election and we don't have to face the Trump problems everyday in our country. Bernie Sanders is real and Hillary Clinton was a fake. I supported Bill Clinton twice but I have to say no to a dishonest candidate. If we are lucky we may have a chance for democrats in 2024.
5
"Back in June 2015 many of us believed Clinton would lose...By November 2015 many of us "knew" that if Trump won [the Republican nomination,] Clinton was absolute toast..."
Isn't it amazing how many people "knew" Clinton would lose, a long time before the election? Only the pollsters, it seems, didn't know that. Those who "knew" neglected to tell the rest of us back then, of course, but at least they're all telling us now. I guess we should be grateful for that!
Isn't it amazing how many people "knew" Clinton would lose, a long time before the election? Only the pollsters, it seems, didn't know that. Those who "knew" neglected to tell the rest of us back then, of course, but at least they're all telling us now. I guess we should be grateful for that!
Aaah, NYT, you are at it again. Last year, you bad-mouthed Bernie all the way through the primaries, where much of your coverage was based on half-truths and alternative facts. You called Bernie names, you called his ideas "pie in the sky" even though they were reflections of what we used to have in the past here in the USA: free college, health care, etc. Your coverage helped HRC win the primaries, although she was a lack-luster candidate who had little chance to win the election. Once HRC was the presidential candidate, you just couldn't resist given tRump a ton of coverage and criticizing HRC to the tilt. Has it really never occurred to you that your coverage was manipulative and had an effect on the election which is turning into a disaster for the American people and maybe even the world? And .... do you ever learn?
7
Phoebe -- the US has never had ubiquitous free college, and certainly not free healthcare either.
1
Neoliberal corporatists will lose from here on out. Be notified, NYT: only true, traditional Democratic values can win. Your corporatist view that traditional liberal values are extremist while neoliberal pseudo-Democrats (dyed-in-the-wool corporatists) are the way to "win" is, as proven in the last election, bankrupt. (Remember—your establishment corporatist support of Hillary got Trump elected...). No one's going to listen to you until you get on the right side of history.
4
I am so Happy Sanders did not give up. The NYT should get behind him.
5
Paul Krugman belatedly and hesitantly got behind President Obama, after bashing him for years. Its time for Paul to do the same and get behind Bernie, not still too late for that. Come to think of it, Paul who claims to be the conscience is clearly not a liberal, he is an incrementalist, cautious perhaps slightly left of center in his worldview, barely sympathetic of the working class family woes in this country. It happens, Princeton and Nobel Prize can get to one's head, enough to forget the people Bernie is fighting for, so earnestly and yes, very much like an old Jewish angry Uncle. Strangely that is what all the youth love about him, perhaps they need grandparenting.
2
How can the middle class relate to Nancy Pelosi (the defacto leader of the Democrats)?
She is in her mid 70's, lives in two beautiful multi million dollar homes in San Francisco and the wine country, north of the city.
Talk about a Tesla Liberal...
How can the folks living in 100K houses in the rust belt relate to Pelosi and her team? For that matter, how did these same folks vote for Trump?
Out of touch leaders hoping to connect with struggling folks who have missed out on the American dream. Save for Bernie, most Democratic leaders have sold out to special interests a long time ago. Honey, will you please pour me another glass of that fabulous Cabernet (Nancy says to her husband).
She is in her mid 70's, lives in two beautiful multi million dollar homes in San Francisco and the wine country, north of the city.
Talk about a Tesla Liberal...
How can the folks living in 100K houses in the rust belt relate to Pelosi and her team? For that matter, how did these same folks vote for Trump?
Out of touch leaders hoping to connect with struggling folks who have missed out on the American dream. Save for Bernie, most Democratic leaders have sold out to special interests a long time ago. Honey, will you please pour me another glass of that fabulous Cabernet (Nancy says to her husband).
1
There are obvious parallels with what has just happened in the UK Elections. But it is not as straightforward as 'radical=popoluar, therefore the more radical your politics, the more votes you'll win'. Clinton, though a bad candidate, actually way outpolled Trump. And there's no point in making huge promises that cannpt poossibly be made to work in reality - which is what Jeremy Corbyn promises here in the UK.
We had to sit by and watch the media deliver blow after blow to the credit of Sanders and all true progress in the last election. We still see that the corporate mentality wants to keep its rule. Democrats will never see the light of day until those with current power learn to share and support the most progressive agenda. Unite under one tent, be truly progressive. That is what it is going to take to get all voters back. People have lost faith in you, the Democratic Party and certainly the media, all due to this last election fiasco. We want ethical candidates with a real progressive determination. No Holding Back!
3
This headline makes, or should make absolutely no sense. Who else is a Party if not their base? I know, it was a rhetorical question. A party is their wealthy donors; everyone else is a chump who's expected to dutifully show up on Election day and pull the lever for their favorite disappointment.
2
Same stupidity that has infected and destroyed the Republican party.
Imagining that with millions of people to represent, a candidate and a party's positions must reflect your own to an impossible degree, and thinking that just because the majority picked someone else, somehow ideological purity to your ideals is worth losing an election for.
We are living under the result.
Imagining that with millions of people to represent, a candidate and a party's positions must reflect your own to an impossible degree, and thinking that just because the majority picked someone else, somehow ideological purity to your ideals is worth losing an election for.
We are living under the result.
The party that supported Hillary and cheated Bernie Sanders no longer exists for me. Good riddance.
2
Militant?!!!!! Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin, go sit in a corner, think about what you wrote, edit, republish, and have some respect for diversity in the Democratic Party.
2
Militant? Did the editors of the NYTimes lose their command of the English language in their rush to throw the progressive left under the bus?
6
The Democrat party is a reflection of the Republican party; they are exponents of the American oligarchy. Choose your poison.
NYT, for the love of Pete, stop further dividing the Democratic Party by labeling progressives as militants and giving louder voice to the corporate elite via decisions like hiring yet another Neoliberal writer (Bret Stephens). I am a middle-aged college-educated white woman who does not agree with everything Bernie proposes (e.g., free college for all) but I agree with his philosophy of helping the middle class and working toward the common good rather than more wealth handed to the wealthy 1%. Despite my disdain for the Clinton love of neoliberalism, I voted for Hillary because I thought she was extremely qualified and more electable...laugh...sob. I consider myself a moderate, but I will heartily support Warren or Sanders over another Clinton run or Kaine, Biden, or other neoliberal. My dream is a compromise between the two ends of the Dem spectrum--and that could happen if you stop stoking the fires of Division.
Corporate and profiteers' greed is literally killing Americans and destroying our planet. Whatever democrat supports People And Planet above greed will get my vote. If your reporters were out in the field talking with us rather than writing from a bubble, they would stop calling the majority of us "militants." We want fairness, equity, equality, compassion, and personal and corporate responsibility. That is hardly militant. Get out here and help us rather than re-create the 2016 nightmare. Haven't we endured enough hell already?!
Corporate and profiteers' greed is literally killing Americans and destroying our planet. Whatever democrat supports People And Planet above greed will get my vote. If your reporters were out in the field talking with us rather than writing from a bubble, they would stop calling the majority of us "militants." We want fairness, equity, equality, compassion, and personal and corporate responsibility. That is hardly militant. Get out here and help us rather than re-create the 2016 nightmare. Haven't we endured enough hell already?!
This article has the makings of a "trail balloon". It is likely read by a fairly similar demographic to the affluent suburban voter that Mr. Ossoff seeks which is why he said "he would not support raising income taxes, even for the wealthy, and opposed “any move” toward a single-payer health care system."
There is a natural tension in politics between purity of ideology (which is easier to hold in a limited number of electors) and the need to change the tune a bit to gain more seats at the table. The problem for Dems is that as the base moves left, but those seeking office move to the center to try gain traction outside urban and coastal areas, they risk the kind of reaction Ms. Turner, the Ohio state senator suggested, “Hashtag, ‘Not Woke Yet.’” By contrast, at least so far, Repubs have stayed in the fold - particularly those suburban affluent voters who are not Trump's base and who Ossoff is trying to attract.
Lost in all the hoopla over Trump's policies is an explicit appeal to this group of voters. The AHCA is more generous to those earning up to $70,000 while Obamacare is largely focused on those earning less than $25,000. Likewise, Trump's tax cuts and expanded child care credit will benefit exactly this suburban voter with kids. Can Dems really afford to fight this in their zeal to expand government at every turn ?
There is a natural tension in politics between purity of ideology (which is easier to hold in a limited number of electors) and the need to change the tune a bit to gain more seats at the table. The problem for Dems is that as the base moves left, but those seeking office move to the center to try gain traction outside urban and coastal areas, they risk the kind of reaction Ms. Turner, the Ohio state senator suggested, “Hashtag, ‘Not Woke Yet.’” By contrast, at least so far, Repubs have stayed in the fold - particularly those suburban affluent voters who are not Trump's base and who Ossoff is trying to attract.
Lost in all the hoopla over Trump's policies is an explicit appeal to this group of voters. The AHCA is more generous to those earning up to $70,000 while Obamacare is largely focused on those earning less than $25,000. Likewise, Trump's tax cuts and expanded child care credit will benefit exactly this suburban voter with kids. Can Dems really afford to fight this in their zeal to expand government at every turn ?
1
The Democrats, and other groups for that matter, need to figure out that in-fighting over individual issues will not work. No matter what is your individual cause, stopping the Republican agenda and Trump's follies has to be the priority. Someone who is younger, articulate, middle-of-the road, and a thoughtful leader has to step-up and catch the whole party's attention. Bernie Sanders supporters have to recognize that while his causes are admirable and can guide some future policies, he can't win. Reasonable Democratic candidates can also win in the Senate and House if they focus on the big picture and not small issues. Take a look back and think about who brought the Democratic Party to the top. Kennedy, Clinton and Obama had those uniting qualities.
Bernie Sanders was recently interviewed on the BBC Radio program Hard Talk -- a very good, no nonsense news program (the segment is available on-line), and he talked about the reasons Donald Trump won the election, where the Democratic Party is today, and what his own priorities are. The questions the host posed were very good, and Sanders answered them -- how rare is that for a politician nowadays? To this distant observer with no stake in the U.S. political situation -- but with keen interest -- Sanders's comments made a lot of sense. They also set out a blueprint for how the Democrats can return to power.
6
Democrats abroad overwhelmingly voted for Bernie. From out there they could see what their beloved country was missing and Bernie was the answer.
2
Taking a page from user focused design might help.
Dems should start by deeply understanding voter needs through face to face interviews with people representing all walks of America.
They should rely less on short cuts (like polling data), which tend to be biased anyway.
Then, try out some messaging. It's Marketing 101.
There are certainly many reasons for the unbelievable upset in 2016, but this approach might have warned the party early how strongly an economic populist messages was needed, and provided direction on what to do about it.
Dems should start by deeply understanding voter needs through face to face interviews with people representing all walks of America.
They should rely less on short cuts (like polling data), which tend to be biased anyway.
Then, try out some messaging. It's Marketing 101.
There are certainly many reasons for the unbelievable upset in 2016, but this approach might have warned the party early how strongly an economic populist messages was needed, and provided direction on what to do about it.
For better or for worse, we have a two-party system, with third parties serving mainly as gadflies, so the only way to to win is to operate within the system, win the farm-team political offices from dog-catcher on up, supplanting the ones currently at the top, filtering up from below. It won't happen overnight; look 2, 4, 8 years out. Patience.
United we stand, - divided we fall.
1
What about the Republican Party? What do they have besides being anti government. Why do they have a winning formula with that? Although I have no answer about pathways the Democrats should take, I certainly believe that there is something wrong with Republican voters and what motivates them. How could Grassley and McCain get reelected in 2016?
I have always wondered how people so blessed by fate to live in the country with the greatest opportunities and freedom in history are mesmerized by the offer to give it up to willingly elect slavery and dominance by a elite class.
Make no mistake Bernie and Hillary as leaders and many Dem's and Rep's are the Kings, Barons, Earls, courts or if you prefer socialist, communist, elitist government leaders of history. Many have quoted: "Forgive them for they non not what they do." Sadly forgiveness will only enslave them if they follow the propaganda of those who would subjugate us all.
Make no mistake Bernie and Hillary as leaders and many Dem's and Rep's are the Kings, Barons, Earls, courts or if you prefer socialist, communist, elitist government leaders of history. Many have quoted: "Forgive them for they non not what they do." Sadly forgiveness will only enslave them if they follow the propaganda of those who would subjugate us all.
Suggesting that a race - and Ossoff's "non-ideological milquetoast campaign - should set the bar for Democrats in the future is absolute nonsense.
Ossoff is running in an affluent Southern congressional district that has voted Republican for decades and may turn this election as a protest vote against Trump. His 'Country Club Republican' persona and positions may play well here, but it's actually the same messaging that has led to the collapse of the Democratic Party.
This is the messaging that keeps voters AWAY from the polls in most current, former and ascendant Democratic strongholds. This is the messaging that during Obama's administration led to the loss of more than 1,000 Democratic legislators in state and federal offices, the capture of more state legislatures and governors than before the Great Depression and the loss of the Congress and the White House.
It's time the Democrats return to their legacy and embrace the call for a 21st century New Deal that Sanders, the Progressive Democrats of America and more are demanding.
Ossoff is running in an affluent Southern congressional district that has voted Republican for decades and may turn this election as a protest vote against Trump. His 'Country Club Republican' persona and positions may play well here, but it's actually the same messaging that has led to the collapse of the Democratic Party.
This is the messaging that keeps voters AWAY from the polls in most current, former and ascendant Democratic strongholds. This is the messaging that during Obama's administration led to the loss of more than 1,000 Democratic legislators in state and federal offices, the capture of more state legislatures and governors than before the Great Depression and the loss of the Congress and the White House.
It's time the Democrats return to their legacy and embrace the call for a 21st century New Deal that Sanders, the Progressive Democrats of America and more are demanding.
4
If only we had a candidate, nay, a sitting congress member, who was an actual card-carrying Communist advocating that all property is theft and every aspect of business be nationalized from multinational corporation to street peddler, then people in this country would know what a hard-core leftist really was. There aren't any.
People throw around labels with little or no idea what they mean. Sanders' platform is that of an FDR Democrat. We've come so far from that ideal that we forget what it looks like.
People throw around labels with little or no idea what they mean. Sanders' platform is that of an FDR Democrat. We've come so far from that ideal that we forget what it looks like.
5
If we create a "tea party" on the left we are all doomed. We cannot continue to swing back and forth between extremes, both parties seeking to unravel the accomplishments of the previous presidency (I say this with the wish that every heinous "accomplishment".of Trump's be erased as fast as possible). Republicans long ago gave up the ideals of our democracy, rejecting consensus politics and creating a propaganda arm to disseminate lies. If democrats do the same, we will never be a functioning democracy. Half the country will always feel they are living under hostile rule.
The only way forward for democrats is to find better methods and means of communication and to--dare I use this hackneyed term--find ways to be in dialogue with the residents of those many red counties. We need inroads to the minds and hearts of those who believe the astonishingly blatant lies and misrepresentations of a Drudge or a Breitbart or a Newsmax. Every time I read what they are telling people I am shocked.
Our divisions are not so much a division of ideas--many progressive ideas are appealing to a wide swath of voters--but a division of knowledge, education and propaganda used by the one percent to control the masses and maintain power. Addressing this machine of mind control will take an almighty, unified effort. Social media currently supports that mind control. We need creativity, imagination and technological skill as much as we need good ideas. And we need not to attack each other.
The only way forward for democrats is to find better methods and means of communication and to--dare I use this hackneyed term--find ways to be in dialogue with the residents of those many red counties. We need inroads to the minds and hearts of those who believe the astonishingly blatant lies and misrepresentations of a Drudge or a Breitbart or a Newsmax. Every time I read what they are telling people I am shocked.
Our divisions are not so much a division of ideas--many progressive ideas are appealing to a wide swath of voters--but a division of knowledge, education and propaganda used by the one percent to control the masses and maintain power. Addressing this machine of mind control will take an almighty, unified effort. Social media currently supports that mind control. We need creativity, imagination and technological skill as much as we need good ideas. And we need not to attack each other.
1
I am a pragmatic Democrat. I think we need to consider all ideas but decide what actually can be done. If we go too far left we lose people. I believe in the rights of all people but I think identity politics has gone too far. All of our citizens deserve respect and freedom to live as they wish as long as it doesn't harm others. Republicans have gone too far right. Now that Republicans are the so-called governing party the people will begin to see that their ideology is unworkable and hurts too many people. We can't lose our heads, have our hair on fire, and still expect to gain the trust of the majority of voters. We need to remain pragmatic and get out the vote.
3
Democrats should live in a big tent of ideas. The important thing is to win control of Congress. A Sanders wing needs a more conservative wing to win big.
1
Another reminder: Hillary defeated Bernie by 4 million votes and won the popular vote by 3 million. His caustic approach to a party he doesn't even belong to is hurting democrats. I'm a liberal democrat.
9
Where do I start. As a liberal democrat I am upset about the mainstream media including the nytimes for trying to make Hillary Clinton our president and the democrat leaders including debbie wasserman, dona brazile, podesta for costing us this election and comically getting Trump elected. I am upset that this president will cause irreparable damage to our environment, our economy and our people. I'm disappointed in Barack Obama for not stopping companies shutting shop and moving abroad causing great grief to the people in the midwesT. I'm disappointed further more by the election of Tom perez who is the establishment and there is also a leadership vacuum that needs to be filled and new generation democrat leaders need to take center stage
When will the New York Times editorial change and accept the fact that there is nothing 'extreme' or 'military' about what significant number of people across age and social groups calling positive change for greater number of people rather than old established Democratic power barons led by Clintons, and neo liberals, which have gotten closer to moderate Republicans than people's party ideals...
The policies that Hilary Clinton ran on against Trump constituted the most progressive Democratic Party platform in my lifetime. If this isn't enough to prevent purists from sitting out the election or throwing their votes away for third-party candidates with no hope of winning or governing effectively, they may as well resign themselves now to endless marches while future Republican administrations continue to roll back health coverage, financial regulations, consumer protections, environmental regulations, reproductive rights, criminal justice reforms, voting rights, etc. All those students who might have received tuition assistance under a President Clinton were left with nothing. Trump doesn't even pay lip service to student loan debt, except to move more aggressively to collect it. Sad!
3
The problem is that Hillary DID NOT RUN on that progressive platform. The platform was forgotten the day after the convention ended. The only things that anyone outside of the hard-core political activists heard was "It's her turn", "Trump is worse", "Deplorables", and "putting coal miners out of work". 135 million voters heard those messages, and stayed home.
4
"Worshipful language"? Telling Bernie Sanders to form a new party or to run in 2020 were the examples in the article. Well, if you want to see real examples of "worshipful language," log on to see what Trump supporters sound like on Twitter, Youtube, etc.
What's so extreme and radical about wanting to get rid of the Citizens United decision, for example? It amounts to wanting fair elections where votes count. It amounts to not seeing elections cost more and more money AND time every time we have to go to the polls. And for what do we go? To lose to the E.C.? As usual, when covering Sanders he's portrayed as a crazy extremist by anyone who thinks the old system will stand. It will not stand for either party; it is falling apart before our eyes. BOTH parties have hit rock bottom, and if not, then you don't even want to stick around to see what rock bottom is.
What's so extreme and radical about wanting to get rid of the Citizens United decision, for example? It amounts to wanting fair elections where votes count. It amounts to not seeing elections cost more and more money AND time every time we have to go to the polls. And for what do we go? To lose to the E.C.? As usual, when covering Sanders he's portrayed as a crazy extremist by anyone who thinks the old system will stand. It will not stand for either party; it is falling apart before our eyes. BOTH parties have hit rock bottom, and if not, then you don't even want to stick around to see what rock bottom is.
4
The last line is the most important.
To me, the Party IS its base. Confusion on that point, as your headline suggests, leads to disaster:
1. Corrupt functionaries, like Wasserman-Shultz.
2. The loss of those moderate-conservatives who planned to vote for Bernie to Trump.
3. Your coverage which, during the primary condemned Bernie and exalted Hillary. You helped Trump by saving your criticism of Hillary for the general election -- while offering Trump far too much publicity.
4. Reality differed from received wisdom: Many voters "knew" Trump only from The Apprentice. They did not bother to look at many critical books about him or the public record.
5. Judging from many articles in this publication, most of the hierarchy proposes near nothing to address income and wealth inequality.
1. Corrupt functionaries, like Wasserman-Shultz.
2. The loss of those moderate-conservatives who planned to vote for Bernie to Trump.
3. Your coverage which, during the primary condemned Bernie and exalted Hillary. You helped Trump by saving your criticism of Hillary for the general election -- while offering Trump far too much publicity.
4. Reality differed from received wisdom: Many voters "knew" Trump only from The Apprentice. They did not bother to look at many critical books about him or the public record.
5. Judging from many articles in this publication, most of the hierarchy proposes near nothing to address income and wealth inequality.
6
Thanks to the impending Constitutional crises, "anything but Republican" is going to be the overall influence. The Dems can afford to be "flexible" because all they need do now is point to what the Republican Party has done since 2008, which is to say, nothing. No jobs creation, obstruction of healthcare and banking reforms and now, worst of all, the occupant of the White House they hoped would turn government into the Corporate States of America.
A single glance at which states pay the highest taxes and get the least in return, while the states that pay the least and get the highest returns shows why Republican policies and conservative ideology is a miserable failure.
Yet, Republican states whine how "forgotten" they are. How there are no jobs. Time for Democrats to get to "Tough Love" with these states. Dem states get an average of just over 50 cents for the $1 they pay in federal taxes while EVERY Republican states gets from $1.35 up to $1.87 for the $1 they pay.
Let's pretend the Dem states are not getting fed up with Republican states that elect Republicans who do nothing for them but increase poverty, create more joblessness and try to keep relic businesses in business solely on Dem state tax dollars.
Whose fault is it if Republicans can't think ahead and figure out when they are being had?
A single glance at which states pay the highest taxes and get the least in return, while the states that pay the least and get the highest returns shows why Republican policies and conservative ideology is a miserable failure.
Yet, Republican states whine how "forgotten" they are. How there are no jobs. Time for Democrats to get to "Tough Love" with these states. Dem states get an average of just over 50 cents for the $1 they pay in federal taxes while EVERY Republican states gets from $1.35 up to $1.87 for the $1 they pay.
Let's pretend the Dem states are not getting fed up with Republican states that elect Republicans who do nothing for them but increase poverty, create more joblessness and try to keep relic businesses in business solely on Dem state tax dollars.
Whose fault is it if Republicans can't think ahead and figure out when they are being had?
Progressive slogan should be if its free...it is for me. You can't have all the goods and services and a supersized government if only 50% of the people pay federal income tax.
As the comments here demonstrate, Democrats do excel at one thing, and that is turning on themselves in the most self-defeating way. The House GOP just voted to overturn the Dodd-Frank bill that Democrats passed to prevent banks from engaging in the risky behavior that led to the financial collapse, and the Democratic Party gets attacked here as corporatist??? Where is the Black Lives Matter movement now that Trump is in office? It was was plenty active and loud when a sympathetic Obama was President and activists sure went after Hillary Clinton but Jeff Sessions moves to increase incarceration rates and cancel police consent decrees and ... crickets. It's the darndest thing.
If the Democratic Party wants to survive, they need to believably renounce Neoliberalism aka Corporatism. Their choice is between the Corporations/Oligarchs or The People.
While we post comments to websites, they vote, and they win.
1
The real division is between the well paid bi coastal professionals who dominate the Democrat Party and the majority of Americans who are being left behind by the economy.
The wealthy bi coastal elites think the Democrats can win on social issues alone.
Working class whites who vote Republican do not vote Republican because they favor tax cuts for the rich, but because they are conservative on social issues, especially on crime and punishment.
The wealthy bi coastal elites think the Democrats can win on social issues alone.
Working class whites who vote Republican do not vote Republican because they favor tax cuts for the rich, but because they are conservative on social issues, especially on crime and punishment.
1
"'The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure,' Mr. Sanders said to booming applause."
Yes! We've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. What a failure. The revolution continues!
Yes! We've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. What a failure. The revolution continues!
During the primaries I remember seeing the one positive article about Sanders slowly morph over a few hours to a negative article through slight edits in wording. That was the point that I chose to distrust the Times' political coverage. It is an embarrassment to this newspaper and an insult to your readers that you still show Sanders in this negative light. Hillary lost, and while we will never know if Sanders could have won, it's clear that the future of the party is in the youth and galvanizing their energy. One can complain that Sanders' ideas are all fantasy and impractical, but then again, so isn't a wall between the USA and Mexico.
6
The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that they make Herbert Hoover look like a socialist. And yet the NY Times normalizes them.
And then the Times has the gall to call the FDR wing of the Democratic Party "militant" - in an alleged straight news story?
I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone.
So much for the so-called "liberal media." I might as well be reading Breitbart.
And then the Times has the gall to call the FDR wing of the Democratic Party "militant" - in an alleged straight news story?
I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone.
So much for the so-called "liberal media." I might as well be reading Breitbart.
8
This opinion piece masquerading as news makes me want to cancel my subscription. Is the NY Times--along with the "we've been doing it this way since Clinton and have slowly lost statehouses, state capitals, Congress, the presidency and the courts, why change our approach now?" wing of the Democratic Party--determined to ignore that voters want progressive change to create a sustainable economy for the next generation? Militant centrism, with the bullying condescension that comes with it, has eviscerated the Democratic Party. It's nice that the wealthy technocrats of the country think that they know best, and that they should rule from a practical "center" that just so happens to also enrich them enormously, but condescension and patronizing politics don't win elections. The reporters of this piece are stubbornly regurgitating the opinions fed to them by an entrenched party bureaucracy that is fighting for its survival.
6
The Democratic Party went too far to the middle. Come back leftward, please, and watch us win! I Believe the Democratic Party must re-invigorate by welcoming the left. The party has disrespected Sanders long enough.
6
The DNC convention last summer was an extremely well-choreographed Hollywood production. But it was empty, just like the entire Clinton wing of the party has been since 1992.
The only part of the DNC convention worth anything was Khizr Khan talking about the Constitution and the loss of his son. That was sincere, and made me cry. At that one moment, I was proud to be an American and a Democrat.
Get it together, DNC. Listen to the FDR wing of the party. We'll all come together behind the right message and the right messenger.
The only part of the DNC convention worth anything was Khizr Khan talking about the Constitution and the loss of his son. That was sincere, and made me cry. At that one moment, I was proud to be an American and a Democrat.
Get it together, DNC. Listen to the FDR wing of the party. We'll all come together behind the right message and the right messenger.
5
I dare Bernie Sanders to put his money where his mouth is and make the following statement: I'm Bernie Sanders and I'm running for president.
He does have our email, any time he wants to reach us. We send him $27 slowly and steadily through his primary run.
2
The purists may be right but not smart, you can never take it all but aspiration for it get the enthusiast work
The third time's a charm, they say:
"Here we go again. Maybe we can get Hillary to run again, right NYT?"
Why not?
If you ran and lost once, and then ran again and lost again, why not run a third time? What could go wrong? And if you run a third time and lose yet again, maybe run a fourth time. What could go wrong?
In one of her early SNL skits about the 2016 election, Kate McKinnon (playing Hillary Clinton) pretty much nailed it: "If you don't elect me this time, I'll just keep running, again and again and again, until you do."
The voters called her bluff, of course, but Hillary's ambiguous talk since the election suggests we may not have seen the end of her.
"Here we go again. Maybe we can get Hillary to run again, right NYT?"
Why not?
If you ran and lost once, and then ran again and lost again, why not run a third time? What could go wrong? And if you run a third time and lose yet again, maybe run a fourth time. What could go wrong?
In one of her early SNL skits about the 2016 election, Kate McKinnon (playing Hillary Clinton) pretty much nailed it: "If you don't elect me this time, I'll just keep running, again and again and again, until you do."
The voters called her bluff, of course, but Hillary's ambiguous talk since the election suggests we may not have seen the end of her.
7
"we have won the battle of ideas and we are continuing to win that battle.”
This is pretty much how Trump and the Republicans will hang onto power, in 2018, 2020, and beyond. It doesn't matter how angry liberals get at Trump's policies. If liberals retreating into fantasyland, talking about winning "battle of ideas" (what prize do you get for that?) against their ideological neighbors, then Trump and the Republicans can keep winning even they poll with 30-35% approval ratings. You can win with just one vote for you if your opponent gets zero.
This is pretty much how Trump and the Republicans will hang onto power, in 2018, 2020, and beyond. It doesn't matter how angry liberals get at Trump's policies. If liberals retreating into fantasyland, talking about winning "battle of ideas" (what prize do you get for that?) against their ideological neighbors, then Trump and the Republicans can keep winning even they poll with 30-35% approval ratings. You can win with just one vote for you if your opponent gets zero.
2
The Base is right. The Party is too much Right.
What is all this foolishness about Progressives & Bernie Sanders vs "the militant Conservatives who just want to get elected into a majority? Get Obama and have him unite the party toward getting control of Congress and the White House. We do not need more liberalism but the country does need a workable national healthcare program. Why all the labels? What Democrat doesn't want control of the entire national govt? What democrat does not want a workable healthcare arrangement?
2
The global elite are still in denial, be it here or in UK. They think Trump is going to dissuade the populists and they will fall in line. Keep dreaming.
Yes, there’s a division: between a mythic memory of America and what really materializes in the future. Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats amount to a the same party and their “vision” is the continuation of the same political, economic, and social structures in place since the early 1950’s: unconstrained capitalism and largesse for the military/industrial/Wall Street complex as the primary MO for retaining political power. The differences between moderate right and moderate left is a matter of degrees, not substance. H. Clinton vs. Jeb Bush rather than Sanders vs. Trump.
The radical right has a real and very different vision of the future and it has been successful in winning elections. The liberal left also has a very different vision of the future but has, as yet, failed to win at the polls. With all the vitriol shoveled upon the opposition, it is difficult to see the enormous amount of common ground between the radical right and liberal left. But it’s there, most especially in the economic sphere where injustices (administered by the “moderate” party) have shown no favoritism with respect to who takes it in the shorts. Yeah, there’s a wide chasm about what really “makes America great” (military might or, say, the Peace Corps). But if family economics are stable, a civil debate becomes possible about all the ancillary issues.
We lowlifes need to start talking amongst ourselves. 68 and still proud to be an American.
The radical right has a real and very different vision of the future and it has been successful in winning elections. The liberal left also has a very different vision of the future but has, as yet, failed to win at the polls. With all the vitriol shoveled upon the opposition, it is difficult to see the enormous amount of common ground between the radical right and liberal left. But it’s there, most especially in the economic sphere where injustices (administered by the “moderate” party) have shown no favoritism with respect to who takes it in the shorts. Yeah, there’s a wide chasm about what really “makes America great” (military might or, say, the Peace Corps). But if family economics are stable, a civil debate becomes possible about all the ancillary issues.
We lowlifes need to start talking amongst ourselves. 68 and still proud to be an American.
Lets face it folks the democrats are on the wrong side of the immigration issue if they want to get white working class voters to come back. This is an inconvenient truth that they do want to face but from the moment Trump came down that escalator and started bashing Mexicans and Muslims he became the new face of the republican party and immigration became the number one issue.
The census in 2000 predicted that by 2040 whites would be a minority. We are almost half way there now and every white person in American now knows that they and their children will soon be minorities.
Although young people in general tend to be more liberal these recent racist attacks are all by young whites males. The Alt-right will not go away no matter what happens to Trump. He is the savior that they have been waiting decades for.
In the not too distant future the democrats will have to decide whether they want to change some of their positions on mass unbridled immigration or will they decide to just write of a large portion of potential white voters and focus on winning with the growing minority vote.
The census in 2000 predicted that by 2040 whites would be a minority. We are almost half way there now and every white person in American now knows that they and their children will soon be minorities.
Although young people in general tend to be more liberal these recent racist attacks are all by young whites males. The Alt-right will not go away no matter what happens to Trump. He is the savior that they have been waiting decades for.
In the not too distant future the democrats will have to decide whether they want to change some of their positions on mass unbridled immigration or will they decide to just write of a large portion of potential white voters and focus on winning with the growing minority vote.
The idea that the US is going to become a socialist country is nonsense We are capitalists to our bones. But a government that balances capitalism with socialist policies is an achievable aim. Progressives need to learn to compromise and work with liberals. We can battle over ultimate aims and how to work toward them only after we wrest power away from conservatives and reactionaries.
"The Base Wants It All. The Party Wants to Win."
Please, New York Times, stop implying that "Bernie Sanders" and "winning" are contradictory terms. It was this sort of slant, and this sort of snarky headline, with which your newspaper pushed Hillary Clinton's nomination - and THAT led to Trump's victory.
And yes, thank you NYT, for leading the fight now against Trump as president -
BUT perhaps if you had been less biased against Sanders in 2016, we would not be in this nightmare/constitutional crisis/covfefe.
Please, New York Times, stop implying that "Bernie Sanders" and "winning" are contradictory terms. It was this sort of slant, and this sort of snarky headline, with which your newspaper pushed Hillary Clinton's nomination - and THAT led to Trump's victory.
And yes, thank you NYT, for leading the fight now against Trump as president -
BUT perhaps if you had been less biased against Sanders in 2016, we would not be in this nightmare/constitutional crisis/covfefe.
5
So you say the base wants to win, really? It looks like they just want to pat themselves on the back win or lose. This former long time Democrat will not vote for the party until the party completely replaces the so-called leaders that have lost elections repeatedly. Also we must recognize the truth that Obama was a weak president who failed to build a legacy that could stand even six months into the next administration. This is a tired old party that needs to embrace its youth or get out of their way. Feel the Bern and move!
9
Find out what will excite the 40-50% of those who don't vote, and you might have something there.
There you go again, NY Times: right out of the gate you describe those who support Bernie Sanders' vision as "militants" - a term frequently associated with terrorists, anarchists, and irrational thinkers. We know the Times editorial board endorsed Hillary last year, but must you continue this campaign against Sanders? Many of your readers have been trained critical theory: do you not recognize that WORDS matter?
5
This is the fundamental reason that the US is in serious trouble. The US needs serious social reform and social programs to begin to deal with the serious problems that it faces. But conservatives continue to stymie all efforts to do this. They are regressive and destructive, but they represent important parts of the US electorate. Mr. Ostroff is not a useful ally to the Democrats, but he may be a necessary evil, for now. Over the long-term, however, he represents what is the problem.
Bernie threw reproduction rights under the bus, at that moment he lost my support forever. If he actually cares about economic rights, he would not have done it. His ideas have no meaning without reproductive rights--I'm done and actually sad that I fell for his shtick.
1
To win the Democrats need to become the party of the people once again. They need to look forward not backward (please take the hint and go away Hillary Clinton).
While it would be nice to get a single-payer system make that a long-term goal, for now concentrate on saving the New Deal.
Yes the Democrats need to play the long game but they also need to stem the bleeding and take the party off of life support. They do that by engaging the young and working class persons of all races.
I am not confident that the Democrats can do it all by themselves. Thank *insert preferred deity here* that the Trump-Russia affair will still be going full steam in 2018.
And to think all so-called President Trump needs to do is release his tax forms and any tapes he may have and the cloud will go away. There must be some juicy stuff there because I will bet we will never see his tax forms and the tapes!
While it would be nice to get a single-payer system make that a long-term goal, for now concentrate on saving the New Deal.
Yes the Democrats need to play the long game but they also need to stem the bleeding and take the party off of life support. They do that by engaging the young and working class persons of all races.
I am not confident that the Democrats can do it all by themselves. Thank *insert preferred deity here* that the Trump-Russia affair will still be going full steam in 2018.
And to think all so-called President Trump needs to do is release his tax forms and any tapes he may have and the cloud will go away. There must be some juicy stuff there because I will bet we will never see his tax forms and the tapes!
Some Dems appear to be concerned about the needs of their pyramidal base. That's good. It, like so many potentially rewarding undertakings, is risky. Wonder what would have been the outcome if Gettysburg had ended differently or had the Normandy landing gone worse than it Did? President Obama's terms have shown that the Dems have their fair share of members who constantly check wind direction when they are not sitting on their hands. Shifting Left is good for increasing relevance among bases.
1
The comments here are dominated by angry Bernie supporters, and the reality is that less than half of what might reasonably be called the Democratic "base" voted for Bernie, and of those voters some fraction aren't the angry tear-it-all-down folks we see writing here, and another fraction were really Trump voters playing games in the primaries.
The rage of the Bernistas is that they assume that all these Democrats in power "ought" to support their beliefs automatically, and if not are corrupt thieves, tools of Wall Street, etc.
The crisis of the Democratic party is in congress -- to a secondary degree in the state houses.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus currently has 71 members. Bernie helped found it, when he was a congressman. These are clearly the most liberal American politicians in power today -- yet many of them are reviled by the people writing here ... notably Nancy Pelosi.
Angry-Bernie-People: you cannot get what you want by hating everybody who isn't as fervent and angry as you are; far more Americans (including more centrist liberals, those in between and all the spectrum of the right) don't agree with you. You couldn't even start a shooting revolution and win, and you sure cannot accomplish anything when your sole actions appear to be endless angry talk-talk and never showing up in mid-term elections, never actually doing any real political organization.
The rage of the Bernistas is that they assume that all these Democrats in power "ought" to support their beliefs automatically, and if not are corrupt thieves, tools of Wall Street, etc.
The crisis of the Democratic party is in congress -- to a secondary degree in the state houses.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus currently has 71 members. Bernie helped found it, when he was a congressman. These are clearly the most liberal American politicians in power today -- yet many of them are reviled by the people writing here ... notably Nancy Pelosi.
Angry-Bernie-People: you cannot get what you want by hating everybody who isn't as fervent and angry as you are; far more Americans (including more centrist liberals, those in between and all the spectrum of the right) don't agree with you. You couldn't even start a shooting revolution and win, and you sure cannot accomplish anything when your sole actions appear to be endless angry talk-talk and never showing up in mid-term elections, never actually doing any real political organization.
3
Well said.
We don't say, "Former President Al Gore" and (obviously) we are not saying "Madam President Clinton."
Winning a majority vote might be a moral victory, but it doesn't put our party in the WH, or down ballot races.
Bill Clinton got elected by saying. "It's the economy silly!
I might add "It's the Electoral College!"
Is that fair? No, but that's our system.
I'm glad we're having this discussion though. It's an opportunity for me to learn. I had considered myself a 'progressive' since 1976.
Now I find the term seems to have changed. I'm not liberal enough anymore? First time I've heard *that* one!
If I've learned-- through bitter heartbreak-- that we need a candidate who can win in battleground states... That makes me a Wall Street sellout?
This name calling should stop in my humble opinion. We're better than that.
We're Democrats! Big Tent-- Room for Everyone!
We don't say, "Former President Al Gore" and (obviously) we are not saying "Madam President Clinton."
Winning a majority vote might be a moral victory, but it doesn't put our party in the WH, or down ballot races.
Bill Clinton got elected by saying. "It's the economy silly!
I might add "It's the Electoral College!"
Is that fair? No, but that's our system.
I'm glad we're having this discussion though. It's an opportunity for me to learn. I had considered myself a 'progressive' since 1976.
Now I find the term seems to have changed. I'm not liberal enough anymore? First time I've heard *that* one!
If I've learned-- through bitter heartbreak-- that we need a candidate who can win in battleground states... That makes me a Wall Street sellout?
This name calling should stop in my humble opinion. We're better than that.
We're Democrats! Big Tent-- Room for Everyone!
This is how I felt about Barack Obama. I was around for the 1968 debacle. I remember the years in which dumb kids-not yet old enough to vote, tried to kidnap the party and make it into a Kennedy printing machine. With M.L King's murder, all of a sudden, Obama became part of what Democrats considered a part of the new Democratic party. "I/3 JFK, 1/3 RFK and 1/3 MLK." Just like Victor Frankenstein's "monster", it didn't work well.
So we are now constantly bouncing from one idol to another. We have lost whatever skills the party once had in building coalitions. It should be recalled that JFK and LBJ formed a coalition and agreed to cooperate in order to try and reclaim the White House-and maybe did so by a hair's margin.
Until we Democrats again learn to agree to disagree and to do it without cutting one another's throat, we will end up with marquee candidates like Obama who impress by good looks and diction, more than by skills as politicians.
We need real people as pols, not models who pose as politicians and then walk away to Wall St. or Europe and Hollywood.
If Sanders would learn to curb his passion for the word "Socialist", he might be totally acceptable, but 99% of US voters don't understand the difference between socialists and Nazis or Communists. We have to work with what we got-not wish everyone better educated. . .
So we are now constantly bouncing from one idol to another. We have lost whatever skills the party once had in building coalitions. It should be recalled that JFK and LBJ formed a coalition and agreed to cooperate in order to try and reclaim the White House-and maybe did so by a hair's margin.
Until we Democrats again learn to agree to disagree and to do it without cutting one another's throat, we will end up with marquee candidates like Obama who impress by good looks and diction, more than by skills as politicians.
We need real people as pols, not models who pose as politicians and then walk away to Wall St. or Europe and Hollywood.
If Sanders would learn to curb his passion for the word "Socialist", he might be totally acceptable, but 99% of US voters don't understand the difference between socialists and Nazis or Communists. We have to work with what we got-not wish everyone better educated. . .
We want Sanders. We want Warren. We want Booker. We want real politicians who *actually* care and have enough emotional intelligence to listen when it's tempting to talk over people.
That's called "militant" now? Interesting . . .
That's called "militant" now? Interesting . . .
3
Barack Obama won in 2008 with a message of hope and change. Jeremy Corbyn won in the UK on a message of hope.
In case mainstream Democrats haven't noticed, there's a huge voting block in the US that can't visit the doctor, can't buy a house, can't use the court system, can't earn a living wage and is drowning in student debt. This voting block crosses all ideological visions and all identities-- black, Hispanic, gay, women and men.
The median wage for a single earner in America is less than $30,000 a year (but you more often hear the median household wage of $52,000 a year without knowing how many are working in that household). In the richest country the world has ever known, real median wage has remained statistically unchanged for years.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the economy, stupid. It's time for single payer health care, a living wage, and relief from crushing debt. And while you're at it, reign in Wall Street with a new Glass–Steagall, rebuild our infrastructure and demilitarize our police force.
That is Bernie Sanders message, and it's not militant. It's a 21st century message for the richest country in the world where its citizens are suffering from economic injustice.
So here's the question: Would Democrats rather win with progressives, or continue to lose to Republicans?
Chose wisely.
In case mainstream Democrats haven't noticed, there's a huge voting block in the US that can't visit the doctor, can't buy a house, can't use the court system, can't earn a living wage and is drowning in student debt. This voting block crosses all ideological visions and all identities-- black, Hispanic, gay, women and men.
The median wage for a single earner in America is less than $30,000 a year (but you more often hear the median household wage of $52,000 a year without knowing how many are working in that household). In the richest country the world has ever known, real median wage has remained statistically unchanged for years.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the economy, stupid. It's time for single payer health care, a living wage, and relief from crushing debt. And while you're at it, reign in Wall Street with a new Glass–Steagall, rebuild our infrastructure and demilitarize our police force.
That is Bernie Sanders message, and it's not militant. It's a 21st century message for the richest country in the world where its citizens are suffering from economic injustice.
So here's the question: Would Democrats rather win with progressives, or continue to lose to Republicans?
Chose wisely.
3
The Dem's in eight years totally set this country back damn near to the 50's. Took a $10+ trillion dollar debt and almost doubled it. What do they think they are going to dub the people with in the future?
Sanders is the epidemy of socialism. If he ever reached to Oval Office the entire nation would be under the thumb of a Socialist Regime.
Look to those country's now under this type of leadership and tell me this is what you want. This could only be wanted by younger generations that are accustom to having everything in their lives handed to them with no effort on their part.
Sanders is the epidemy of socialism. If he ever reached to Oval Office the entire nation would be under the thumb of a Socialist Regime.
Look to those country's now under this type of leadership and tell me this is what you want. This could only be wanted by younger generations that are accustom to having everything in their lives handed to them with no effort on their part.
1
You say that the Democratic Party bosses want to win. That's a joke, right?
You are talking about the brain trust that squandered their victories in 2008, lost the House, lost the Senate, lost most state houses and sat back and let theRepublican gerymander districts to the point where the only way a Republican is going to leave office is feet first, in handcuffs or primaries by another Republican.
The Democrats today control nothing. They are like toothless Chihuahuas yapping at Trump as he and the Republicans dismantle everything that rank and file Democrats and left leaning Independents hold dear all the while serving out pussy hats, and along with them the faint hope that Trump will be somehow be removed from office--but not too soon because he is very, very good for fundraising.
I'd say that rather than being impractical, its the Sanders people who are sick and tired of losing.
You are talking about the brain trust that squandered their victories in 2008, lost the House, lost the Senate, lost most state houses and sat back and let theRepublican gerymander districts to the point where the only way a Republican is going to leave office is feet first, in handcuffs or primaries by another Republican.
The Democrats today control nothing. They are like toothless Chihuahuas yapping at Trump as he and the Republicans dismantle everything that rank and file Democrats and left leaning Independents hold dear all the while serving out pussy hats, and along with them the faint hope that Trump will be somehow be removed from office--but not too soon because he is very, very good for fundraising.
I'd say that rather than being impractical, its the Sanders people who are sick and tired of losing.
Why do we divide everything in twos? Is it because we only know how to explain things in sporting terms?
I'm not in a Bernie camp and I'm not in a democrat camp. I'm in the human race and I want to hear who the candidates are in every race. I want people of color, women, LGBTQI candidates to run. And I'm tired of the old white man running to rule over my vagina and my country.
I'm not in a Bernie camp and I'm not in a democrat camp. I'm in the human race and I want to hear who the candidates are in every race. I want people of color, women, LGBTQI candidates to run. And I'm tired of the old white man running to rule over my vagina and my country.
An ideal member of the Electorate. "Principles, not Men". Excellent post.
How many supporters of Hilary Clinton would rather have Bernie Sanders as President than Donald Trump?
How many supporters of Bernie Sanders would rather have Hilary Clinton as President than Donald Trump?
The answer to both questions is all but a very, very, few. Unless this situation changes radically (just to make sure, I checked The Weather Channel, and Hell has yet to freeze over!), the supporters of Bernie and Hilary, even those most at odds with each other, have much more in common than they have in conflict.
The focus of the Democrats for the 2018 should be for Congressional and Senate candidates to commit to support of a Constitutional amendment for direct election of the President, and for Democratic state legislative candidates to vote for ratification of such an amendment when passed. There is little doubt that Trump's worsening behavior and deteriorating performance in office would bring out Democratic and independent voters in droves to support candidates recognizing what needed to be done to ensure that we never, ever put in office a President that a majority of the voters do not support.
How many supporters of Bernie Sanders would rather have Hilary Clinton as President than Donald Trump?
The answer to both questions is all but a very, very, few. Unless this situation changes radically (just to make sure, I checked The Weather Channel, and Hell has yet to freeze over!), the supporters of Bernie and Hilary, even those most at odds with each other, have much more in common than they have in conflict.
The focus of the Democrats for the 2018 should be for Congressional and Senate candidates to commit to support of a Constitutional amendment for direct election of the President, and for Democratic state legislative candidates to vote for ratification of such an amendment when passed. There is little doubt that Trump's worsening behavior and deteriorating performance in office would bring out Democratic and independent voters in droves to support candidates recognizing what needed to be done to ensure that we never, ever put in office a President that a majority of the voters do not support.
3
I was with you until you turned to a Constitutional amendment, which would require approval by 2/3 of both the House and Senate (both currently have Republican majorities), or 2/3 of the states to ratify, the vast majority which are now red.
I'm 65 and old enough to remember what happened when the McGovernites took control of the Democratic party in 1972... it was the first Presidential election I participated in. I proudly cast my vote for George McGovern, along with nearly every college student in America. WE learned an important lesson in 1972, that being that a handful of college kids was no match for a well-financed GOP. What we got for our efforts was a lifetime of conservative governance, either by the Republicans or by Republican-lite Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Obama... well, he sort of fit the bill, but by the time he became President, we "young liberals" had done what you expect... turned more conservative as we aged. Sure, Bernie stirred up a few of our hopes from the past, but when you get down to reality, Americans are not going to elect an avowed socialist to the Presidency. It just won't happen, anymore than George McGovern was going to win in 1972.
This Bernie love fantasy concocted by God knows who... somewhere along the line, the 20-somethings are going to realize, had better realize, that my generation won't take care of them, and Bernie is older than me by quite a bit. Even if Bernie was to realize the impossible dream and get elected, especially after Trump, the Republicans are not going to be in any mood to work with a socialist. They're humiliated now by Trump, at least the moderates in the Senate, and the House is nuts anyway, which means Bernie would be irrelevant.
This Bernie love fantasy concocted by God knows who... somewhere along the line, the 20-somethings are going to realize, had better realize, that my generation won't take care of them, and Bernie is older than me by quite a bit. Even if Bernie was to realize the impossible dream and get elected, especially after Trump, the Republicans are not going to be in any mood to work with a socialist. They're humiliated now by Trump, at least the moderates in the Senate, and the House is nuts anyway, which means Bernie would be irrelevant.
10
Ah, yes, the same old tripe about the "McGovern disaster". Which the corporatists have been using ever since as their excuse for moving the Dem party ever further and further to the right. But what is reality? What really happened? Yes, it is true that Nixon won the White House in 1972. (Though I seem to recall that he was helped in that by actions that caused him to resign two years later. But I digress.) Let's take a look, however, at the complete picture. At the same time that Nixon was winning the WH, the Dems GAINED two senate seats - increasing their majority to 56; GAINED one governor's mansion - increasing their majority to 30; and held on to a 242 seat majority in the House. Compare those numbers to today. The results of 30 years of neoliberal corporate centrism in control of the party establishment: GOP WH, GOP holding 52 seat majority in the Senate, GOP holding 241 seat majority in the House, GOP holding 31 governorships.
The simple fact is that when Democrats run on liberal principles, Democrats win. Not every single election, but enough to hold governing majorities. But when the Democratic message is "We believe in the same things as Republicans, we're just nicer about it", Democrats lose. When the choice is between a real Republican and a fake Republican, Republican voters will come out and vote for the real one while Democratic voters stay home.
The simple fact is that when Democrats run on liberal principles, Democrats win. Not every single election, but enough to hold governing majorities. But when the Democratic message is "We believe in the same things as Republicans, we're just nicer about it", Democrats lose. When the choice is between a real Republican and a fake Republican, Republican voters will come out and vote for the real one while Democratic voters stay home.
2
I am an unemployed/underemployed blue collar worker residing in some Midwestern state. The economy, prescription drug addiction, healthcare costs, and skyrocketing college expenses are my concerns. Want my vote? How about talking about them instead of Amnesty or Dream Acts, or bathroom choices, unless you are interested in getting me to vote for Trump, not that he is going to do anything about them. Maybe it's the only way I get you to remember what The Party once represented.
Social Justice is a luxury I just can't afford right now.
Social Justice is a luxury I just can't afford right now.
18
Sigh. Triple sigh.
The Dems might be the most dysfunctional party of all time. Until they understand that their problem is not policy-driven but communications and strategy related, they will continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let's face it since the counterculture of the 60s the party has been in decline. The only two blips on the screen: Bill Clinton, a charismatic Southern unicorn who governed from the center and Barack Obama, a historic unicorn who certainly did NOT have a mandate to move to the left.
The problem with the party is not it has NO IDEA on how to communicate with blue collar workers. For a party that claims to be left of center this is laughable and catastrophic. While clearly it is the party that supports policies that most help this constituency, the party incompetence in communicating and in executing a sophistication communications strategy produces a very bitter irony: the people its supposed to serve turn against it in nearly every national election since 1964.
So no, we don't need Bernie and Elizabeth to take us to the 70s (although some of their ideas are strong and should be considered). We need to understand how to message the priorities of most people which involve jobs, education, health care expenses and the environment in a way that resonates with their concerns. Identity politics (including where first graders go to the bathroom) should take a secondary place.
The Dems might be the most dysfunctional party of all time. Until they understand that their problem is not policy-driven but communications and strategy related, they will continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Let's face it since the counterculture of the 60s the party has been in decline. The only two blips on the screen: Bill Clinton, a charismatic Southern unicorn who governed from the center and Barack Obama, a historic unicorn who certainly did NOT have a mandate to move to the left.
The problem with the party is not it has NO IDEA on how to communicate with blue collar workers. For a party that claims to be left of center this is laughable and catastrophic. While clearly it is the party that supports policies that most help this constituency, the party incompetence in communicating and in executing a sophistication communications strategy produces a very bitter irony: the people its supposed to serve turn against it in nearly every national election since 1964.
So no, we don't need Bernie and Elizabeth to take us to the 70s (although some of their ideas are strong and should be considered). We need to understand how to message the priorities of most people which involve jobs, education, health care expenses and the environment in a way that resonates with their concerns. Identity politics (including where first graders go to the bathroom) should take a secondary place.
5
Nice post Ines. To that I would add that on a district level, all politics is local, so Democrats/progressives/left cannot insist that one size fits all in its message.
To turn this ship around, we need more Tim Ryans (D, Ohio), who presents a traditional Democratic working class message in a beautifully straightforward manner.
To turn this ship around, we need more Tim Ryans (D, Ohio), who presents a traditional Democratic working class message in a beautifully straightforward manner.
1
Message is NOT enough. Action is needed. Real action. Honest, ethical candidates. Just blowing more smoke will never make the Party work.
This is what has gone wrong with the Dems. They were spooked by the outcome of an election 45 years ago, in the middle of a disastrous, divisive war with a draft and the recent end of segregation and a generation in charge that didn't understand that the world had changed and they were ultimately on the wrong side. So they decided to become Republican-lite which led to the "centrist" Carter, Reagan, the hapless first Bush, and ultimately the great triangulator who killed any hope of the Democratic party being the progressive alternative to the Republicans it should have been. Wake up, Dems, look around you--it's not 1972 and yet America is still tied up in endless wars and is working around to destroying the pitiful social safety net we have compared to the rest of the enlightened world. The Dems have to look to the future, not the past, if we're going to have any hope of truly making the world better for all of us.
1
Sanders is no European socialist in the mold of say the traditional British Labor Party. He is a US Progressive in the mold of Humphrey.
What the DEMS need to do is to put together a class based coalition of working class voters and progressives from all classes. Ditch differentiations based on ethnicity and sexual orientation while extolling equality under the law. Lastly, elect new leaders: younger and business friendly but not orientated to Wall Street.
What the DEMS need to do is to put together a class based coalition of working class voters and progressives from all classes. Ditch differentiations based on ethnicity and sexual orientation while extolling equality under the law. Lastly, elect new leaders: younger and business friendly but not orientated to Wall Street.
6
It's clear what the Warren-Sanders progressive wing of the Democratic Party is promoting - a revival of the FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower vision for life in America. ( I know that two of the three aforementioned presidents were actually Republicans). They advocated for economic prosperity shared and personal security supported in sickness, health, old age, in youth.
What do the Clinton Democrats stand for? They have been characterized by the NYT and mainstream media as moderates; although they embrace policies of 1970's Republicans. Where are the articles that communicate the goals of the Clinton Democrats?
What do the Clinton Democrats stand for? They have been characterized by the NYT and mainstream media as moderates; although they embrace policies of 1970's Republicans. Where are the articles that communicate the goals of the Clinton Democrats?
9
It is past time for the Clintons, Pelosi's and other Democrat mandarins to retire. Please just go away, because there is just too much baggage. As for Bernie, he's just a Johnny-one-note,calling for "fundamental change" but never explaining much more than that. He's old, brittle and not nimble enough to be a viable candidate.
Single-payer, financial reform, raising the minimum wage and higher taxes on the 1% , and negotiating lower drug prices with big pharmaceutical are nothing more than common-sense policy solutions. They won't turn the U.S. Into Venezuela or North Korea. Elizabeth Warren has all the qualities necessary for a Presidency-- she's articulate, comfortable in her own skin, and has done nothing but stand up for working families and the disadvantaged.
Single-payer, financial reform, raising the minimum wage and higher taxes on the 1% , and negotiating lower drug prices with big pharmaceutical are nothing more than common-sense policy solutions. They won't turn the U.S. Into Venezuela or North Korea. Elizabeth Warren has all the qualities necessary for a Presidency-- she's articulate, comfortable in her own skin, and has done nothing but stand up for working families and the disadvantaged.
8
She is the very definition of a "liberal elite" from Massachusetts, with "Harvard professor" on her resume as a chaser. There is no way she can win a national election. She may get you an even greater margin of victory in all the traditional blue states, like California, NY and Mass. But as 2016 demonstrated you can only win those states once for purposes of the Electoral College. Far more important is that she again would be defeated in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, perhaps sealing the fate of those states as Republican for the foreseeable future to boot.
Nancy Pelosi should retire to a Tibetan monastery. She will be received with open arms for her tired brain.
1
People should vote it is like drinking water in the morning, good for you health it is said, but to assume that will change outcomes in the Congress and Administrations and now more that ever the Courts is a bit of foolishness.
What changes outcomes one way or the other is the bickering and infighting within the oligarchy that owns the country. The heavies in the financial system who ruled the Obama years by their dominate role in structuring his choices have now been replaced by the ones, who stood in his way by their control of Congress, now staffing with their own people Trump’s presidency.
The direction has been chosen but there is dissention because Trump, as an armature in this game, thinks he has input, at least at the twitter level. He may not last long if he can not be controlled more forcefully taking away some of the excitement in what is otherwise a routine process of government.
What changes outcomes one way or the other is the bickering and infighting within the oligarchy that owns the country. The heavies in the financial system who ruled the Obama years by their dominate role in structuring his choices have now been replaced by the ones, who stood in his way by their control of Congress, now staffing with their own people Trump’s presidency.
The direction has been chosen but there is dissention because Trump, as an armature in this game, thinks he has input, at least at the twitter level. He may not last long if he can not be controlled more forcefully taking away some of the excitement in what is otherwise a routine process of government.
1
In presenting the Sanders / Ossoff rallies as indicative of a schism within the Democratic party this article ignores the much more important discussion concerning the absolute failure of the two party system in the U.S. and, by extension, the absolute failure of the political system to represent the thoughts and values of centrist, mainstream US voters. The country is NOT polarized, our electoral system is. There is no need for either of the major parties to maintain some kind of "balance" between the radical and more centrist wings of their perspective parties. The solution is destroy the two party system and develop a vibrant multi-party system in which centrists voices are the loudest and hold the most power but radical voices on all sides can also be heard and contribute, constructively to the decision making process. I consider myself a Socialist who is aligned with Sanders' broad ideology BUT he lost my support when he ran as a Democratic candidate for office and legitimized the two party system in the process. Further, I do not expect that my views are shared by a majority of the voting public nor that they ever will be. The problem is the system that offered votes two garbage candidates for President in 2016. The only people who benefit from the two party system are those power brokers among the 1% who benefit and continue to benefit regardless of which party holds Congress or the Presidency.
4
The UK just delivered a lesson to their conservatives by giving Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist vilified much like Sanders is here, a good number of seats in the Commons, to everyone's shock. Yes Theresa May still is PM but she is weakened, perhaps mortally.
Corbyn's message galvanized young people who turned out with high energy, many of them first time voters even if older, believing here was an honest broker, not a lying politician on the take.
The money in our politics is much worse, and the corruption it brings we see on display in our former working-man's Dem Party who serve Wall St and corporate donors with lip service to the poor, plus identity issues.
Not just a change is needed but a paradigm shift, and these smart, educated and tech savvy kids are not willing to let the dinosaurs continue down the road that has led us to Trump.
The Dem Party has to do more listening, less lecturing. Change is happening, here, in the UK, in France. Neoliberalism has kneecapped the middle class and we're not gonna take it any more.
The billionaires can't just have it all. Public service is back in style.
Corbyn's message galvanized young people who turned out with high energy, many of them first time voters even if older, believing here was an honest broker, not a lying politician on the take.
The money in our politics is much worse, and the corruption it brings we see on display in our former working-man's Dem Party who serve Wall St and corporate donors with lip service to the poor, plus identity issues.
Not just a change is needed but a paradigm shift, and these smart, educated and tech savvy kids are not willing to let the dinosaurs continue down the road that has led us to Trump.
The Dem Party has to do more listening, less lecturing. Change is happening, here, in the UK, in France. Neoliberalism has kneecapped the middle class and we're not gonna take it any more.
The billionaires can't just have it all. Public service is back in style.
21
UK elected their version of Trump, just barely like the US. France has elected a former investor, who is a moderate but offers strong leadership.
The French made a wise choice as shown by their legislative elections. England is muddling about as we are, as shown by the weakness of the person they have chosen.
The French made a wise choice as shown by their legislative elections. England is muddling about as we are, as shown by the weakness of the person they have chosen.
The Democrat "base" used to have a place for working class people. The liberals are not liberal, they are elitists who want to impose their worldview and policies on the rest of the country.
Think about it: they want free higher education for all and free universal preschool.
n
Republicans want to help poor people. Democrats want children of wealthy parents to get free tuition. Democrats want wealthy parents to get free preschool.
There is a limited amount of resources available. The wealthy have schemes and legions of accountants and lawyers to prevent them from paying taxes. Any subsidy provided to wealthy people for preschool and college tuition comes out of the pockets of working people, who can't even afford to have children.
Liberals won't agree to support an expansion of benefits unless they are going to get some gravy. Their objection to cutting Medicaid spending is that their wealthy parents will lose the $80,000 per year per person Medicaid is sending on their nursing home care so that they can preserve their assets for their children.
Think about it: they want free higher education for all and free universal preschool.
n
Republicans want to help poor people. Democrats want children of wealthy parents to get free tuition. Democrats want wealthy parents to get free preschool.
There is a limited amount of resources available. The wealthy have schemes and legions of accountants and lawyers to prevent them from paying taxes. Any subsidy provided to wealthy people for preschool and college tuition comes out of the pockets of working people, who can't even afford to have children.
Liberals won't agree to support an expansion of benefits unless they are going to get some gravy. Their objection to cutting Medicaid spending is that their wealthy parents will lose the $80,000 per year per person Medicaid is sending on their nursing home care so that they can preserve their assets for their children.
2
I take exception with your sentence, "Republicans want to help poor people." Have you read the details of the proposed House Republican's health care plan? Have you read Trump's proposed tax plan?
Necessity is the mother of invention: as the quality of life deteriorates under the Trump regime, the electorate will want and accept more "radical" changes in government policies. FDR and the New Deal come to mind as a needed course correction. Dems marketing themselves as GOP-lite in conservative districts will need to adjust as real conditions change. The mainstream politicians assume the stability of the state but Trump's ignorance, avarice, and cronyism are the perfect storm for a national economic or civil disaster. More is to be revealed and the Dems would do well to define themselves by what the people want and need. Three million more voted against Trump than for him. What is clear is that the Clintons, Pelosis, and Feinsteins of the world won't be at the helm of the resurrection. They have no ideas. Counter punching the GOP will not save this nation; bold, clear progressive vision will. Whoever the messenger is, the message must be about the humane treatment of all.
3
A bitter comment.
People should vote it is like drinking water in the morning, good for you health it is said, but to assume that will change outcomes in the Congress and Administrations and now more that ever the Courts is a bit of foolishness. What changes outcomes one way or the other is the bickering and infighting within the oligarchy that owns the country. The heavies in the financial system who ruled the Obama years by their dominate role in structuring his choices have now been replaced by the ones, who stood in his way by their control of Congress, now staffing with their own people Trump’s presidency. The direction has been chosen but there is dissention because Trump, as an armature in this game, thinks he has input, at least at the twitter level. He may not last long if he can not be controlled more forcefully taking away some of the excitement in what is otherwise a routine process of government.
People should vote it is like drinking water in the morning, good for you health it is said, but to assume that will change outcomes in the Congress and Administrations and now more that ever the Courts is a bit of foolishness. What changes outcomes one way or the other is the bickering and infighting within the oligarchy that owns the country. The heavies in the financial system who ruled the Obama years by their dominate role in structuring his choices have now been replaced by the ones, who stood in his way by their control of Congress, now staffing with their own people Trump’s presidency. The direction has been chosen but there is dissention because Trump, as an armature in this game, thinks he has input, at least at the twitter level. He may not last long if he can not be controlled more forcefully taking away some of the excitement in what is otherwise a routine process of government.
1
Bernie wants the traditional Liberal Democratic objective of economic security. The Party wants to be all things to all people.
Instead of ending the economic inequality of Reaganomics Bill Clinton started by making a big issue of gays in the military. The financial crisis gave Obama a great chance to reform the economic system but he brought in the same old Wall Street economic team as Reagan, and then went off on health care, Black Lives Matter and transgender rights.
Bernie's focus has always been basic economic issues. The Party has focussed on all kinds of extreme social issues that alienate many moderate voters.
The fate of the Democrats in 2016 was sealed when they bought into the false narrative of BLM, and when 5 cops got killed in Dallas.
As Tip O'Neill said the best social program is a good job.
Instead of ending the economic inequality of Reaganomics Bill Clinton started by making a big issue of gays in the military. The financial crisis gave Obama a great chance to reform the economic system but he brought in the same old Wall Street economic team as Reagan, and then went off on health care, Black Lives Matter and transgender rights.
Bernie's focus has always been basic economic issues. The Party has focussed on all kinds of extreme social issues that alienate many moderate voters.
The fate of the Democrats in 2016 was sealed when they bought into the false narrative of BLM, and when 5 cops got killed in Dallas.
As Tip O'Neill said the best social program is a good job.
1
“A lot of us are not true-blue liberals,” said Ms. Runyan, 46, who is a Democrat.
Translation - I voted for Trump.
Translation - I voted for Trump.
Whatever else, the DNC would not allow a free and fair expression of competing ideas. The left were time and time again not given the option to choose the person who was the best representative for its political ideals, not just in terms of being honest about left-wing views about basic issues like minimum wage, healthcare, and student loan indebtedness, but also in terms of being the person most capable of defeating Trump, an ideologue and fool who is doing irreparable damage to our country.
At the end of the day, the DNC forced through a candidate who could not beat Trump, and the NYTimes and other media outlets collaborated from the very first day with the DNC to support their candidate. And everyone in the United States is now paying the price for that decision. And we will all keep paying for the DNC helping Trump's election — for decades, maybe for centuries to come.
At the end of the day, the DNC forced through a candidate who could not beat Trump, and the NYTimes and other media outlets collaborated from the very first day with the DNC to support their candidate. And everyone in the United States is now paying the price for that decision. And we will all keep paying for the DNC helping Trump's election — for decades, maybe for centuries to come.
Repubs don't seem to have any trouble running moderates in moderate districts and extremists in Kansas and Texas. Why can't Dems do the same? You can't enact the Dem agenda with a Republican Congress. Save the ideological clashes for the presidential primary. Please.
The establishment that "wants to win" has not had a winning strategy. They refused to field or support candidates in any districts that they thought were too "red" and when there really was a chance of winning, they jumped in too late, and with too little support--even as their local party committees begged and pleaded for aid. It is absurd that ANY Congressional race should be uncontested.
Until Democrats get serious, and start running 24/7 they will lose again and again.
It breaks my heart.
Until Democrats get serious, and start running 24/7 they will lose again and again.
It breaks my heart.
13
If the Democrats have any desire to recapture control of the Senate of US House of Representatives in the 2918 -- and ensure that Donald Trump is not re-elected President in 2020 -- they must move toward the center of the political spectrum. If the left-wing political base of the Democratic party gets its way, we will be faced with several more years of Donald Trump and his right-wing cronies. Bottom line: gravitate toward a contest candidate, such as Joe Biden, not a socialist like Bernie Sanders.
There is widespread disdain for politics-as-usual and corporate fundraising. Bernie's rejection of those things is his biggest strength. Trump is doing a fine job of showing anyone paying attention that, if no one in an administration understands government, that doesn't work either. The time is ripe for a Bernie Sanders-powered candidate. Sanders is too old to risk running him again as POTUS, but he'd be a great VP candidate behind someone embraced by him and who embraces his ideas. No More Corporate candidates; it really is that simple. No PACS, no speeches to Wall Street, no silver spoons. A relative unknown endorsed by Bernie is the Democratic party's best shot at 2020. And bring Robert Reich onboard to make his simple short films to teach those who switched to Trump from Bernie rather than vote Hillary. Fair or not (I think decidedly not, but...), Hillary Clinton is poison at the polls.
1
is Senator Sanders a democrat? if not, then why do the democrats even consider what he does or thinks? it is my understanding that he is an independent. i am not suggesting that he is bad, just that he should not be involved in the politics of the democratic party. if left wing liberal politicians and their supporters want to be involved in politics then they should join the democratic party or be involved as an independent or as a new party.
1
The Democrats would do well to study what has happened in France. The traditional left Socialist Party was split between democratic socialists and a militant hard left. As a result, the center-left electorate has abandoned the Socialists for President Macron's centrist movement while the hard left, including exactly the same kind of young voters inspired by Sanders in the US, moved to Jean-Luc Melenchon's "Les Insoumis" (roughly "the unruled") movement. In yesterday's election, the Socialists virtually disappeared as a party while the center-right Republicans are holding on by their fingernails, having lost their center to Macron and their hard right to the National Front. Conclusion: A house divided against itself cannot stand. In the US, the Republicans and Democrats have spent decades locking down the electoral system to prevent third-party incursions, but you have to wonder given the poor record of recent Congresses how long this bulwark will hold.
2
Two words explain why the party is right (and the "purists" are wrong) on this: GERRYMANDERED DISTRICTS. The playing field in my state of Georgia (and many other places) is not level, but designed so that to win one MUST appeal to voters outside the Democratic base. To have any chance of taking back the agenda and winning back the Congress, we MUST appeal to moderate Republicans and independents with a pragmatic progressive message. JON OSSOFF's campaign shows this is working.
We all don't live in big cities (although I'm in John Lewis's district) or in liberal districts. Hillary WON the popular vote. The loss was an Electoral College issue. The progressive economic policies were in the platform. The mistake was not emphasizing it more and reacting to the outrages of Trump. It's a mistake all the GOP contenders made, and everyone is still making it today. The solution is not just to go more left. That simplistic view does not take into account all the facts on the ground that the party is considering.
The GOP has gone so far right that it is losing their voters. I am working now on a GOTV initiative for Ossoff with a man I only met two days ago, a lifelong Republican who is working hard for a Democrat. He is disgusted with his party and Trump. There is great opportunity here that we cannot afford to squander if we are to win and move the agenda in a progressive direction. We can't afford to make the mistake the GOP made with the Tea Party.
We all don't live in big cities (although I'm in John Lewis's district) or in liberal districts. Hillary WON the popular vote. The loss was an Electoral College issue. The progressive economic policies were in the platform. The mistake was not emphasizing it more and reacting to the outrages of Trump. It's a mistake all the GOP contenders made, and everyone is still making it today. The solution is not just to go more left. That simplistic view does not take into account all the facts on the ground that the party is considering.
The GOP has gone so far right that it is losing their voters. I am working now on a GOTV initiative for Ossoff with a man I only met two days ago, a lifelong Republican who is working hard for a Democrat. He is disgusted with his party and Trump. There is great opportunity here that we cannot afford to squander if we are to win and move the agenda in a progressive direction. We can't afford to make the mistake the GOP made with the Tea Party.
5
I love Bernie. I voted for Bernie. I worry about Bernie. He got destroyed in the South in the primaries. If he does run again, he must make good on his promise to spend more time in the midwest (and the South) and avoid the rallies. Nothing good ever happens at a rally. He needs to get control of his own fiercest supporters, because they can be as irrational as Trump's supporters in their own way. It cannot be that difficult to find someone who can move us forward swiftly but also stably and without recrimination. I am not certain that Bernie is capable of doing that without splitting the entire party. He needs to keep this an open tent.
1
One need only look in these comments to see the Trump and the Republicans stand an excellent chance in 2018 and 2020. Who cares if you have a sub-40% approval rating if your opponents are too busy tearing each other apart.
I voted for Clinton, but I would have very happily voted for Sanders if he had been the Democratic nominee. Neither were perfect as far as I was concerned. However, it seems obvious that, whatever stripe of liberal you are, either would have been far preferable to Donald Trump. (Sanders himself even said this in a Primary debate.) But apparently, even now, this simple logic is lost in the fantasyland where liberals are busy fighting each other to be Captain of the Titanic.
Keep on winning, America.
I voted for Clinton, but I would have very happily voted for Sanders if he had been the Democratic nominee. Neither were perfect as far as I was concerned. However, it seems obvious that, whatever stripe of liberal you are, either would have been far preferable to Donald Trump. (Sanders himself even said this in a Primary debate.) But apparently, even now, this simple logic is lost in the fantasyland where liberals are busy fighting each other to be Captain of the Titanic.
Keep on winning, America.
4
Bernie needs to get out of our faces. He escaped New York to run in rural, ultra liberal Vermont, because NY was too diverse, too complex. He backed the NRA when they needed it and then he pontificates about the Democratic Party.
Destroying the Democratic Party has always been his goal. He distorts the record of Democrats and the Democratic Party.
Destroying the Democratic Party has always been his goal. He distorts the record of Democrats and the Democratic Party.
1
The Dems should not be "emboldened" in the least by the British Labor Party's resurgence under Corbyn in the UK.
Corbyn is not an astute politician and is a died-in-the-red socialists with notions that dated from the post-war 1950s. They notions no longer pertain, the world having changed significantly.
If Labor won back its seats in parliament, it was because the party was the ONLY real alternative on the list ...
Corbyn is not an astute politician and is a died-in-the-red socialists with notions that dated from the post-war 1950s. They notions no longer pertain, the world having changed significantly.
If Labor won back its seats in parliament, it was because the party was the ONLY real alternative on the list ...
Who cares about party labels except party hacks? I care about the candidate's ideology, worldview and character (in that order). I was a supporter of Hillary because she exemplified centrist position on the economy, globalism in world affairs, and support for science and technology. I equally opposed Sanders and Trump because they appealed to the same base: disaffected working-class voters, who don't understand the world they live in, have no sense of history, despise the educated "elites", and traffick in conspiratorial nonsense. These people are dangerous and anybody who represents their worldview should be opposed by all right-thinking, middle-class, educated voters. I don't mind paying higher taxes if they go to economically sound things that benefit the economy, like public transportation, Pell grants or a single-payer healthcare. I refuse to have my tax money squandered on support of disability leeches or tax cuts for people who don't need them. When another Hillary shows up, Ill vote for her, whatever letter is after her name.
The law of unintended consequences. A window of opportunity for the Democratic party to get back in power can be open by President Donald Trump's failures.
No need to reinvent the Democratic party or make radical changes in the platform agenda. As we say in soccer, just play and win the game in the opponent's mistakes.
Politics is a zero sum game. Democrats need Trump's domestic agenda to fail. This will occur IF the initial euphoria created by his election turns out to be empty. The second half of 2017 and first half of 2018 are crucial.
If public opinion starts to move away from positive/hope to negative territory, the GOP/Trump are in trouble. Consequently, IF the GOP loses control of both houses of Congress in 2018, Trump's domestic agenda is dead and his reelection kaput.
No need to reinvent the Democratic party or make radical changes in the platform agenda. As we say in soccer, just play and win the game in the opponent's mistakes.
Politics is a zero sum game. Democrats need Trump's domestic agenda to fail. This will occur IF the initial euphoria created by his election turns out to be empty. The second half of 2017 and first half of 2018 are crucial.
If public opinion starts to move away from positive/hope to negative territory, the GOP/Trump are in trouble. Consequently, IF the GOP loses control of both houses of Congress in 2018, Trump's domestic agenda is dead and his reelection kaput.
1
Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail for the past 50 years for progressive taxation, environmental regulation, consumer and worker protections, higher minimum wages and overtime pay, family leave, universal health care, (the protection of) Social Security, public education, affordable housing, voting rights, the elimination of racial and gender discrimination, and many other policies that can soften the harsh and destructive byproducts of corporate capitalism.
Yet, so many commentators to this article claim that the Democratic Party needs a clear agenda, or has sold out to corporate interests, and that American voters are demanding "real change." What does real change mean, I ask you, when the policy battles I've listed above are still raging? Are they not enough for the time being? Do you think there are transformative ideas for "real change" just laying around for the taking, shunned by Democratic politicians who are too busy making speeches on Wall Street?
Whether they supported Trump or Sanders or Stein, those who claim that there is not a stark difference between the modern Democratic and Republican parties have fallen prey to propaganda of one origin or another. The Democratic Party either has to conclude that the American people are not in favor of progressive taxation, environmental protection, a social safety net, etc., or it has to figure out a way to counter the propaganda that has so confused voters about the fundamental political choices they face.
Yet, so many commentators to this article claim that the Democratic Party needs a clear agenda, or has sold out to corporate interests, and that American voters are demanding "real change." What does real change mean, I ask you, when the policy battles I've listed above are still raging? Are they not enough for the time being? Do you think there are transformative ideas for "real change" just laying around for the taking, shunned by Democratic politicians who are too busy making speeches on Wall Street?
Whether they supported Trump or Sanders or Stein, those who claim that there is not a stark difference between the modern Democratic and Republican parties have fallen prey to propaganda of one origin or another. The Democratic Party either has to conclude that the American people are not in favor of progressive taxation, environmental protection, a social safety net, etc., or it has to figure out a way to counter the propaganda that has so confused voters about the fundamental political choices they face.
1
The Democratic leadership must stop acting like they are embarrassed by progressive policy positions. If they are they should leave the Party. The Party needs leadership like Bernie Sanders who strongly believes in the pragmatism of democratic socialism and progressive policy - it is good for the people. After all, what else is a republic suppose to be about?
16
You know, I'm perfectly willing to quit the Democrat party and become an independent and focus on candidates that are sincere, genuine and honest just like Sanders. I voted against Trump in 2016 by selecting Clinton, and I still feel like a sold out despite how disgusting Trump is.
With the NYT treating sincerity, genuity and honesty in politicians as fringe and extremist, as amateur and green, as irrelevant and inconsequential, I am done with the elite establishment. Sure, I'll keep reading the paper because as sad as it sounds, it is still better than much of the other corporate media out there. But insofar as politics go, I will never trust the staff who are hopelessly biased towards the Democratic establishment inasmuch as they are against the Republicans: they have simplified the political landscape to include only two polar opposites that helps them construct a fictional, fake narrative that we have only two choices, bad and much worse.
With the NYT treating sincerity, genuity and honesty in politicians as fringe and extremist, as amateur and green, as irrelevant and inconsequential, I am done with the elite establishment. Sure, I'll keep reading the paper because as sad as it sounds, it is still better than much of the other corporate media out there. But insofar as politics go, I will never trust the staff who are hopelessly biased towards the Democratic establishment inasmuch as they are against the Republicans: they have simplified the political landscape to include only two polar opposites that helps them construct a fictional, fake narrative that we have only two choices, bad and much worse.
4
"Militant Democrat" is an oxymoron.
1
Violent activism is no one's patent. Even Buddhists who have sworn to non violence have militant forms in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, we saw plenty in Vietnam, Kampuchea, Laos...all these countries have proven their understanding of Buddhism is at best, token, superficial and outwardly symbolic.
1
Boy, did you get his wrong! Just reverse the statements: "The Base Wants To Win. The Party Wants It All." as in all the money lobbyists and corporate donors can give, all the same people pulling the strings behind the false cloak of a democracy, all the power to choose whatever candidate and platform they want without regard for what the people want.
1
..."could disrupt the party's path to a majority." Yes, it could, as it should. Democratic Party regulars need to get out of their Georgetown, Manhattan,and Palo Alto salons and try to generate some fellow feeling with working class folks out in the states right now. There is an "elite" contingent in the Party that are smug and overprotective of their interests, that are increasingly divorced from average people, and that possess too much influence/are unwilling to share control of the Party agenda. Out of touch, they lack empathy and an energetic vision. Their conception of "interests" is far too narrow.
Hearing, and sincerely representing, the economic agenda of working people, not only in the Midwest but all across the country, is the only smart political path forward at this point. Get real. Bernie gets it.
Hearing, and sincerely representing, the economic agenda of working people, not only in the Midwest but all across the country, is the only smart political path forward at this point. Get real. Bernie gets it.
Democrats fail because red-statism has been successfully radicalized.
Liberalist activism is by now an anachronism, not even a nostalgic notion.
Fox may finally be losing its edge, but the damage is done. Redstatism rules.
By now redstatists are so intransigently entrenched, their activist voters will just have to die out for the mood in middle America to change.
But it seems even then, whatever replaces redstatism won't be liberalism. Liberalism was targeted & appears neutralized.
Liberals have no leaders beyond Bernie & no collective ambition remotely matching radicalized redstatists, haven't in half a century or more.
Bernie, for all his intelligence, expertise & drive, won't be able to fix liberalism, & blue-dogism won't be able to fix the Democrats, no donors or warchests will work.
This was a civil war & liberalism lost.
Liberalist activism is by now an anachronism, not even a nostalgic notion.
Fox may finally be losing its edge, but the damage is done. Redstatism rules.
By now redstatists are so intransigently entrenched, their activist voters will just have to die out for the mood in middle America to change.
But it seems even then, whatever replaces redstatism won't be liberalism. Liberalism was targeted & appears neutralized.
Liberals have no leaders beyond Bernie & no collective ambition remotely matching radicalized redstatists, haven't in half a century or more.
Bernie, for all his intelligence, expertise & drive, won't be able to fix liberalism, & blue-dogism won't be able to fix the Democrats, no donors or warchests will work.
This was a civil war & liberalism lost.
1
Another Sanders smear piece plain and simple.
5
If only Hillary wasn't a NeoCon she could have won? If only the Democrats weren't shills for Corporate USA™ they'd start winning again?
1
As republicans know very well and execute with perfection, the goal of an election is to win. All of your ambitions are nothing unless you are in a position to execute them. Democrats need to realize the art of real politics - these circular firing squads are foolish and will doom them to obscurity. They will be like the frog in an ever warming pot when, too late, realizes it's being boiled to death. Wake up democrats.
If single payer, government run healthcare is such a good idea then why not make participation (and payment) voluntary? Why is it necessary to force people into it under threat of violence? Why don't the thoughtful, caring liberals of NY or CA show us backward constitutionalists how well centrally planned government healthcare works so we'll come begging to get in?
1
Trump voters have gone crazy, but it seems so have liberals. I voted for Clinton, but I would have voted for Sanders also. Seems to me the logic is simple. Either one is far closer to what I want from government than Trump, or for that matter any Republican.
But even now, I still see Sanders and Clinton supporters engaged in pointless battles to see who gets to be captain of the Titanic. Clinton supporters declare Sanders is a misogynist because Sanders is willing to accept a candidate with less-than-perfect credentials on abortion issues in Kansas, one of the reddest red states. Sanders supporters keep going off on fantasies like creating "the People's Party." Trump winning the Presidency was terrible, but the only thing that makes me despair is the idiotic, divisive response from the liberal camp. I only hope they are simply simply a vocal minority.
But even now, I still see Sanders and Clinton supporters engaged in pointless battles to see who gets to be captain of the Titanic. Clinton supporters declare Sanders is a misogynist because Sanders is willing to accept a candidate with less-than-perfect credentials on abortion issues in Kansas, one of the reddest red states. Sanders supporters keep going off on fantasies like creating "the People's Party." Trump winning the Presidency was terrible, but the only thing that makes me despair is the idiotic, divisive response from the liberal camp. I only hope they are simply simply a vocal minority.
1
The use of the word "militant" in this article and byline is totally inappropriate.
2
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie--why are you trying to destroy the Democrat party AGAIN???
2
I think the Democrats needs to move away from the social issues and spend more time figuring out how to get people middle class jobs. Stay away from religions, bathrooms, bedrooms, guns, ACA, social services, the earth and get folks back to work. I think Bernie Sanders speaks this language. I think we need more candidates that are able to do this.
3
Militant wing? This is the NYT reaction to the pamphleteering 2016 fiasco? Out of touch does not begin to describe it. One suspects a bit more than disconnect. Maybe it's about time the NYT released its tax returns?
3
We know at least this much. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/8/hillary-clinton-gave-100k...
1
The NY Times needs to give more coverage to the "deconstruction of the administrative state" that is ongoing while the Russia-related investigations distract.
Correct, but the list is a bit longer than that:
"So we're back to blaming Sanders supporters this week for Hillary's loss? I know that Russia/Comey were last week ... I just want to make sure we're blaming the right scapegoat..."
I think the FOLLOWING week (beginning June 19) has been reserved for Sanders supporters; I'm pretty sure this NEXT week (beginning June 12) was already spoken for -- by misogynists and racists, I believe, and assorted droolers. I agree, though, it's hard to keep track of the scapegoats, and many argue that "Sanders supporters" haven't been pulling their weight in the "scapegoat" department.
"So we're back to blaming Sanders supporters this week for Hillary's loss? I know that Russia/Comey were last week ... I just want to make sure we're blaming the right scapegoat..."
I think the FOLLOWING week (beginning June 19) has been reserved for Sanders supporters; I'm pretty sure this NEXT week (beginning June 12) was already spoken for -- by misogynists and racists, I believe, and assorted droolers. I agree, though, it's hard to keep track of the scapegoats, and many argue that "Sanders supporters" haven't been pulling their weight in the "scapegoat" department.
Bernie Sanders is a New Dealer, which remains extremely popular among voters old and young. That is NOT an extreme, so please stop painting him as an extremist. If candidates like Ossoff think they need to repudiate the basic Democratic values to get a vote, he needs to get out of the party and step aside. What a shame -- he becomes a Republican to try to win. In the end he'll find that is a losing strategy because Republicans will vote for the Republican not him, and Democrats will be so turned off they won't vote at all. It is so hard to believe that in all this GOP tumult and the most unpopular president in office and all his sordid behavior -- every day it's something else -- that the Democrats are in such disarray. NOW is the time for them to seize the day and win big in 2018.
2
The New York Times may hate and loathe Trump, but they're scared to death of Bernie.
Go Bernie, and Elizabeth, go!
Go Bernie, and Elizabeth, go!
3
OK Edward, I'll bite - what is it exactly about Sen. Sanders that you believe the New York Times fears so much? "Bernie" and "Elizabeth" have already done their part to bring us a Trump White House. How could it get any scarier than that?
1
The word 'militant' is a bit loaded, isn't it? Editorializing just a tad, perhaps? Sounds to me that the NY Times, just like the DNC, is doing all it can to protect the powers that be, and to discredit Bernie Sanders and his followers. How are they militant? By wanting single payer health care, a living wage, more restrictions on pharmaceutical companies, and tuition free state universities, all of which are already standard in Western Europe?
I think neocon Democrats are a bit squeamish about conceding power to the people, when they can do just fine getting funded by the wealthy, and living their upper middle class lifestyle comfortably without concern for the needs of the working and struggling people of this country who used to support them back in the day.
Wake up, DNC and the New York Times before the clock goes back even further, and Trump & Co. decimate the country and the world over the next 8 years.
I think neocon Democrats are a bit squeamish about conceding power to the people, when they can do just fine getting funded by the wealthy, and living their upper middle class lifestyle comfortably without concern for the needs of the working and struggling people of this country who used to support them back in the day.
Wake up, DNC and the New York Times before the clock goes back even further, and Trump & Co. decimate the country and the world over the next 8 years.
2
A majority of voters in the US want a dictatorship. They want people who do not look like them or worship the same religion deported or worse.
There is no such thing as a moderate democrat any more. Regardless of what they may say - you become a rabid progressive or else are shut out. Citizens see right through this rouse. The flyover states matter and people are sick and tired of NYC and California forcing a progressive liberal agenda upon the country.
1
The DNC is a joke. The republicans are complete jerks, they should be EASY to beat, yet the Democratic Party leaders can't put out a coherent message on why Democratic Policies are better for the country as a whole. I guess it's because they're sold out to the same moneyed interest the republicans are, and just can't bring themselves to bite the hands that pay them. Progressives are NOT extremists, radicals, or Socialists, we just want to methodically evaluate and solve the problems of society, and guarantee that everyone is treated the same under the law (just like the Constitution states). A level playing field is not that much to ask for.
1
Remember Democrats, as Hillary said during the 2016 campaign, all whites need to realize that they're inherently racist. Keep up the argument that the United States, the least racist country on Earth, is a crypto-Apartheid nation.
Please, also keep up the idea that those horrible people in fly-over country are horrible. I'm on the Goldwater Right, but as much as I despise Trump, I despise the hysterical, Pol-Pot-esque Leftists even more. In 2020, I sincerely hope the Left blows another presidential election by playing identity politics.
Please, also keep up the idea that those horrible people in fly-over country are horrible. I'm on the Goldwater Right, but as much as I despise Trump, I despise the hysterical, Pol-Pot-esque Leftists even more. In 2020, I sincerely hope the Left blows another presidential election by playing identity politics.
1
Your headline is maddening, though it expresses the problem perfectly. The Democratic Party establishment believes that "winning" means the same Blue Dog Democrat, Republican-lite strategy that gave us Hillary Clinton and ultimately Donald Trump. That strategy LOST. Bernie would very likely have "won," because he represents the frustration with the parties of the 1% that gave us Donald Trump. If the Democratic Party and its surrogates do not wake up to this fact, then we are doomed to right-wing facism.
1
SAD. SOO SAD. I am very disappointed in the NYT to call Sanders followers militant. This is not helpful for the Democratic Party or the USA.
3
Many posts here criticize the Times. Why does the Times think it’s worth it to keep denigrating Sanders and progressives?
The Hill, April 18----
“Poll: Bernie Sanders is the country’s most popular active politician. This shows his importance to Democrats seeking to rebuild after a disastrous 2016 election….he’s viewed favorably by 57 % of voters--- Harvard-Harris survey.”
Why would the Times not give progressives the basic respect they deserve, and give the public a wider range of political solutions in coverage and commentary? Hardly "All the news fit to print, without fear or favor"---Adolph Ochs, Times founder.
The Times denigrating of Sanders' proposals as if they were outlandishly radical was so absurd that the public editor had to respond to reader complaints. Many of his ideas were once centrist policy -- on taxes, jobs, tuition, Wall st regulation, etc. Health care wasn't always a super profit center like now. That the Times could automatically trash Sanders shows how far rightward the center of our politics has shifted.
The Times just added an additional conservative columnist from WSJ to its roster and he debuted with climate change denial. Why was the Times 'thrilled' to get him for its op ed page?
The Times could use 1 truely progressive columnist to at least talk about Medicare for All, the public option, low cost tuition, Wall St regulation, and campaign finance reform. Are those topics untouchable for the Times? Why?
The Hill, April 18----
“Poll: Bernie Sanders is the country’s most popular active politician. This shows his importance to Democrats seeking to rebuild after a disastrous 2016 election….he’s viewed favorably by 57 % of voters--- Harvard-Harris survey.”
Why would the Times not give progressives the basic respect they deserve, and give the public a wider range of political solutions in coverage and commentary? Hardly "All the news fit to print, without fear or favor"---Adolph Ochs, Times founder.
The Times denigrating of Sanders' proposals as if they were outlandishly radical was so absurd that the public editor had to respond to reader complaints. Many of his ideas were once centrist policy -- on taxes, jobs, tuition, Wall st regulation, etc. Health care wasn't always a super profit center like now. That the Times could automatically trash Sanders shows how far rightward the center of our politics has shifted.
The Times just added an additional conservative columnist from WSJ to its roster and he debuted with climate change denial. Why was the Times 'thrilled' to get him for its op ed page?
The Times could use 1 truely progressive columnist to at least talk about Medicare for All, the public option, low cost tuition, Wall St regulation, and campaign finance reform. Are those topics untouchable for the Times? Why?
2
Well stated!
Democrats are eating each other over losing 77,000 voters in the rust belt. Stop thinking like losers and get to work on converting voters in that area.
7
Americans are addicted to the promise revolution. In politics as with all things, Americans want instant gratification. We are forever "voting the bums out." Politicians always promise to "send a message to Washington.". Politicians, from socialists like Bernie Sanders to a Neo-Dixiecrat like Ossof, all seem to claim we are one revolution away from utopia. Inevitably, voters become disenchanted when those politicians take office, and the next batch of politicians make the exact same promises of revolution to the exact same bunch of voters.
If Americans really want government to change and get better, the first step is to wise up and not fall for the promise of revolutions that will magically change everything.
If Americans really want government to change and get better, the first step is to wise up and not fall for the promise of revolutions that will magically change everything.
As a recovering hard left liberal who's alarmed at the Democrat agenda, I would love to march and campaign with Democrats holding signs that would likely turn off rational voters. Maybe, 'Revolt against oppression!' or 'Racism is Institutionalized' or how about 'Assassinate Racism'.
The democrats have alienated sanity.
The democrats have alienated sanity.
Also: "US out of my uterus!!"
There's a gold mine for ya.
There's a gold mine for ya.
I've been a Progressive since 1976-- Carter -vs- Reagan. We all know how that one played out. Ultra-left Democrats might do well to remember Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry as well.
The idea is to *win* the election! Period. Bernie supporters who pouted, stayed home, and didn't vote have no right to complain about Trump. Their absence at the polls helped put him in office.
Democrats need to remember how Bill Clinton got elected. He took the party from left to center. "It's the economy silly!"
Down ballot Democrats were allowed tailor their messages to appeal to the specific concerns of their constituents. One size does not fit all.
Bernie Sanders is a passionate motivational speaker. Unfortunately, given the divisions, and political climate right now, I don't think he's electable.
Who *is* electable is an open question. Prospects aren't exactly inspiring. For example, I don't see an American equivalent of the charismatic, and intelligent Emmanuel Macron, who won in France.
Mainstream Progressives have maybe two years to find someone like that. If not, yet another loss in 2020 because-- yet again-- Democrats tend to forget Politics 101.
The name of the game is to win.
The idea is to *win* the election! Period. Bernie supporters who pouted, stayed home, and didn't vote have no right to complain about Trump. Their absence at the polls helped put him in office.
Democrats need to remember how Bill Clinton got elected. He took the party from left to center. "It's the economy silly!"
Down ballot Democrats were allowed tailor their messages to appeal to the specific concerns of their constituents. One size does not fit all.
Bernie Sanders is a passionate motivational speaker. Unfortunately, given the divisions, and political climate right now, I don't think he's electable.
Who *is* electable is an open question. Prospects aren't exactly inspiring. For example, I don't see an American equivalent of the charismatic, and intelligent Emmanuel Macron, who won in France.
Mainstream Progressives have maybe two years to find someone like that. If not, yet another loss in 2020 because-- yet again-- Democrats tend to forget Politics 101.
The name of the game is to win.
14
I don't care what you call the enthusiasm of the Sen Sanders supporters, but you have to agree they are more fired up even now than the traditional so called Democrats. Who can smell blood but are too timid to go for the Republican jugular. I guess they did not learn anything from the Republicans in the last 8 years.
It is amazing that even with a lying cheating President in the office the Democrats have totally failed to come up with any strategy to win seats in the Congress or for that matter in the States either.
With this kind of track record how can they blame Senator Sanders and other Progressives who want a change in the direction of the Party?
The current system of divvying up the seats for election needs to be changed. Primary system needs to be streamlined and the machine politics be kept out. The issues which matter to average Americans needs to be highlighted and fought for by the Democratic Candidates, they need to educate constituents about the need of free education, healthcare for all, and no discrimination on any basis. Enough of the overseas wars. We have been fighting one or another war for three generations. Let’s call it enough. It is hard work for the candidates and the party, but it needs to be done for the Country.
It is amazing that even with a lying cheating President in the office the Democrats have totally failed to come up with any strategy to win seats in the Congress or for that matter in the States either.
With this kind of track record how can they blame Senator Sanders and other Progressives who want a change in the direction of the Party?
The current system of divvying up the seats for election needs to be changed. Primary system needs to be streamlined and the machine politics be kept out. The issues which matter to average Americans needs to be highlighted and fought for by the Democratic Candidates, they need to educate constituents about the need of free education, healthcare for all, and no discrimination on any basis. Enough of the overseas wars. We have been fighting one or another war for three generations. Let’s call it enough. It is hard work for the candidates and the party, but it needs to be done for the Country.
13
I have attended 2 Democratic Party meeting in my area since the election. They were chaired and predominantly attended by the same people ( I would guess in their 50's and 60's) who have led this group for years. There were a few new, 20/30 somethings there. Their input was politely listened to and then dismissively ignored.
These younger 'Democrats' will probably not return and they, in turn, will not communicate kindly about this experience with peers. And the old folks on this committee can continue on printing bumper stickers, hosting 'mixers' and having bake sales.
These younger 'Democrats' will probably not return and they, in turn, will not communicate kindly about this experience with peers. And the old folks on this committee can continue on printing bumper stickers, hosting 'mixers' and having bake sales.
1
Time for all our strong, equal rights for all, accessible and affordable healthcare, support for the non-wealthy Democrats to take a page from the Republicans! Enough with divisions with Bernie Sanders people.
Take power back by a STRATEGIC ViSION for a change. Align with all and get the House back!!! Align for alignments sake. The Republicans do it all the time.
Take power back by a STRATEGIC ViSION for a change. Align with all and get the House back!!! Align for alignments sake. The Republicans do it all the time.
The two wings of the Democratic Party are not as far apart as they seem. Democrats need to place as much emphasis on rural issues and they do on urban issues. Rural voters want access to decent health care- help with affordable health insurance, community health centers, programs to keep doctors in rural areas, etc. Rural voters want quality education for their kids- support for pre-K, secondary education, affordable college education and emphasis on trade schools that teach real skills. Rural voters want support for businesses that stay in rural communities and don't move overseas. Finally, rural voters want Democratic candidates who respect rural values of hard work, responsibility and family as much as they respect equal rights for all and support for the urban poor.
2
We've seen this all before. Either a far left or a far right strategy rarely wins over the American electorate. One needs either a moderate platform or, even better, an inventive new platform which will address the decline of the American middle class. Let's start with major investment (not the previous nickle and dimeing) in serious retraining programs (esp. German-style apprentice programs) for workers who have lost their jobs because of free trade agreements. And how about repair of our infrastructure? And if we have to pay higher taxes for it, so be it, but make that tax structure more progressive (and yes, I'm not among the top 1% but I am among the 5%).
There is so much we could do to repair things, and so much to be repaired, and the path forward is pretty clear, but I fear our country is so log-jammed by special interests and ideological blinders that we cannot do it. Do we have to have a genuine crisis to break this logjam?
There is so much we could do to repair things, and so much to be repaired, and the path forward is pretty clear, but I fear our country is so log-jammed by special interests and ideological blinders that we cannot do it. Do we have to have a genuine crisis to break this logjam?
1
Odd. You use the term "far left", lumping them in with the far right, and then you proceed to mention a common sense laundry list of everything we should be doing...everything the "far" left is proposing.
Hank is absolutely right, voters supporter Bernie Sanders because of his positions on major issues, all of them standard Democratic platforms. Would that be radical - look at Europe where all these reforms have been practised for a long time. Is it expensive - for health care and education the single payer and standardized School systems are much cheaper. Europeans also spend much more on care of the elderly, which soon will be big problem in the US. How about jobs? The spending is mostly used for hiring professionals who in turn spend their income and support GDP growth.
2
There was not that much difference between Sanders and Clinton when it came to policies/ideas they supported. Sanders was willing to promise the moon and stars while Hillary was more pragmatic and realistic and did not want to promise more than she could deliver.
Trump promised the moon and stars and was very popular, like Sanders. Maybe the answer is to promise the the moon and stars and when you get elected you just settle for what you can get.
The voter apparently wants to dream big and the one who is the best salesman/woman wins the day even if they are not the best qualified to deliver the goods.
Trump promised the moon and stars and was very popular, like Sanders. Maybe the answer is to promise the the moon and stars and when you get elected you just settle for what you can get.
The voter apparently wants to dream big and the one who is the best salesman/woman wins the day even if they are not the best qualified to deliver the goods.
Canada is a socialist country; perhaps it is a good example of what Bernie and "the Base" would like to see America become. If so, my advice is not to underestimate the cultural differences between the two countries, and the price Canadians pay for what they get.
Health care is free, taxes are huge
Out for lunch at a restaurant in Ontario yesterday with my family. a beer cost $6.95 plus a value added tax of 13% and a 15% tip for a total of $9.03. The combined federal and provincial income tax in Ontario is 43% of taxable income (calculated with no deduction for mortgage costs) in excess of $90.000 (53% on income in excess of $220,000), so a $100,000 per year earner required pre-tax earnings of $15.04 to pay for the beer. Not surprisingly, there were lots of empty seats in the restaurant. The Ontario government has just introduced a proposal to increase the minimum wage from $11.40 per hour to $15 per hour over the next 18 months. If that happens, my guess is the restaurant will be gone.
The Canadian dollar is worth about US$0.75.
Health care is free, taxes are huge
Out for lunch at a restaurant in Ontario yesterday with my family. a beer cost $6.95 plus a value added tax of 13% and a 15% tip for a total of $9.03. The combined federal and provincial income tax in Ontario is 43% of taxable income (calculated with no deduction for mortgage costs) in excess of $90.000 (53% on income in excess of $220,000), so a $100,000 per year earner required pre-tax earnings of $15.04 to pay for the beer. Not surprisingly, there were lots of empty seats in the restaurant. The Ontario government has just introduced a proposal to increase the minimum wage from $11.40 per hour to $15 per hour over the next 18 months. If that happens, my guess is the restaurant will be gone.
The Canadian dollar is worth about US$0.75.
2
Life is still better for the average Canafian when compared to the average American, I would imagine...and be willing to wager on.
In the UK the ruling Conservative Party introduced the Alzheimer Tax on people who owned their own home. (A tax where a person's home would be taken to pay for their old age care) Nobody else. Hence the property could not be passed on to future generations.
This only affected people who had worked all their lives to purchase their property. People who rented did not pay.
With the introduction of the Alzheimer tax the Conservative party alienated it's grass root support totally.
The Only People who voted for Theresa MAy was the people who could not bring themselves not to vote and could not vote Labour.
Hence her loss of majority in the UK parliament.
This only affected people who had worked all their lives to purchase their property. People who rented did not pay.
With the introduction of the Alzheimer tax the Conservative party alienated it's grass root support totally.
The Only People who voted for Theresa MAy was the people who could not bring themselves not to vote and could not vote Labour.
Hence her loss of majority in the UK parliament.
1
That's the best explanation I have seen! Thanks!
I am a strong supporter of the social democratic politics of Bernie Sanders, and I admire and respect him for many reasons. However, a comment in this article by Representative Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, makes sense to me. Give Democrats running for the House some discretion to do so within a realistic, strategic assessment of the politics of their districts rather than on a progressive ideological agenda primarily viable in highly liberal areas of the country.
The time to move "conservative" Democrats from moderate to progressive positions on high priority issues like single-payer healthcare is after they get elected, not before if this will likely produce a Republican victory. Of course, this does not mean any Democrat should run on a "moderate" version Republican politics.
The time to move "conservative" Democrats from moderate to progressive positions on high priority issues like single-payer healthcare is after they get elected, not before if this will likely produce a Republican victory. Of course, this does not mean any Democrat should run on a "moderate" version Republican politics.
3
It would be nice to lose the terms "left" and "right", and even "progressive". There is no reason to label fixing the US health care system as "left" or "right". It is a massive taking by vested interests essentially bankrupting the 99% and best available to Fortune 500 employees as self employed and small businesses cannot afford access. US health care costs nearly 2x that available in other countries, need more be said ? "Single payer" is not socialized healthcare, it simply provides a mechanism for negotiation and payment that the average family cannot navigate, either in understanding their "coverage" or paying bills that are incomprehensible to EVERYONE. And it is the only way to get the Mylan pharmaceutical type companies to stop taking advantage of the capitalist system that they play to their advantage absent real regulation. As the future belongs to the youth, and the older folks, of which I am one, will not be here then, maybe a real democracy would give the youth more heavily weighted votes. Then Bernie would have won, there would be no Brexit, and childcare and educational issues would be advanced by the people for whom they make the greatest difference. Largely kidding, of course, but would a stronger youth vote be "left" or "right"? No, just a potentially practical solution to a society often governed by outdated thinking and vested interests. Let's work on practical solutions to obvious problems and leave partisanship completely behind.
Hold the doom and gloom. This is the ideal time to redesign the party, for the Democratic Party to bring together both ideologues and moderates by offering a platform with the most popular Bernie movements with moderate twists: moving towards a guaranteed healthcare system for all Americans that incentivizes healthy living and free state college tuition for student who commits 2-4 years to simply working in that state after college. At the same time as the Republicans take our country back to the 1950's, the Democratic Party can easily sell itself as the party for the future with universal daycare for children of working parents, and commitments to clean energy and vastly improved schools for all.
What's in it for moderates? Less out of paychecks for health insurance, the back up of free college if needed, child care for young parents, incentives to work to take advantage of daycare and simply knowing that the planet will be there for their children's children. Keep it simple but desirable for all.
What's in it for moderates? Less out of paychecks for health insurance, the back up of free college if needed, child care for young parents, incentives to work to take advantage of daycare and simply knowing that the planet will be there for their children's children. Keep it simple but desirable for all.
1
As a conservative democrat, I was a strong Hillary supporter. However, her defeat is a resoundingly clear sign that the dems have to really go back and rethink a lot of fundamentals. This will be difficult, it calls for new policies to be formulated, even an entirely new approach to governing. Just a new message won't be enough. The grass roots is exactly what we need to move ahead with this. I was wrong to be hyper-critical of Bernie,
2
Why must we take our model from the "top down" one consistently driven by the GOP? We know what's best for you. Here's our platform. Take it or leave it.
Why can't we be the party who listens instead of talk?
Why not undertake - right now - the biggest listening project there has ever been? Put our young and old volunteers out there in record numbers, an army of Democrats in towns and cities, inner cities and rural areas, farms and factories, schools and nursing homes, suburbs and gated communities, beach homes and desert developments - just asking and listening - compiling information - not foisting a platform but asking what platform makes the most sense to their neighbors.
Putting that information together by the voting district. Using that information to inform the local candidates what the people they hope to represent really want, what's foremost on their minds. Then passing from the grassroots up, not the from the elite down, from the local to the state to the national, where the listening campaign can be translated into a platform that reflects the wants and needs of the people in their kitchens and living rooms and backyards and places of work - where they live.
By 2018 we can actually say we have listened - we know what you want - we care - we have spent our dollars not on negative campaign ads but on listening - now listen to our platform - sound good?
A new Democratic party that goes back to it's old roots. The party of the people.
Why can't we be the party who listens instead of talk?
Why not undertake - right now - the biggest listening project there has ever been? Put our young and old volunteers out there in record numbers, an army of Democrats in towns and cities, inner cities and rural areas, farms and factories, schools and nursing homes, suburbs and gated communities, beach homes and desert developments - just asking and listening - compiling information - not foisting a platform but asking what platform makes the most sense to their neighbors.
Putting that information together by the voting district. Using that information to inform the local candidates what the people they hope to represent really want, what's foremost on their minds. Then passing from the grassroots up, not the from the elite down, from the local to the state to the national, where the listening campaign can be translated into a platform that reflects the wants and needs of the people in their kitchens and living rooms and backyards and places of work - where they live.
By 2018 we can actually say we have listened - we know what you want - we care - we have spent our dollars not on negative campaign ads but on listening - now listen to our platform - sound good?
A new Democratic party that goes back to it's old roots. The party of the people.
2
Just a couple of responses to a couple of quotes from this article,
“We are going to lose every possible winnable seat, in a year where there are many winnable seats, if we come across as inflexible left-wingers,” Mr. Cleaver said. “I respect Bernie — I just don’t think we can become the party of Bernie.”
I think that many voters may be inclined to rethink that approach after a few more months of the Donald Trump Presidency and Republican rule in Congress.
And as for,
“People are tired of the ideologues,” he said. “A lot of people, particularly in this area, did not like Bernie Sanders because of that kind of attitude. They didn’t like Hillary Clinton.”
So this makes Donald Trump and the Republicans palatable? The Republicans are not ideologues?
Where are the “moderates” amongst the Republicans?
America has a great asset in Bernie Sanders. Do not squander the opportunity that he presents for you.
“We are going to lose every possible winnable seat, in a year where there are many winnable seats, if we come across as inflexible left-wingers,” Mr. Cleaver said. “I respect Bernie — I just don’t think we can become the party of Bernie.”
I think that many voters may be inclined to rethink that approach after a few more months of the Donald Trump Presidency and Republican rule in Congress.
And as for,
“People are tired of the ideologues,” he said. “A lot of people, particularly in this area, did not like Bernie Sanders because of that kind of attitude. They didn’t like Hillary Clinton.”
So this makes Donald Trump and the Republicans palatable? The Republicans are not ideologues?
Where are the “moderates” amongst the Republicans?
America has a great asset in Bernie Sanders. Do not squander the opportunity that he presents for you.
2
Everyone should read Bill Bishop's "The Big Sort". His book shows how our country and our political parties have sorted themselves into more homogeneous groups, neighborhoods, religious groups, and political precincts. This is the sociology behind the Tea Party's ascent in the GOP. There is no middle in American politics. If the Democrats want to win, they need to capture their own base and not alienate them by pandering to the business and legal establishment.
1
I well remember my fellow Wisconsin Democrats' excitement when, partway through Walker's first term, the recall petition drive forced a new election. Unfortunately, the outcome of that election (Walker won, convincingly) transformed a Governor who even some of his own party thought was going too far into a Governor with a mandate. The entire recall drive "felt" great, but ended disastrously.
2018 is a real opportunity for Democrats. It is also incredibly important. Only a Democratic controlled House and/or Senate can limit the damage that Trump, Pence, McConnell and Ryan can do. The way things are going now the Republicans may not be able to prevent it. But we Democrats can if we let our differences on some admittedly important policy issues keep us from winning on the absolutely critical one.
Senator Sanders ego isn't helping.
2018 is a real opportunity for Democrats. It is also incredibly important. Only a Democratic controlled House and/or Senate can limit the damage that Trump, Pence, McConnell and Ryan can do. The way things are going now the Republicans may not be able to prevent it. But we Democrats can if we let our differences on some admittedly important policy issues keep us from winning on the absolutely critical one.
Senator Sanders ego isn't helping.
How quickly we forget the early polls in the past election. The ones that showed that Saunders would beat Trump, while Hillary wouldn't, if a hypothetical race had been held at that time. Of course no one expected Trump to be the candidate then, but the situation quickly became less than hypothetical. and what a surprise : Things turned out just like those early polls had predicted they would.
1
Some of us remember. The mainstream media told us those polls couldn't possibly be right and this paper ignored and/or dismissed them. It was *always* neck-and-neck between Trump and Hillary—polls showed that very early, before Trump got the nomination and before Wikileaks.
Bernie appealed to both Independents and Democrats. Hillary only appealed to Democrats, who are at most 40% of the voting public. She was always a risky candidate. Bernie would have won.
Bernie appealed to both Independents and Democrats. Hillary only appealed to Democrats, who are at most 40% of the voting public. She was always a risky candidate. Bernie would have won.
The party should go for one "liberal" item - universal healthcare. Moderates will be too easily scared off of too many perceived "socialist" agenda items. However the time is right to make the healthcare argument. It wasn't sold as well as it could've been. lets do it now.
When the youthful activists energized by Senator Sanders secure him the nomination, the American liberal media will do try to portray him as quixotic, impractical, idealist. The right wing media will present him as the second coming of Mao or Che Guevara. And the voters will ignore both.
We are tired of austerity & cutbacks at home and endless wars abroad.
We are tired of austerity & cutbacks at home and endless wars abroad.
I predict that Ossoff will lose because in Georgia it's not good enough for a Democrat to be even with a Republican candidate. The elections in Georgia are fixed so that in order to win a Democrat must be at least 10 points ahead in polls - then maybe he can win by a margin of 1 or 2 points. In addition to heeding their liberal base, Democrats must face the facts about gerrymandering, Interstate CrossCheck, strict voter ID laws, fewer polling places in Democratic-leaning areas, and a whole raft of other Republican strategies for keeping Democrats from voting.
This article doesn't mention it, but let's not forget that Bernie campaigned -- pretty vigorously -- for Hillary Clinton. The idea that progressives are hard-lined "militants," as this article suggests, is a tired, fatuous claim. If our party leaders and the national media presented progressive ideas—ideas that enjoy significant levels of popularity in this country— as the practical policy ideas that they really are and moved away from the internecine strife storyline, Democrats would have to worry far less about finding "centrist" candidates. If we moved toward the energy in the party and accepted that that energy comes from both an ideological and socioeconomically practical place, we would win as a united front.
2
"The Base Wants It All; The Party Wants To Win" is perhaps the most disingenuously framed heading I've seen in several months. The party amounts nowadays to little more than a career-building organization for lobbyists and corporate-driven marketing of pablum. How anyone on the heels of the Trump victory could view that as a place where "winning" happens is beyond belief.
1
The headline is a lie. The Times is a propaganda machine for the Establishment; it's not a news organization.
2
Anne is wrong; the NYT is a news organization.
But I agree with her and Bertrand: for a great newspaper, the NYT consistently has some of the least ingenious headlines, across the board, that I've seen. What's up with that?
I think NYT headlines had as much to do with Clinton's downfall as anything else did. But it's not just that; they're consistently misleading and conflicted. It's hard to know whether its just bad editing, or intentionally mincing words, or trying to appeal to a wide swath, or...what?
But I agree with her and Bertrand: for a great newspaper, the NYT consistently has some of the least ingenious headlines, across the board, that I've seen. What's up with that?
I think NYT headlines had as much to do with Clinton's downfall as anything else did. But it's not just that; they're consistently misleading and conflicted. It's hard to know whether its just bad editing, or intentionally mincing words, or trying to appeal to a wide swath, or...what?
1
Correct diagnosis, faulty prescription:
"Dumping Sanders as the voice of the Democratic party may lead to a better chance of winning the election. He really is an independent..."
Sanders is not a card-carrying Democrat, but most of his supporters are voters who usually support the Democratic candidate. That makes Sanders a "Democrat" for all practical purposes: The Democratic Party leadership can't afford to alienate his supporters -- at least if they'd like to win some elections.
"Dumping Sanders as the voice of the Democratic party may lead to a better chance of winning the election. He really is an independent..."
Sanders is not a card-carrying Democrat, but most of his supporters are voters who usually support the Democratic candidate. That makes Sanders a "Democrat" for all practical purposes: The Democratic Party leadership can't afford to alienate his supporters -- at least if they'd like to win some elections.
Both parties are distracted by money and power. Each party exists to help citizens with various aspects of everyday life and the last thing each party wants to talk about or do is help their fellow citizens. Many of us are going to die because of poor infrastructure; yet neither party is doing anything about infrastructure. Florida streets are frequently inundated by sea water that backs up through city sewer systems; but that global warming calamity is ignored. East and West Coast shore lines PLUS NYC are under real threat of flooding yet NO NATIONAL PLANNING is being done by either party. Cyber attacks will rob us of utilities, and monetary wealth but neither party has a defense plan or emergency recovery program. Each party wants funding support and votes ; but they do not to work for them like national parties did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
The National Democratic Party needs to refrain from trying to anoint a particular person the way they were trying to put Sec Clinton into the role as Democrat savior. The need to find a balance between the two ends of the spectrum. Each wing needs to remember the idea of compromise
The establishment approach the authors advocate is likely to work okay in GA-6, a wealthy suburban district of the type the establishment Democrats is trying to flip by, essentially, presenting themselves as not just pro-business but also sane and unlikely to cause PR disasters like Trump's daily tweets.
However, it will fail miserably nationwide. Thanks to our enormous wealth divide and the role it has in politics, there are a large number of people (c. 70% of the population) that has lost faith in all establishment politics. If you want to win back districts in the Midwest, for instance - a number of which are vulnerable at a ~38% presidential approval rating - plain-speaking left-wing economic populism is going to work better.
They could still omit the word "socialist" or focus very keenly on social justice issues besides economic inequality. Part of the Democratic Party's former base - working class voters of all races - are not so much left-wing zealots as people who have lost faith that the Democratic Party truly represents or cares about them. Many of these people voted for Trump, because at least he was different, and not part of the hated political establishment. Enough such voters could be won back by stuff that emphasizes Trump's betrayal of them on every issue that the Dems could take back the House in 2018.
But if they present themselves as the types of people who twiddle dials behind the bureaucratic scenes, while taking bankers' fees, 2018 won't go our way.
However, it will fail miserably nationwide. Thanks to our enormous wealth divide and the role it has in politics, there are a large number of people (c. 70% of the population) that has lost faith in all establishment politics. If you want to win back districts in the Midwest, for instance - a number of which are vulnerable at a ~38% presidential approval rating - plain-speaking left-wing economic populism is going to work better.
They could still omit the word "socialist" or focus very keenly on social justice issues besides economic inequality. Part of the Democratic Party's former base - working class voters of all races - are not so much left-wing zealots as people who have lost faith that the Democratic Party truly represents or cares about them. Many of these people voted for Trump, because at least he was different, and not part of the hated political establishment. Enough such voters could be won back by stuff that emphasizes Trump's betrayal of them on every issue that the Dems could take back the House in 2018.
But if they present themselves as the types of people who twiddle dials behind the bureaucratic scenes, while taking bankers' fees, 2018 won't go our way.
3
As long as humans accept to delegate their thinking by blindly adhering to one man and shouting his name as if he is one more illusory prophet, our mass politics will always be a massive dumbing down of the brilliance of our technological and subsequent societal evolution.
Terry Pratchett's Postal made a quite accessible explanation of the phenomenon for all to read.
Terry Pratchett's Postal made a quite accessible explanation of the phenomenon for all to read.
Single payer single payer can cripple the Democrats chances of getting a House majority. Sen. Sanders supported a single payer measure on Colorado's 2016 ballot. Colorado voters, who went for Hillary, defeated the proposal 80-20%.
Perhaps it's time for three parties to represent us: Left, Right and Center. So far, the latter has been trampled by extremists from both parties.
"The Party Wants to Win"? Really? Is that why, since 2008, they lost the House, the Senate a dozen governorships and nearly 1,000 seats in state legislatures around the country before losing the presidency to the least qualified candidate in the history of the republic? Is that why they took a billion dollars and set in on fire in Hillary Clinton's losing effort?
There is nothing at all pragmatic about the approach of Democratic Party insiders. They are the true ideologues who insist on running the same ideology that has done nothing but lose since 2008 at every level except for Obama's reelection in 2012.
The real story is that the base wants to win. The party doesn't want to offend its huge corporate donors.
There is nothing at all pragmatic about the approach of Democratic Party insiders. They are the true ideologues who insist on running the same ideology that has done nothing but lose since 2008 at every level except for Obama's reelection in 2012.
The real story is that the base wants to win. The party doesn't want to offend its huge corporate donors.
1
Yes, they want to win; but they never say why they want to win except to rule (not govern). There is nothing they bring to the table for the betterment of the US; they just want to win; no reason, just win.
Democrats must keep reminding people that Republicans want to strip away all Social Programs, Make Healthcare Unaffordable and don't support a Living Wage. On those issues Democrats are unified.
The base also wants to win. We also think party leaders have no clue how to do it.
A lot of people are economically struggling. You are not going to get these people's votes by telling them that America was doing just fine in 2016 and that your plan is to roll back Trump policies and then tinker a little bit. You have to offer a serious plan for change.
A lot of people have deep ties to regions that are far from growing, cosmopolitan cities. A lot of people don't have college degrees and can't realistically get them. You cannot win people's votes by saying, or implying, that they have a dying way of life and that they need to choose between accepting economic decline and moving and/or getting a degree.
A lot of people are rightly still angry about the financial shenanigans that led up to 2008. It will be hard to get these people's votes if you appear to be dependent on big donors, especially big donors from Wall Street.
A lot of people are economically struggling. You are not going to get these people's votes by telling them that America was doing just fine in 2016 and that your plan is to roll back Trump policies and then tinker a little bit. You have to offer a serious plan for change.
A lot of people have deep ties to regions that are far from growing, cosmopolitan cities. A lot of people don't have college degrees and can't realistically get them. You cannot win people's votes by saying, or implying, that they have a dying way of life and that they need to choose between accepting economic decline and moving and/or getting a degree.
A lot of people are rightly still angry about the financial shenanigans that led up to 2008. It will be hard to get these people's votes if you appear to be dependent on big donors, especially big donors from Wall Street.
The time for unity is over. Those of us who were in Philly at the convention know we never had a choice about who the democratic candidate would be. You always hear that we just think we had a choice. We saw it happen. We can no longer stand by and watch corporate democrats sell us down the river while they say they can't do what needs to be done. We can't have single payer health care like every other civilized country. we can't let the government make billions off of student loans while keeping people in debt. We can't raise the minimum wage so people can put food on the table. It's not about ideologues, it's about everyday people being able to afford to live in this country. The democratic party has lost its moral compass. We are not going back to a party without one. The democratic party has a choice. They can clean up their act or keep supporting people like Debbie Wassermann Schultz and can continue to lose.
2
I would be more willing to get behind Bernie Sanders and his progressive agenda if he would rejoin the Democratic Party. He seems to want it both ways: run as a Democrat for president, taking advantage of the Democratic Party structure, then revert back to being an Independent before the election is even over. If Bernie and his supporters are so confident in their message and so unwilling to compromise with the mainstream Democratic Party, form a Progressive Party and see what kind of support you get.
Strange attachement. By being an independent Sanders sends the right message to, by the way, hundreds of thousands of independent voters. The Democrat Party is a corrupt organization that needs to implode at once! Trump will be reelected if the DNC keeps its payroll intact.
1
The Dems will keep struggling because their base is divided: The better off middle class that is socially progressive but economically conservative (So well described a few days ago in https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-... versus the lower middle class partially lost to the Republicans that is socially somewhat conservative but economically progressive (sick and tired of the class based quality of health care, schools, etc.).
If the Democrats want to win in 2018 they will have to play both sides which means backing off on guns, religion, abortion etc. in rural areas while continuing the "Third way" in cities.
If the Democrats want to win in 2018 they will have to play both sides which means backing off on guns, religion, abortion etc. in rural areas while continuing the "Third way" in cities.
1
I agree with almost all of Sanders's policies, but this cult of personality that has sprung up around him may damage his progressive cause in the long-run. I would vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but I would also vote for pretty much any other Democrat running against Trump. However, the "only Sanders can fix America" attitude held by his most fervent supporters might lead to another pointlessly divisive primary battle like 2016 (which Clinton and DNC must also bear responsibility for.)
For an outsider it seems like the U.S. is ruled by corporate power with the means of legalized corruption on a gigantic scale, while the honorable U.S. citizens for decades, and in reliable polls, consistently have expressed different priorities.
I believe that the world would like this majority of peaceful Americans to take control of their country. Bernie Sanders and his followers is the hope for the future, and by that I mean the hope for the entire world as well.
I believe that the world would like this majority of peaceful Americans to take control of their country. Bernie Sanders and his followers is the hope for the future, and by that I mean the hope for the entire world as well.
3
You're completely right. Foreigners see this more clearly than Americans because the mainstream American press is complicit and corrupt. We are constantly subjected to anti-Progressive propaganda that supports the Establishment. This article is a prime example.
1
The window of opportunity for Bernie's progressive ideas has passed. Back during the great financial meltdown of 2008 would have been the ideal time to enact reforms for healthcare and education. The youth vote put their chips on Mr. Hope and Change who unfortunately was not FDR. So the common man revolted in the last election and we now have Trump. Bernie (who is a Socialist and not a Democrat) and the Progressives should stop trying to commandeer the Democratic Party because this will ensure that voters like myself will continue to vote Republican in the next election.
Hey Nino, I'm a socialist and a Democrat. They are not mutually exclusive. I've never met a Democrat who would even consider voting for a Republican, so your advice makes no sense. And FYI, I'm a 61-year-old Bernie supporter; stop blaming the youth.
I don't see Sanders or his platform as a divider. He won Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia in the primaries. He was leading Trump handsomely in head-to-head polls last summer. It's the DNC machine that needs to turn its ship around. It's a process. Sanders was popular because (1) he wasn't a machine politician, and (2) because he focussed on economic issues that are faced by all Americans, and soft-pedaled identity issues. He supported them, but they weren't the main focus in his speeches. So ''militant'' is a bit misleading.
1
The 2016 presidential election proved it is time for change. The GOP offered change and won, even with the most deeply flawed candidate in history.
1
I forgot, when did Bernie register as a democrat? I support him but we all must work together, independents and liberals and democrats to make change.
1
Why do you care what party he belongs to? I certainly don't. I'm a lifelong 61-year-old Democratic party member and he's the first candidate I've ever heard that actually sounds like a Democrat.
The democrats have become too committed to identity politics and the other cause célèbres of the chattering classes. Even worse, in deference to the interests of that class, they've come to endorse positions that are very harmful to the old democratic base on illegal immigration and free-trade, which is a big reason why they've become uncompetitive in the Midwest. Even if you believe that CA and NY ought to dictate policy, then the only way to change the system in order to make that happen is by winning enough support for that kind of change in the interior, and coastal democrats should not lose sight of that fact.
I'm voting for the candidate who pushes Single Payer Healthcare. I should have voted for Bernie instead of Hillary. Now I'm voting on my issues. Single Payer Healthcare is on top of that list. Bernie or whoever pushes that priority gets my vote.
2
Democrats are not good strategists. There seems to be zero preparation in the scenario of president Trump losing power in impeachment. If that happens,who will be the Democrats' leader. A says I am better than B,B says I am better than C,and so on. Instead of one upmanship,Democrats should spell out their policies on immigration,H1B visas and other issues,if they want to be a force to reckon with. Even if Trump loses,it may be possible that Republicans will vie for power,under a different leader. These two scenarios should form part of the Democrats' strategy.
The so called pragmatist lost the election. We been in this state since the DLC took the party to the right in the 90's. younger people have to step up to the plate Woman and Men. I just turned 72 and have seen us go from a state in progress and with people actually want to turn farther to the right.
History keeps repeating itself, why can't we learn to trust history?
History keeps repeating itself, why can't we learn to trust history?
Sanders is an inspiration. I agree with his "platform". In fact I may be more of a "socialist" in a dictionary sense than Bernie is. But Sanders is not the answer. The only important question to ask is: "How do we as modern minded (believe in real science), as inclusive and tolerant Americans regain control of government?
That will not happen by demonizing the Americans in the center of the country that have not shared in an economic recovery. That will not happen by tacking so far to the left that a clear majority is not achieved. If there was ever a time to establish the Democratic Party as a big tent, it is now. That requires allowing some reasonable dissent from Bernie's package of ideas.
There is in fact only one critical goal: crushing the Republicans.
But how? By using examples of typical Americans from the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, from Ohio, from upstate NY and Maine ... who are to be hurt when they lose healthcare, food assistance for children, etc. State the facts in human terms. And then use the "nuclear option". One TV ad destroyed Barry Goldwater's chances to beat Lyndon Johnson in 1964. One Youtube could do the same. Draw the line in the sand. ANY Republican who will not criticize Trump should now be vulnerable.
Big tent, big political guns.
Repeat after me: "Republicans have become the party of I. Democrats are the party of we."
That will not happen by demonizing the Americans in the center of the country that have not shared in an economic recovery. That will not happen by tacking so far to the left that a clear majority is not achieved. If there was ever a time to establish the Democratic Party as a big tent, it is now. That requires allowing some reasonable dissent from Bernie's package of ideas.
There is in fact only one critical goal: crushing the Republicans.
But how? By using examples of typical Americans from the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, from Ohio, from upstate NY and Maine ... who are to be hurt when they lose healthcare, food assistance for children, etc. State the facts in human terms. And then use the "nuclear option". One TV ad destroyed Barry Goldwater's chances to beat Lyndon Johnson in 1964. One Youtube could do the same. Draw the line in the sand. ANY Republican who will not criticize Trump should now be vulnerable.
Big tent, big political guns.
Repeat after me: "Republicans have become the party of I. Democrats are the party of we."
This article should be on the opinion pages. It's an editorial disguised as news and is nothing but anti-Sanders propaganda—the same nonsense that appeared in this paper throughout the 2016 primaries and helped give us Trump.
The real problem is that the current leadership of the Democratic Party—the Neoliberal, Clinton-loving, Republican-lite side of the party—has no particular interest in winning elections. Individual senators and congressmen are happy to retain their seats, but they couldn't care less if the party as a whole is in power or not. In fact, they seem to prefer to be in the minority; that way they can continue to collect campaign funds from Wall Street, but don't actually have to enact legislation that might upset their corporate donors.
The real problem is that the current leadership of the Democratic Party—the Neoliberal, Clinton-loving, Republican-lite side of the party—has no particular interest in winning elections. Individual senators and congressmen are happy to retain their seats, but they couldn't care less if the party as a whole is in power or not. In fact, they seem to prefer to be in the minority; that way they can continue to collect campaign funds from Wall Street, but don't actually have to enact legislation that might upset their corporate donors.
2
It is fun to be a rebel, but you're going nowhere with this stuff.
You want to change things? Join the party. Trump & Co are in the WH. That should now be your main focus - not HRC, not Republican-lite, not Wall Street, not corporate donors - not the "fun stuff," not the easy targets. Trump. We need your brains where they'll do the most good.
But if you prefer being a rebel then at least come up with your own cliches. You think you're sounding a cynical wake-up call but it's a rehash of the same rhetoric we all heard last year, and long before. Didn't work then; won't work now.
You want to change things? Join the party. Trump & Co are in the WH. That should now be your main focus - not HRC, not Republican-lite, not Wall Street, not corporate donors - not the "fun stuff," not the easy targets. Trump. We need your brains where they'll do the most good.
But if you prefer being a rebel then at least come up with your own cliches. You think you're sounding a cynical wake-up call but it's a rehash of the same rhetoric we all heard last year, and long before. Didn't work then; won't work now.
1
Many of Sanders' ideas are not radical. They were common in the Democratic Party 30 years ago. Since then they have been dropped one by one as "realism" prevailed. The result is a party that to a large extent defines itself as not being the - increasingly radicalized - Republican Party.
The problem of the "mainstream" left - in Europe too - is that it has has become a party of the administrators who just want to keep their seats. The real left - like Sanders in the US and Corbyn in the UK - is just as fanatically kept out of government as social democrats were in 1900.
The problem of the "mainstream" left - in Europe too - is that it has has become a party of the administrators who just want to keep their seats. The real left - like Sanders in the US and Corbyn in the UK - is just as fanatically kept out of government as social democrats were in 1900.
1
Sorry, not interested in voting for the Democratic Party just for the sake of "winning." I will vote for a party that represents me, not a party that represents corporations. Corbyn vs Blair, Sanders vs Clinton, same story. Vote left.
1
Just a reminder, say it again, Sanders is not a democrat.
1
The Bernie Sanders wing is about as helpful to the Democrats as the Tea Party wing is to Republicans. Each wing erroneously thinks most people think as they do and make it hard to build a broad coalition because they spend so much energy attacking would-be allies.
That's the easy part:
"The sooner Hillary goes away, the healing process within the Democratic Party may happen."
Most Democrats seem to agree on this: It's time for Hillary to ride off into the sunset, and to make clear to everyone that she's riding off into the sunset.
The harder part, for many Democrats, is to recognize that several other Democratic leaders must do the very same thing: Biden, Sanders and Warren, all of whom will be north of 70 years old at the next Presidential election. Indeed, Biden and Sanders will be closer to 80.
New blood -- that's what the Democratic Party needs. Unfortunately for those second-tier Democrats who might rise to the top, the old-timers refuse to take their hat out of the ring. The Democratic Party needs to insist that each of its old-timers -- Clinton, Sanders, Biden and Warren -- declare that they're hanging up their spurs (or that they indeed might run again), so the party can heal and move on.
"The sooner Hillary goes away, the healing process within the Democratic Party may happen."
Most Democrats seem to agree on this: It's time for Hillary to ride off into the sunset, and to make clear to everyone that she's riding off into the sunset.
The harder part, for many Democrats, is to recognize that several other Democratic leaders must do the very same thing: Biden, Sanders and Warren, all of whom will be north of 70 years old at the next Presidential election. Indeed, Biden and Sanders will be closer to 80.
New blood -- that's what the Democratic Party needs. Unfortunately for those second-tier Democrats who might rise to the top, the old-timers refuse to take their hat out of the ring. The Democratic Party needs to insist that each of its old-timers -- Clinton, Sanders, Biden and Warren -- declare that they're hanging up their spurs (or that they indeed might run again), so the party can heal and move on.
This brings to mind a delicate point. Why did Hillary Clinton lose the election? Forget the Russians and James Comey. She lost becasue she did not make common cause with Bernie Sanders and choose him as vice president. If there were ever a case of how to unite the Democratic Party in a similar way to how John F. Kennedy did it when he chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate, this was it. It was a no-brainer. Bernie had galvanized a new Democratic base. Hillary adopted almost every tenet of his agenda and it was all in the platform. As a journalist, I have written letters to both Clinton and Sanders, asking them to explain why this did not happen. Neither has answered.
It is not a contest between liberalism and pragmatism in the Democratic Party. In the post-2008 world, liberalism is the new pragmatism. Hillary Clinton owes her defeat to not understanding the new rules. If Democrats take as a model the 2006 campaign, they will loose. They will not take control of Congress by breaking with liberal orthodoxy, but by breaking with neo-liberal orthodoxy.
The policy differences between the Clinton and Sanders factions border on the trivial when compared to their policy differences with Republicans. This indisputable fact seems to be lost on many of the people leaving comments here.
Political parties have never been monolithic. Today's Republicans include both Tea Party activists and those who are close to middle of the road. For decades, the Democrats included pro-segregation Southerners and liberal Northerners. The Democrats can include both Sanders supporters and those from purple districts. Especially when you have a Republican party that spans so much of the political spectrum, it makes little sense for the Democrats to split in two. Of course, governing is more difficult for parties with broad spectrums. But all Democrats are fed up with Trump and oppose Ryan's machinations. That's a good start for getting things done. Moderate reform of health care, partial tuition support and traditional pro-job Democratic policies may not thrill anyone. But a start at reform is better than none.
Everyone has a right to and should have healthcare but free college is not a right. Not everyone needs to have a college degree for their career and not everyone is college material. While I am a social liberal I am also fiscally pragmatic. Usually I vote Democratuc but when pushed by a leftist agenda I do vote Republican.
Bernie's liberal popularity is because he has an economic policy, Socialism, whereas the Democrats have nothing that comes close to an economic policy. (Think about it, what is the Dems' economic policy?) The Democrats only have social issues on their plate. Social issues and Bernie's Socialism play well with the people that already vote Democratic but repels the rest of the electorate.
On economic issues, going back at least twenty-five years, the Democratic Party evolved into a Republican-lite party, such as by supporting NAFTA and repeal of Glass-Steagall legislation.
In the 2016 election cycle, the Democratic Party's Democratic National Committee showed that it is corrupt, by using super-delegates to ensure that the DNC's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be selected, by rigging the primary schedule to favor Hillary Clinton, and by leaking debate questions to Clinton.
Most of the Democratic Party's candidates financed their campaigns by accepting large campaign contributions from wealthy donors, supporting a pay-to-play dynamic, where the will of the voters is subverted to moneyed interests.
So we have a Democratic Party that walks and talks like Republicans on economic issues, has corrupt leadership, uses an unethical method to finance its political campaigns, and engages in political paybacks when its politicians get into office. Can someone please tell me why I should enthusiastically support the Democratic Party, nay, support it at all?
Where do we go from here? Senator Sanders needs to show real leadership, by taking a lead role in forming a new People's Party, a party that is truly progressive (unlike today's Democratic Party), and which discourages corruption by enforcing small-dollar campaign contributions for all of its candidates.
In the 2016 election cycle, the Democratic Party's Democratic National Committee showed that it is corrupt, by using super-delegates to ensure that the DNC's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be selected, by rigging the primary schedule to favor Hillary Clinton, and by leaking debate questions to Clinton.
Most of the Democratic Party's candidates financed their campaigns by accepting large campaign contributions from wealthy donors, supporting a pay-to-play dynamic, where the will of the voters is subverted to moneyed interests.
So we have a Democratic Party that walks and talks like Republicans on economic issues, has corrupt leadership, uses an unethical method to finance its political campaigns, and engages in political paybacks when its politicians get into office. Can someone please tell me why I should enthusiastically support the Democratic Party, nay, support it at all?
Where do we go from here? Senator Sanders needs to show real leadership, by taking a lead role in forming a new People's Party, a party that is truly progressive (unlike today's Democratic Party), and which discourages corruption by enforcing small-dollar campaign contributions for all of its candidates.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supporters are young, spoiled, and want to have everything for free because they feel entitled. They couldn't get their candidate for president so that sat it out and let Trump win. However, Sanders ran a good campaign. In order for Democrats to win again, they are going to have to connect with the millions who don't play video games and don't have a favorite barista. They also need a leader who will ensure that no one is left out of the next campaign. That means not forgetting about huge swaths of the country like the Hillary campaign did. Win the hearts and minds of those who drink beer with their meals, not some expensive chardonnay.
1
To the comment about Bernie Sanders Ideas not being new. Well, when most Democrats abandoned those Ideas to follow the money, he stayed, kept those ideas part of politics even when they considered unrealistic. That is why he is a better representative for ordinary Americans.
The base wanted Bernie. Bernie would have won.
This article continues the Times' tradition of negative coverage of Sanders. I suspect increasingly that your paper has a back room deal with the Democratic Party, where all reporters and columnists agree to as policy to undercut Sanders' influence.
However, Sanders is popular not because of his personal power; he is popular because he is attuned to the exact truth of the moment, which screams that America is a deeply class-riven and increasingly undemocratic society, and that this needs to be confronted head on. Those who worry about alienating voters and abandoning some center coalition are in denial that we are in a crisis, and despite their clever positions are going to lose elections.
However, Sanders is popular not because of his personal power; he is popular because he is attuned to the exact truth of the moment, which screams that America is a deeply class-riven and increasingly undemocratic society, and that this needs to be confronted head on. Those who worry about alienating voters and abandoning some center coalition are in denial that we are in a crisis, and despite their clever positions are going to lose elections.
The Democratic Party has been pulled so far to The right by Republican radicalism and propaganda that it will be difficult to get back to the center except by baby steps.
Although I support the majority of Bernie Samders's positions, I recognize that many Americans, lulled or driven into inattention by the "greatest" propaganda, need to be led to understand the changes in the world since we "won" World War II. We are, in many ways, the adolescent on the block. We have and have had some great statesmen, but if we are to get any closer to being "the shining city," to living up to the words on the Statue of Liberty, we must escape corporate and GOP propaganda and educate ourselves about the real demands of a stressed planet populated by stressed people.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of fake news, a lot of lies, and a very threatening Putin to overcome.
Although I support the majority of Bernie Samders's positions, I recognize that many Americans, lulled or driven into inattention by the "greatest" propaganda, need to be led to understand the changes in the world since we "won" World War II. We are, in many ways, the adolescent on the block. We have and have had some great statesmen, but if we are to get any closer to being "the shining city," to living up to the words on the Statue of Liberty, we must escape corporate and GOP propaganda and educate ourselves about the real demands of a stressed planet populated by stressed people.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of fake news, a lot of lies, and a very threatening Putin to overcome.
On the other hand, Hillary lost -- didn't she?
"Sander's followers are not the "base" of the Democratic Party. Those that supported Hillary are - the women, POC, and others that voted overwhelmingly for her."
That may well be, but don't forget that some voters who "supported Hillary" were Sanders supporters left with no practical alternative. They may not be the "base," but they're indispensable if the Democrats want to win. If the Democratic Party drives them away -- to the Republicans, to a third party, or just to stay home on election day -- the Democratic Party will lose again.
"Sander's followers are not the "base" of the Democratic Party. Those that supported Hillary are - the women, POC, and others that voted overwhelmingly for her."
That may well be, but don't forget that some voters who "supported Hillary" were Sanders supporters left with no practical alternative. They may not be the "base," but they're indispensable if the Democrats want to win. If the Democratic Party drives them away -- to the Republicans, to a third party, or just to stay home on election day -- the Democratic Party will lose again.
1
Personally I'm confused when people mix socialism and social democracy, both are very distinct.
Social democracy does not try to make everyone equal, it just tries to reach a certain minimum standard of living and tries to compensate for issues which are not caused by the people themselves.
A good example is education or care for those who got sick which would very well be social democratic positions. On the contrary this doesn't mean that you shouldn't give your best to do what you can with your given talents and skills.
Also people are usually not afraid to hand power to conservatives or social democrats because they're quite moderate so conservatives won't tear down all social security (they might still lower benefits) and social democrats won't build a socialist society.
So in my humble opinion it would suit the united states well if they had not only a de facto two party system but like 3-4 parties which would have an easier time catering to their voters' interests and at the same time need to compromise.
And yes, that system is far from being perfect but I think it helps containing the most radical elements by providing different paths so that moderates can often find compromises which work for the society as a whole.
Social democracy does not try to make everyone equal, it just tries to reach a certain minimum standard of living and tries to compensate for issues which are not caused by the people themselves.
A good example is education or care for those who got sick which would very well be social democratic positions. On the contrary this doesn't mean that you shouldn't give your best to do what you can with your given talents and skills.
Also people are usually not afraid to hand power to conservatives or social democrats because they're quite moderate so conservatives won't tear down all social security (they might still lower benefits) and social democrats won't build a socialist society.
So in my humble opinion it would suit the united states well if they had not only a de facto two party system but like 3-4 parties which would have an easier time catering to their voters' interests and at the same time need to compromise.
And yes, that system is far from being perfect but I think it helps containing the most radical elements by providing different paths so that moderates can often find compromises which work for the society as a whole.
49
Economic systems fall on a spectrum - in some senses, we already have social democracy (small sd) and the parties argue about what's good or not. I don't think we should move to Social Democracy. It is not something we can do and defend the ourselves and the world and with a people that are as diverse as ours.
Agree that I'd prefer multiple weaker parties. Our two main one are too mired in enmity, idealism and corruption. Then again, in some senses, we already have this with the Republicans, which have several different groups - fiscal, cultural, libertarian and, in the short run, Trump.
Agree that I'd prefer multiple weaker parties. Our two main one are too mired in enmity, idealism and corruption. Then again, in some senses, we already have this with the Republicans, which have several different groups - fiscal, cultural, libertarian and, in the short run, Trump.
"And yes, that system is far from being perfect but I think it helps containing the most radical elements by providing different paths so that moderates can often find compromises which work for the society as a whole."
Thomas Piketty co-authored a study that was published in December of 2016 that showed that the income for the bottom 50% of the population has stagnated since 1980. Wealth inequality has exploded, as has private debt, and the cost of healthcare and education have been far outpacing wage growth for decades, which the ACA only made moderately better (still the case, but the costs of healthcare has slowed a bit). We have a massive infrastructure gap. Global warming threatens human civilization, we have a species extinction rate many times the natural rate, and have to deal with ocean acidification, dead zones in the Gulf, among countless other things. Moderates have been in charge and have backed policies that led us here. Who looks at the trajectory of the country, as "moderates" seem to want to, and thinks that everything is fine, that we need nothing more than superficial changes? Relatively well off and out of touch people, and moderates are increasingly unpopular for perfectly logical and factual reasons, not because a bunch of people read Das Capital and saw the light. Moderates in most Western countries have put in place policies that have benefited the rich and have created a context in which Trump, Le Pen, the Golden Dawn and others could emerge.
Thomas Piketty co-authored a study that was published in December of 2016 that showed that the income for the bottom 50% of the population has stagnated since 1980. Wealth inequality has exploded, as has private debt, and the cost of healthcare and education have been far outpacing wage growth for decades, which the ACA only made moderately better (still the case, but the costs of healthcare has slowed a bit). We have a massive infrastructure gap. Global warming threatens human civilization, we have a species extinction rate many times the natural rate, and have to deal with ocean acidification, dead zones in the Gulf, among countless other things. Moderates have been in charge and have backed policies that led us here. Who looks at the trajectory of the country, as "moderates" seem to want to, and thinks that everything is fine, that we need nothing more than superficial changes? Relatively well off and out of touch people, and moderates are increasingly unpopular for perfectly logical and factual reasons, not because a bunch of people read Das Capital and saw the light. Moderates in most Western countries have put in place policies that have benefited the rich and have created a context in which Trump, Le Pen, the Golden Dawn and others could emerge.
Extremism is the same everywhere. Extreme populism is not a Democrat or Republican thing but a self-centered thing, even when the populists thought they were embracing a selfless cause. But in the end, extremists of both sides would stop at nothing to get what they want. Compromise is once again banished to the basement
15
If we had more than just the two major parties that inadequately represent "We The People" we would be heading in a better direction.
1
Taxing the few thousand people that control half of the world's wealth to invest in the People is not extreme. There is nothing extreme about what the left wants. We want get money out of politics and into schools, preventative healthcare and infrastructure. As long as the Democrats tow the billionaire line that there is no money, while 1% income grows by leaps and bounds, you will continue to lose two thirds of all elections.
You all make fun of poor people that vote against their interests, then you vote for a party that refuses to take a stand for you're interests.
You all make fun of poor people that vote against their interests, then you vote for a party that refuses to take a stand for you're interests.
1
The Democratic Party has been compromising for decades, to the point where it's where moderate Republicans were 40 years ago. The Democratic Party has compromised itself nearly to death.
2
The way I saw (and see) it, Sanders is a frumpy version of FDR. And I mean that as a compliment. Financial Times has an article in today's edition recapping its recent "conversation over tea and cakes" with Sanders, whom it calls "the most popular politician in the US. I'm sure that's accurate, and I am just as sure if the election were held today he would soundly defeat Agent Orange. And the nation, and the planet, would be a far safer, more hopeful place. If only...
15
While the Dems must stand clearly for something, there will always be more moderates, left & right, than there are people closer to the extremes. Pulling the party too far to the left will simply drive more of those moderates into the arms of the GOP. I consider myself to be a practical liberal. While I support the idea of universal health care, I do not believe that that is doable in the country now or in the foreseeable future.
The problem with extremists whether left or right is that they often are unwilling to compromise. We have seen the destruction of such a position with the ultra conservatives in recent years; the left is no better. Democracy, though, is not based on the view that I get 100% of what I want or else. Democracy is based upon the principle of compromise.
As to "free" health care and "free" college for all. That is nonsense. Healthcare is expensive, as is college. Someone must pay for it all. I support universal single-payer healthcare, but that usually is paid for by significantly higher taxes - and not just on the "wealthy." One way or another almost everyone pays for it - just as we do now.
The problem with extremists whether left or right is that they often are unwilling to compromise. We have seen the destruction of such a position with the ultra conservatives in recent years; the left is no better. Democracy, though, is not based on the view that I get 100% of what I want or else. Democracy is based upon the principle of compromise.
As to "free" health care and "free" college for all. That is nonsense. Healthcare is expensive, as is college. Someone must pay for it all. I support universal single-payer healthcare, but that usually is paid for by significantly higher taxes - and not just on the "wealthy." One way or another almost everyone pays for it - just as we do now.
18
Nobody ever said single payer is free. But, government provided single payer means there is no need to buy primary health insurance, and a lot of out of pocket expenditures go away. And employers who provide health insurance will no longer have to, allowing them to redirect money spent on expensive fringe benefits into cash compensation.
No, it is not free. But it is cheaper and more efficient. Or, is the rest of the industrialized world totally wrong?
No, it is not free. But it is cheaper and more efficient. Or, is the rest of the industrialized world totally wrong?
23
RM -- do you mean "single payer" literally, or do you mean "medicare for all?" Your arguments apply to MFA, not SP.
SP wipes out the primary market of health insurance (there would almost certainly continue a market for plans yielding additional coverage, like "medicare advantage" insurance today).
Whether SP saves the public money overall depends on that ugly question of "cost controls." It would have about a 5% efficiency advantage over corporate insurance -- but could lose that quickly with poor cost controls, and the public doesn't like cost controls.
On paper MFA would save the public a lot, because Medicare reimbursement rates are low by industry standards (i.e., strong built-in cost-control). But it would be a big economic shock to healthcare, and there are questions of whether many hospitals could survive without some other payments.
The equity issue in healthcare does move me -- I do see basic healthcare as a necessary civil right in a modern society. But i strongly caution every liberal/progressive to avoid fantasy "build it and they will come" thinking.
Neither SP nor MFA automatically restructures American healthcare to make it fundamentally more efficient and less costly. That restructuring will be very hard to do, and socially very hard to enact. It will take more than a generation, because it means changing the health care people are trained, what their roles within the system are, and what they are paid.
SP wipes out the primary market of health insurance (there would almost certainly continue a market for plans yielding additional coverage, like "medicare advantage" insurance today).
Whether SP saves the public money overall depends on that ugly question of "cost controls." It would have about a 5% efficiency advantage over corporate insurance -- but could lose that quickly with poor cost controls, and the public doesn't like cost controls.
On paper MFA would save the public a lot, because Medicare reimbursement rates are low by industry standards (i.e., strong built-in cost-control). But it would be a big economic shock to healthcare, and there are questions of whether many hospitals could survive without some other payments.
The equity issue in healthcare does move me -- I do see basic healthcare as a necessary civil right in a modern society. But i strongly caution every liberal/progressive to avoid fantasy "build it and they will come" thinking.
Neither SP nor MFA automatically restructures American healthcare to make it fundamentally more efficient and less costly. That restructuring will be very hard to do, and socially very hard to enact. It will take more than a generation, because it means changing the health care people are trained, what their roles within the system are, and what they are paid.
This is what I always tell people that complain about higher taxes for single payer government ran health care...that they ought to be paid more money from their employer in compensation when they don't have to pay for their health care any more. If I'm not mistaken my employer pays about $17,000 a year for my family's plan. I'd be thrilled to see $8,500 back in more pay.
Who "turned the White House orange"?
It was Barack Obama, who discouraged Joe Biden from running.
It was those SuperDelegates, who committed to Hillary at the outset of the nomination process, giving her a head start that chilled other viable candidates from running. The party seems to have forgotten that SuperDelegates were created to act at the end of the primary process in the event of no definitive winner. Instead, it was perverted into giving one candidate a head start on the primary process.
Democrats who sat back and allowed Wasserman-Schultz to turn the primary process into a fixed game.
Rank and file Democrats who confused their desire to elect a woman with the need to try to elect the most polarizing woman candidate.
When a dog won't eat tainted dog food, don't blame the dog.
It was Barack Obama, who discouraged Joe Biden from running.
It was those SuperDelegates, who committed to Hillary at the outset of the nomination process, giving her a head start that chilled other viable candidates from running. The party seems to have forgotten that SuperDelegates were created to act at the end of the primary process in the event of no definitive winner. Instead, it was perverted into giving one candidate a head start on the primary process.
Democrats who sat back and allowed Wasserman-Schultz to turn the primary process into a fixed game.
Rank and file Democrats who confused their desire to elect a woman with the need to try to elect the most polarizing woman candidate.
When a dog won't eat tainted dog food, don't blame the dog.
28
Obama worked closely with Biden. Nice guy, not too smart.
Same bombastic anti democratic rhetoric against the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. "Tainted dog food"? Seriously?
Though the superdelegates have never altered the outcome of a Democratic primary and have always supported the person who won the primaries, the Republicans may have wished that they had superdelegates.
Though the superdelegates have never altered the outcome of a Democratic primary and have always supported the person who won the primaries, the Republicans may have wished that they had superdelegates.
1
Joe Biden, really?? I say the dogs need to stop being led by lies, inform themselves and understand the truth.
We spend much more on health care than other countries. If we decrease our spending on health care, people will lose their jobs and career paths and some of their investments will go sour. The same is true of military spending. We generally leave it up to such people to fend for themselves, with no guarantee that places will be available for them to transition to, especially since we do not embrace full employment as an important official goal.
Actually, unnecessary spending on health care or the military are monster jobs programs of make-work jobs that could be eliminated by reorganizations based on efficient and cost-effective ways of doing things. Such ways would, for example, shrink medical insurance companies and medical advertising, because medical decisions should be based on expertise and not marketing prowess. Saving money on congressional staffs is a jobs program for lobbyists, who wind up writing and evaluating many of our laws, and are paid much more than congressmen, much less staffers, who they outnumber in any case.
Moderates want to let these things basically be, and just run things better, and progressives want substantial changes that will disturb things as they are. Republicans also want substantial changes that they say will actually fix things, but in reality they are lousy at keeping things functioning, much less fixing them. But they do know how to lower taxes.
Actually, unnecessary spending on health care or the military are monster jobs programs of make-work jobs that could be eliminated by reorganizations based on efficient and cost-effective ways of doing things. Such ways would, for example, shrink medical insurance companies and medical advertising, because medical decisions should be based on expertise and not marketing prowess. Saving money on congressional staffs is a jobs program for lobbyists, who wind up writing and evaluating many of our laws, and are paid much more than congressmen, much less staffers, who they outnumber in any case.
Moderates want to let these things basically be, and just run things better, and progressives want substantial changes that will disturb things as they are. Republicans also want substantial changes that they say will actually fix things, but in reality they are lousy at keeping things functioning, much less fixing them. But they do know how to lower taxes.
3
After the Neolib/Neocon Bankster friendly worker disliking Hillary lost the general election, the NeoLib/NeoCon Democratic establishment of Banksters & BigMoney wing of the Democratic party are in the same position vis-a-vis the Sandernistas that the GOP-Eisenhower Establishment types were vis-a-vis Reagan after Gerry Ford lost to Jimmy Carter.
Neither their policies nor their politics work. This has to do w/ the mechanics of supply & demand, once you hit a saturation point with either supply or demand bias policies, they no longer are efficacious. There's simply no way to get around the law of supply & demand. Now we're in supply side saturation. Their policies can't work, so their politics can't win. This isn't a matter of opinion, its a matter of mechanics.
Hey back in the 1970s, it was the same thing only reverse: it was the era of stagflation, inflation without growth, aka demand side saturation.
So the BigMoney/Bankster/Neolib wing of the Democratic party has to be removed from the front benches to the back benches. Sorry guys you lost. What's more, you can't win. In fact you won far too much for far top long than what was good for the country. Obama's extension of supply-side bias policy bias has warped our country into the frankentrump dystopia nightmare that we are living through.
In the age of Trump, the idea of the Democratic Neolibs calling Bernie & his sandernistas crazy is patently absurd. The world would be a 1000% better place today had Sander's won.
Neither their policies nor their politics work. This has to do w/ the mechanics of supply & demand, once you hit a saturation point with either supply or demand bias policies, they no longer are efficacious. There's simply no way to get around the law of supply & demand. Now we're in supply side saturation. Their policies can't work, so their politics can't win. This isn't a matter of opinion, its a matter of mechanics.
Hey back in the 1970s, it was the same thing only reverse: it was the era of stagflation, inflation without growth, aka demand side saturation.
So the BigMoney/Bankster/Neolib wing of the Democratic party has to be removed from the front benches to the back benches. Sorry guys you lost. What's more, you can't win. In fact you won far too much for far top long than what was good for the country. Obama's extension of supply-side bias policy bias has warped our country into the frankentrump dystopia nightmare that we are living through.
In the age of Trump, the idea of the Democratic Neolibs calling Bernie & his sandernistas crazy is patently absurd. The world would be a 1000% better place today had Sander's won.
45
Who lost?
Last I checked, Hillary won the popular vote nationally by over 3 million.
In addition, she won the primary and beat Bernie by 3.8 million votes. This was such a huge win, that even if all of the super delegates were nixed, Bernie would not have even come close to winning. So all that "rigged" stuff was baloney, the primary was not even close. Trump then picked up on all of Bernie's wild malarkey and ran with it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/25/donald-tr...
I also disagree that there is a "BigMoney/Bankster/Neolib wing of the Democratic party."
Hillary gave 92 speeches, all of them after leaving office, and only 3 of them were to Goldman for her average fee of 225,000. So, this was only a little over 3% of her income from speeches. These were also events and some had multiple speakers, Elon Musk even spoke at the event here in AZ, Tim. So how does this equate to being in the pocket of big banks? It doesn't, but Bernie tried to frame it that way and created a whole new generation of wild conspiracy theorists in the process.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/
As we have seen from the GOP, not dealing with facts is not a good way to be.
Last I checked, Hillary won the popular vote nationally by over 3 million.
In addition, she won the primary and beat Bernie by 3.8 million votes. This was such a huge win, that even if all of the super delegates were nixed, Bernie would not have even come close to winning. So all that "rigged" stuff was baloney, the primary was not even close. Trump then picked up on all of Bernie's wild malarkey and ran with it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/25/donald-tr...
I also disagree that there is a "BigMoney/Bankster/Neolib wing of the Democratic party."
Hillary gave 92 speeches, all of them after leaving office, and only 3 of them were to Goldman for her average fee of 225,000. So, this was only a little over 3% of her income from speeches. These were also events and some had multiple speakers, Elon Musk even spoke at the event here in AZ, Tim. So how does this equate to being in the pocket of big banks? It doesn't, but Bernie tried to frame it that way and created a whole new generation of wild conspiracy theorists in the process.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/
As we have seen from the GOP, not dealing with facts is not a good way to be.
31
Super Delegates were created to act at the end of the primary process, in the event of no clear winner, or an unelectable winner. Instead, it was perverted into giving one candidate a head start before the primary process even started. Seeing that they would start from way behind and have no support from the top magnitude elected Democrats, other viable Democratic candidates were chilled from even entering the race.
Bernie Sanders entered, and apparently, not being a Democrat, never got that message.
The process was rigged to nominate the most polarizing candidate, with the least likelihood of winning. Democratic voters were treated as dogs who, having no other options, would eat whatever dog food they were presented, no matter how foul.
Surprise, surprise. And it was everyone's fault but their own.
Bernie Sanders entered, and apparently, not being a Democrat, never got that message.
The process was rigged to nominate the most polarizing candidate, with the least likelihood of winning. Democratic voters were treated as dogs who, having no other options, would eat whatever dog food they were presented, no matter how foul.
Surprise, surprise. And it was everyone's fault but their own.
5
Some witty expression
The Democratic base is upset because the party bigwigs DON'T want to win. They would rather use the outrages of Trump and other Republicans to just raise money.
46
The sooner Hillary goes away, the healing process within the Democratic Party may happen. Biden was robbed of a chance because of stupid politics. Trump is right about one thing, the system is rigged.
37
Biden didn't run because he was in mourning over the loss of his son. If you haven't lost someone close to you, you might not be able to understand how emotional pain eclipses so much of one's functioning mind and the only way to deal with it is to let the pain run its course which can take one to two years normally speaking, sometimes longer, almost never shorter unless one is emotionally abnormal.
26
Tim, that was an explanation, not a reason. It was to answer the question, "Why aren't you running?"
Agree with Tim Kane of Mesa. Biden also didn't run because he thought that Hillary would make a good President.
Sanders is misogynistic socialist usurper of Democrats leading bunches history devoid Millennials for Trump to win White House. He and Trump obverse same coin both requiring allegiance to their ideas over country. And neither has sacrificed a darn thing. We don't want any Sanders granddaddy or King Trump.
53
Wow Sanders and Trump are the same? Lol!
2
Ask the people of Vermont how they like Sanders. He is the real deal and actually works for the people.
2
Sorry, but as a child of the 60's and a life long democrat, I have to disagree with you. Sanders spoke to the voters in a way that Hillary did not. The Democratic party had long since abandoned the liberal wing. They called it "Hippie Punching". They allied with Wall Street and flat out said that people who wanted more, people who wanted a better life, people who were not donors, had no where else to go. I voted for Hillary. I can't believe that the Clinton machine, the inventors of the "War Room" were so tone deaf and arrogant as to ignore the rising frustration and rage of the "losing class". But they were, and she lost. Hillary lovers hate Bernie and his supporters. They blame them for her loss. I voted for her, but I blame her for her loss. I blame the DNC. I blame the democratic party for selling out. Instead of continuing to marginalize and demonize Bernie Sanders, we all need to unite under a message of a better life for all, instead of a magnificent life for a few. By the way, Parik, it wasn't "Sanders Grandaddy" that appealed to me, it was the message. I wanted a woman to be president more than you can imagine. It was the message.
Again the Bernie/Progressive bashing. Their is no justification for labeling the progressive wing "militant" other than to smear it. Also, the Base does wants to win and the Party should listen. 2016 demonstrated the Party either doesn't know how to win or prefers to heel to its corporate donors. The Party leaders who successfully lost to Trump need to go.
99
Wrong. 2016 demonstrated that petty squabbles destroyed the ability of Democrats across the board to win.
Bernie was a tactic not a goal.
Back in June 2015 many of us believed Clinton would lose; one just had to look at the states.
By November 2015 many of us "knew" that if Trump won Clinton was absolute toast and had drawn our Electoral College map by January 2016 that matched exactly how Trump won.
Yet the DNC/Clinton were shocked. Many of us weren't, we just shook our heads and wondered at the stupidity of it all.
The Democrats being "Republican lite" is not working, not for the people and not for the party.
The DNC wants to become a national party then they need to change. Stop blaming us who have been pointing out the problem for the past 20 odd years.
Back in 1972 the DNC blamed the loss on the lefties putting up McGovern. Nixon had a 60% favorability rating. No one was going to beat him. But they blamed the lefties and started walking back from the people -- and here we sit.
Democrats want to become a national party -- then don't look to billionaires and start actually looking to the people and their needs. From the opoid among rural Americans, from inner cities with a 60% drop out rate, from the lack of adequate housing and healthcare. Start looking at the people and their needs.
It's time to step aside and let the "younger generation lead" -- throw the old guard out. I say this as a baby boomer.
Want to win -- then change.
Back in June 2015 many of us believed Clinton would lose; one just had to look at the states.
By November 2015 many of us "knew" that if Trump won Clinton was absolute toast and had drawn our Electoral College map by January 2016 that matched exactly how Trump won.
Yet the DNC/Clinton were shocked. Many of us weren't, we just shook our heads and wondered at the stupidity of it all.
The Democrats being "Republican lite" is not working, not for the people and not for the party.
The DNC wants to become a national party then they need to change. Stop blaming us who have been pointing out the problem for the past 20 odd years.
Back in 1972 the DNC blamed the loss on the lefties putting up McGovern. Nixon had a 60% favorability rating. No one was going to beat him. But they blamed the lefties and started walking back from the people -- and here we sit.
Democrats want to become a national party -- then don't look to billionaires and start actually looking to the people and their needs. From the opoid among rural Americans, from inner cities with a 60% drop out rate, from the lack of adequate housing and healthcare. Start looking at the people and their needs.
It's time to step aside and let the "younger generation lead" -- throw the old guard out. I say this as a baby boomer.
Want to win -- then change.
69
I agree also as a baby boomer
1
From 1968 until 2008, the country had just 12 years of a Democratic Presidency. Eight of those years were the responsibility of Bill Clinton at which time we had minimal war, rising wages for all income groups - essentially peace and prosperity for all. It was a major step in the progressive direction.
We failed to build on it. In 2016 we failed to build on Obama's limited success. The voters need to get out and vote, and not be swayed by propaganda, regardless of the source.
America has never succeeded without consistent long term effort. There is no overnight miracle. Progressive voters need to understand that.
We failed to build on it. In 2016 we failed to build on Obama's limited success. The voters need to get out and vote, and not be swayed by propaganda, regardless of the source.
America has never succeeded without consistent long term effort. There is no overnight miracle. Progressive voters need to understand that.
Opioid abuse in rural America is just a consequence of its widespread use. Obesity, diabetes, and other chronic health problems run rampant here and pain management is a major issue with these. Real physical pain is the norm in many rural communities. Only Bernie and Trump seem mindful of this - and that's why they had true, grass-roots support. This paper and the democratic establishment are elitists, either corrupt or clueless.
1
The "militant wing."
Or those standing up for the Democratic Party's long-held core ideals and stated goals.
You can do better than this, New York Times.
Or those standing up for the Democratic Party's long-held core ideals and stated goals.
You can do better than this, New York Times.
95
Sander's followers are not the "base" of the Democratic Party. Those that supported Hillary are - the women, POC, and others that voted overwhelmingly for her. Sander's followers are more likely to be independents, not Democrats.
63
The Hilbots tried to assemble a collection of minority groups in hopes of winning the election with them while Hillary was bound to the banksters and obviously loathed white working class. The problem with that strategy is that minorities are still minorities and it takes majorities to win. Moreover, with white working class people killing themselves in record numbers, its obvious that they were desperate for a champion. Trump at least spoke to their concerns. Hillary just could not. It was obviousl that any attempt to was contrived. Still, if she had nominated Bernie as her VP instead of Tim Kaine, she would have picked up enough worker and milennial votes in 3 states to win the presidency. That she couldn't bring herself to do that reminds me of Chamberlain unable to talk to Stalin to contain Hitler because Chamberlain loathed bolsheviks.
25
Sanders supporters are the new base of the left. If the Democrats don't want a base on the left, then they should try to find one on the corporate"center."
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
1
That's actually rubbish. A Harvard University and Harris Poll recently showed that Bernie is far more popular among women and people of colour than he is among white men. He was also far more popular with women under 45 than Clinton ever was. No-one voted overwhelmingly for Clinton - she lost to an insane, fascist, orange reality tv star. Time to stop drinking her campaign's Kool Aid.
Sanders supporters ARE the base of the Democratic party AND the Independents. See what a landslide that would be?
Sanders supporters ARE the base of the Democratic party AND the Independents. See what a landslide that would be?
1
The Democratic party is broken (if not finished). It's focusing not on "The People", but it's own self interests which has nothing to do with the common people.... Hillary goes on and on about why she lost and isn't in Office 'as was her right", with a million blames, other then herself. Her focus? To be the first woman president, Period. Bernie supporters go on and on about Bernie, but is he in the Democratic party???
Then there's Perez..... Geez... Democrats! You serious about winning some House seats in 2018???! Then get serious in building your platform! Attacking Trump, and his "Trumpazees" isn't going to work (it'll backfire. big time!). Build a party with actual thoughts, solutions, plans for the common Americans. Maybe then you'll have a chance.
Then there's Perez..... Geez... Democrats! You serious about winning some House seats in 2018???! Then get serious in building your platform! Attacking Trump, and his "Trumpazees" isn't going to work (it'll backfire. big time!). Build a party with actual thoughts, solutions, plans for the common Americans. Maybe then you'll have a chance.
30
Despite Sanders not being in the Democratic Party, he was ready to deliver millions of new voters to the Democratic Party. All you had to do was vote with them.
Now you're still rejecting them. Even after Trump won. You still expect Republicans to vote for a Democrat? You need to talk the people that don't vote (the working poor) into voting for you. Republicans won't.
Now you're still rejecting them. Even after Trump won. You still expect Republicans to vote for a Democrat? You need to talk the people that don't vote (the working poor) into voting for you. Republicans won't.
This is so delicious. The Democrats are fighting amongst themselves. This is such good news for the Republicans.
17
Even better news, for Democrats, is a Republican president who, just 4 and a half months into his term of office, has historically low approval ratings and is facing an investigation by a special counsel. Going into 2018, he'll be toxic. Compared to that, intra-party squabbling is a trifle.
4
Which as usual, is bad for the country.
NA -- it's terrible news for all Americans, Democrats included, that we have Trump as our duly-elected President, and he is turning out to be the disaster many of us thought he would be.
Do not include me among those on the left who play the "Nacht Hitler, Uns!" game ... that the communists played in 30's Germany. That sure did not work out well.
Do not include me among those on the left who play the "Nacht Hitler, Uns!" game ... that the communists played in 30's Germany. That sure did not work out well.
Disappointing to see NYT already jumping on the anti-Bernie hackery ahead of midterms. The DNC elite are out of touch and NYT remains their loyal apologist.
This is a question of real change which, however messy and imperfect, is no less necessary.
This is a question of real change which, however messy and imperfect, is no less necessary.
93
Here we go again. Maybe we can get Hillary to run again, right NYT? trump won because he did not pander to mainstream republican ideas. He grabbed the most radical right-wing ideas and wrapped himself in them like a cloak. Polls be damned. Little Marco and low-energy Jeb never stood a chance. Dems need to wrap themselves in the best liberal ideas and own them. People are craving authenticity. They are sick of pandering. They want politicians that will do the right thing, even if it hurts them. There's no shame in losing if you are fighting for what's right.
64
Hillary should not run again, but she would have been so much better that Trump. I will never believe that Bernie could get elected. As a life long Democrat I could not have voted for someone who is so angry and divisive. That said single payer in 2019. Take the House and Senate and make it so. Then impeach Trump and make Pence irrelevant.
1
"He (Trump) grabbed the most radical right-wing ideas and wrapped himself in them like a cloak."
No, he promised a mix of policies that he could not deliver as a Republican, like more comprehensive healthcare and protection of Medicare Medicaid and Social Security.
Like Obama he promised no foreign entanglements, which hasn't worked in either case.
Be pro but be realistic.
No, he promised a mix of policies that he could not deliver as a Republican, like more comprehensive healthcare and protection of Medicare Medicaid and Social Security.
Like Obama he promised no foreign entanglements, which hasn't worked in either case.
Be pro but be realistic.
Tim- if you were an habitual reader of the NYT, you would know that no one (excluding paranoid conspiracy mongers)
has been more critical of both Clintons, to the point of obsession, than the NYT since the early 1990's.
has been more critical of both Clintons, to the point of obsession, than the NYT since the early 1990's.
As long as the progressives keep deluding themselves thinking that everyone thinks like they do else people are ignorant, they will continue ensuring Republican Party dominance.
38
Bernie was the most respected and popular candidate among both Democrats and Republican running in 2016. He was the ONLY progressive candidate.
1
Just older, not wiser I'm afraid.
1
If people don't recognize that the mainstream overall establishment Democratic Party is corrupt and essentially accepts legal bribes, then they are ignorant.
I can't believe I'm surprised by this headline, but I am. Let me break this down slowly for you: "Wanting It All," for the base, includes winning. Knowing what "it all" is and being willing to fight for it, in every race, is our strategy.
The DNC's strategy (as distinct from "the Party," to which many in "the base" belong,) is not, actually, to win; it might be their wish, even their dream. No, their strategy is to Not Lose. That's it. Despite having proven spectacularly unsuccessful, and continuing to do so. "Not Losing" is triage; it's about keeping self-identified Democrats in the fold. Winning, or "Having it All" is about making the argument, changing the tide, and giving the millions of people who didn't vote or threw it away last time a reason to care, a reason to trust, and a reason to fight.
The DNC's strategy (as distinct from "the Party," to which many in "the base" belong,) is not, actually, to win; it might be their wish, even their dream. No, their strategy is to Not Lose. That's it. Despite having proven spectacularly unsuccessful, and continuing to do so. "Not Losing" is triage; it's about keeping self-identified Democrats in the fold. Winning, or "Having it All" is about making the argument, changing the tide, and giving the millions of people who didn't vote or threw it away last time a reason to care, a reason to trust, and a reason to fight.
29
Even according to the meat of your own article, your neat binary "split-screen" analogy between Conservatives and "militants" breaks down when, as you point out, Sanders is backing Ossoff in GA. Accurately pointing out that Ossoff is not a progressive and supporting him anyway, as he (and most of us) supported Hillary Clinton, arguably makes Sanders' followers the pragmatists, here. The difference was that, once more Liberal candidates were chosen in other special elections, the DNC's "strategy" was not to give them the resources they needed.
1
So ironic for "Bernie or Busters" to say the Democratic Party didn't want to win.
If you don't think there was a reason to care, trust or fight you just weren't paying attention; or you were too busy sucking in the fake news and innuendo.
Result: Donald Trump.
Pay attention. Get your facts straight and vote responsibly.
Result: Donald Trump.
Pay attention. Get your facts straight and vote responsibly.
Well, if the ball wasn't otherwise moved forward by this article, at least we all learned the following:
1. Bernie Sanders supporters learned they were all "militants," at least according to the NY Times. It appears that many of them hadn't thought of themselves as "militant," but now they know.
2. If some reasonably impressive young Democrat emerges from the now-suppressed second tier, many Democrats will eagerly support him or her, just to free the party from its present dead-end septuagenarian "leadership."
1. Bernie Sanders supporters learned they were all "militants," at least according to the NY Times. It appears that many of them hadn't thought of themselves as "militant," but now they know.
2. If some reasonably impressive young Democrat emerges from the now-suppressed second tier, many Democrats will eagerly support him or her, just to free the party from its present dead-end septuagenarian "leadership."
34
Without the seats in the House and Senate won by centrist Democrats, the far-left Democrats will not have a platform to turn their ideas into legislation. It would be possible if this had been the era in which Democrats had securely controlled Congress, but it's not. Before Democrats can run with great and big progressive legislation, they need to learn how to crawl first by winning in unlikely places and generating momentum.
88
In national races and in most parts of the country, the Democrats will never win by being "Republican Light."
Quit being a milquetoast wimpy Democrat. The Democratic Party needs to stand FOR something.
It is time for the next generation of FDR Democrats to stand up and be counted.
Quit being a milquetoast wimpy Democrat. The Democratic Party needs to stand FOR something.
It is time for the next generation of FDR Democrats to stand up and be counted.
1
I would disagree. You win by looking long term and by exuding leadership and promoting your ideals. The Democrats now in red and blue states are viewed as business as usual establishment which isn't working. Reagan was elected twice despite polls showing people liked the man but disagreed with much of his agenda. When his Presidency was over, he turned the country rightward. The Democrats need to do the same. Develop an agenda that will work and promote it. Right now they don't stand for anything.
The Democrats are more of a lackluster mobilization outfit than a political party. They feature a few personalities and big money. They couldn't organize a two-car funeral these days.
13
The Gop and Trump have no business being part of politics in a modern democracy. They are basically contemptuous of the citizen majority. They've Fox News to spread their version of a fake 'democracy' to a gullible, uninformed public glued to infotainment reality tv news.
But the extremist Gop and unbalanced Trump are so useful for the centrist establishment Dems. And for their media defenders. The Dems only have to look better than the Gop, to wear a halo for many Dem voters. Their drawbacks are simply ignored.
It's overlooked how Dems compromised with the Gop and the corporate donors on Wall St regulations, health care, jobs, voc training, trade. taxes, education funding, unions, etc. This way Dems can stay tethered to their funders for the billions they need to beat Trump, while appearing as saints to the electorate who are horrified by Trump. What a great deal.
Biggest tip off---with Dems we don't see strong action or talk for what every other world democracy has--true Medicare for all even as they were proud of ACA, a high cost inadequate system. Our h/c is the world's biggest most profitable and we pay more for drugs than any nation.
Both parties think it's unAmerican to interfere with profits in any way. Many voters buy into this.
To keep their donors happy, will Dems now go for Trump voters, or their liberal neglected base? Where is their base going to go? I'll vote Dem. I have no choice.
But the extremist Gop and unbalanced Trump are so useful for the centrist establishment Dems. And for their media defenders. The Dems only have to look better than the Gop, to wear a halo for many Dem voters. Their drawbacks are simply ignored.
It's overlooked how Dems compromised with the Gop and the corporate donors on Wall St regulations, health care, jobs, voc training, trade. taxes, education funding, unions, etc. This way Dems can stay tethered to their funders for the billions they need to beat Trump, while appearing as saints to the electorate who are horrified by Trump. What a great deal.
Biggest tip off---with Dems we don't see strong action or talk for what every other world democracy has--true Medicare for all even as they were proud of ACA, a high cost inadequate system. Our h/c is the world's biggest most profitable and we pay more for drugs than any nation.
Both parties think it's unAmerican to interfere with profits in any way. Many voters buy into this.
To keep their donors happy, will Dems now go for Trump voters, or their liberal neglected base? Where is their base going to go? I'll vote Dem. I have no choice.
18
Dumping Sanders as the voice of the Democratic party may lead to a better chance of winning the election. He really is an independent and he can form his own party which will lose.
25
Turmoil within the Democratic Party. Who knew?
10
Sorry,but there is nothing new & different about Bernie. So some people have liked what could be some ideas of end results that they may like,but Bernie has never delivered & the majority of Americans would not support. Rehashing Iraq,Vietnam,etc. gets us nowhere. President Obama laid out a plan & policies to get us somewhere but the Bernieites never did show up,did they? So yes ,Bernie ,please start the "People's Party".
22
If Bernie starts the People's Party your beloved faux centrist Democrats would have to move towards them anyway because it would be hollowed out from all the people that want people first / no corruption / no legal bribery policies vacating the Democratic Party.
While you liberals, democrats, and progressives fight over the left the Republicans continue their slow motion coup d'etat. You all better wake up soon as they're almost there.
36
Best yet!
6
This article mentions how the Democrats won before by emulating Republican policies. That was before the districts were gerrymandered to the point where that strategy can't work even if we wanted it to. The Democrats can not win by trying to imitate the Republicans. Republican light is not an effective strategy. The Democrats also need to get it in their heads that they cannot out money the Republicans. Even if they can do it in one race it is not going to happen in race after race after race. We don't want and can't win an escalating war for money. The Ossoff campaign is like a money begging machine with stupid childish emails begging for cash up to three times a day, . Bernie is not asking for a total change to socialism and very few of us want that. We would like to have is a return to a more equitable sharing of the wealth and policies that favor the 99% and not the 1%. This is an easy sell because it fair, just and works for the vast majority. All the Democrats need to do is go with the change that is coming and stop fighting it. What have they got to lose by trying after their current dismal failures?
31
I suggest you look at how many states Bernie Sanders won during the actual primaries, contests where he had to win the popular vote as opposed to winning caucuses by getting his crowd to show up and shout by crowd.
Bernie failed miserably in REAL primaries—not because of any manipulations by the DNC but because actual DEMS didn't/wouldn't vote for him!
Bernie failed miserably in REAL primaries—not because of any manipulations by the DNC but because actual DEMS didn't/wouldn't vote for him!
Pocket book issues are everything to the majority. Democrats must address those issues and save the social issues for legislating after they win Congress. If you show all your cards during the game, you lose like the past election.
How will I feed and House myself? That's my first priority in life.
How will I feed and House myself? That's my first priority in life.
25
I have visited Atlanta. Not that impressed.
5
I have visited Dallas. Not that impressed either. Podunk.
But I liked the people I met. :-)
Sincerely yours,
Atlanta
But I liked the people I met. :-)
Sincerely yours,
Atlanta
1
Atlanta is a lot prettier and more impressive than Dallas.
2
I am so sick of Bernie Sanders AND his groupies.
28
Are you? Ah well. We can't enough of this compassionate, wise and courageous leader.
Then I hope you have good healthcare coverage, lady cause they ain't going away.
I hear you. I am sick of the news, the media personalities, the Russians, the Congress, the politics, the whole hot mess that started in 2015 and just won't go away until, apparently, no one is happy and the country is in ruins. The 'progressiveness' will make sure of that.
Four words:
Bernie Sanders
Jeremy Corbyn
Bernie Sanders
Jeremy Corbyn
15
Four more words:
Neither. won. a . majority.
Neither. won. a . majority.
Can't we get some new blood in the Democratic Party? Bernie, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, and Elizabeth Warren--oh and Joe Biden too: get out! Americans deserve a basic decent standard of living. We all don't need to live like Trump, but good healthcare, a living wage, and accessible education at all life stages should be a given. Who is ready to practically oppose the present oligarchy? Millions are ready to vote for you!
16
Bernie get out? Bernie's an Independent. Plus, to include him in with all those corporatists shows not that you want "new blood" but you're just ageist. Bernie's the only decent human being in the bunch. If you want good healthcare, a decent wage, accessible education at all life stages then somehow you may not realize it but YOU WANT BERNIE.
What is the record of accomplishment over the past 15 years the Democratic establishment can point to justify that their stranglehold on the party apparatus should continue? They voted en masse for the Iraq War; they were silent as the now all-pervasive surveillance state was built and made formal; they were open to discussing and making "grand bargains" to reduce Social Security and Medicare if the deal was right; they were right there to bail-out Wall Street and its CEO grandees in the 2008 crash while, at the same time, had no problem leaving the average Joe, the victim of the grandees' actions, to somehow struggle upright on their own; they stood deaf when Americans clamored that those responsible for the crash be held culpable and accountable; once they had anointed their candidate for president in 2016, they were fine with keeping a heavy finger on the scale at the DNC so that her path to the actual nomination stayed smoothed, lied that they were doing so when confronted, and then went silent when the DNC e-mail hack confirmed it was so; and, losing a 2016 election they should not have lost, and increasing even more the 900+ Democratic seats that have been lost at the state and national level since 2009, continue regardless to say, "Trust us. Everything is fine here. We know what we are doing."
Their remedy for the mess they have created? Why, more of the same, of course, if those dang pesky folks clamoring for change would just shut up, or, better still, go away.
Their remedy for the mess they have created? Why, more of the same, of course, if those dang pesky folks clamoring for change would just shut up, or, better still, go away.
31
Before taking up your question, answer first what is Bernie Sanders' record of accomplishment over the past 30 years in Congress? And here's another one: since we all know it's nothing, why should any one follow him?
2
His record of accomplishment? Opposing, vocally, every one of the calamitous actions I enumerated in my comment, all of which were enthusiastically embraced by the Democratic Party establishment; came from a position of being a nobody on the national stage to galvanizing, mobilizing, and bringing into the system huge numbers of formerly disengaged and discouraged potential Democratic voters; battled the anointed Democratic nominee in the primaries to near-victory, and likely would have won the nomination had the Party not sanctioned the DNC conducting itself in a way that vitiated the founding principles of its charter; campaigned all over the country for the chosen nominee; and, post-election, has continued with passion to devote his time, effort and focused energies to further building the progressive movement within the Democratic Party. Oh, and one other thing? In the bargain, he is viewed more favorably, by some 20 points, than any other politician or political figure in the United States.
Over to you. How about your folks? How do they compare?
Over to you. How about your folks? How do they compare?
DNC is rotten to the core.
Have to keep in mind how/why top brass in DNC came to be-
just to be in power is their raison d'etre;
they are basically the ruthless manipulators and swindlers,
riding on their ability to sweettalk the working class and minorities,
luring them with the siren songs of
"free benefits for all, and you don't have to work",
This trick has been working for the 'poor masses' all the time, everywhere- results you see in Europe today.
Have to keep in mind how/why top brass in DNC came to be-
just to be in power is their raison d'etre;
they are basically the ruthless manipulators and swindlers,
riding on their ability to sweettalk the working class and minorities,
luring them with the siren songs of
"free benefits for all, and you don't have to work",
This trick has been working for the 'poor masses' all the time, everywhere- results you see in Europe today.
5
Bernie STILL refuses to release his taxes even though he promised to do so before the Phily convention last summer. (He doesn't want his followers to know his net worth or that he probably pays a tax rate of approximately 14%—nowhere near his fair share!)
And Jane Sanders is now being investigated by the FBI for possible fraud in filling out a bank application loan she submitted as president of Burlington College.
And Jane Sanders is now being investigated by the FBI for possible fraud in filling out a bank application loan she submitted as president of Burlington College.
1
The message should be work together, work together, work together.
11
I agree. It bugs me that even standing there facing Trump, people are arguing among themselves. Trump's a clear and present danger. A serious danger. At least, that's how he seems to me.
1
in agreement with several writers as Reagan said, well, there you go again when you try and paint sanders as some bug-eyed loonie. the unneeded members of that genre are the whiny "safe-space" campus fascist wannabes who pull dumb stunts like at middlebury collegewith charles murray, anyone else who considers themselves an "identity politics" person, anyone who cares which bathroom is used and of course, the black lives matter people. these are the ones who the right has successfully (and easily) portrayed as bug-eyed lunstics, not sanders who is for such not-lala-land ideas like equal pay, universal healthcare and making the diseased greedy pay their fair share. and here's your opening line;
a 50% tax cut for working people, ie W-2 income. you make that up by taxing the lazy class and their dividends, capital gains and interest income at the same rate as peoples wages.......
and then you let the mouthpieces for the diseased greedy who've stolen about everything that wasnt nailed down the last 30 years stumble, yammer, obfuscate and try to come up with some rationale why the lazy class should be taxed at half what W-2 wages are. and keep it that simple. try explaining the "reason" for that to the 300,000 people that cursed us with the orange disaster.
either put distance between the looney members of the left or just fold the tent and go home. calling out W-2 vs lazy income also makes the hillary limo liberal and "designer eyeglasses" types choose a side. we're waiting...
a 50% tax cut for working people, ie W-2 income. you make that up by taxing the lazy class and their dividends, capital gains and interest income at the same rate as peoples wages.......
and then you let the mouthpieces for the diseased greedy who've stolen about everything that wasnt nailed down the last 30 years stumble, yammer, obfuscate and try to come up with some rationale why the lazy class should be taxed at half what W-2 wages are. and keep it that simple. try explaining the "reason" for that to the 300,000 people that cursed us with the orange disaster.
either put distance between the looney members of the left or just fold the tent and go home. calling out W-2 vs lazy income also makes the hillary limo liberal and "designer eyeglasses" types choose a side. we're waiting...
4
Has anyone at the NYT ever read a bio of FDR or indeed any pre-1970s democrat (e.g. LBJ) and bothered to ponder why their domestic policies were very popular?
In the ever-relevant words of FDR (who won 4 terms without Ross Perot's help): "In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government. The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values."
One would think from reading this publication that the Clintons had discovered some sort of magical recipe for winning elections that can never be deviated from...and this despite the fact that Bill Clinton came to power only because out of sheer luck Ross Perot was running at the same time. Whatever success his ilk (e.g. Obama) have derived from triangulation has worn off.. people are more sick of corporatism and republican-litism than ever before.
In the ever-relevant words of FDR (who won 4 terms without Ross Perot's help): "In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government. The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values."
One would think from reading this publication that the Clintons had discovered some sort of magical recipe for winning elections that can never be deviated from...and this despite the fact that Bill Clinton came to power only because out of sheer luck Ross Perot was running at the same time. Whatever success his ilk (e.g. Obama) have derived from triangulation has worn off.. people are more sick of corporatism and republican-litism than ever before.
36
How to appeal to post-Trump dems:
1. Be honest
2. Be direct
3. Don't dumb down your message
4. Give realist economic answers to advocates of socialism
1. Be honest
2. Be direct
3. Don't dumb down your message
4. Give realist economic answers to advocates of socialism
11
Stop “It’s Bernie’s fault BS” please. There is no evidence to support that. Also stop the “He is not a Democrat” stuff. Neither was I until he ran in the primary. If you are unhappy that Bernie ran as a Democrat, then ask yourself if it would have been better for him to run as an independent? Most of the people who supported Bernie supported Hillary. I supported Hillary with money and time. Both Hillary and Bernie would have been happy to see the other in office, because they know their ideals would have had expression through the other.
The net-net is Bernie’s supporters aren’t going away. There are going to be many new progressive candidates and many democrats and independent voters will support ‘Bernie’ style candidates. Give them a chance. We will probably find that they aren’t going to turn America into a commune or a collectivist farm. And Bernie supporters should know there will always be corporate influences in government. We live in a capitalistic system. I hope the wealthy and corporate donors understand that there are changes coming. More progressive programs are coming, because they have to come. Our system, as it stands today, is not sustainable. Lack of affordable healthcare, a crumbling infrastructure, a captured political class and the bottom 90% of Americans receiving a decreasing share of the wealth generated in this country is not sustainable.
The net-net is Bernie’s supporters aren’t going away. There are going to be many new progressive candidates and many democrats and independent voters will support ‘Bernie’ style candidates. Give them a chance. We will probably find that they aren’t going to turn America into a commune or a collectivist farm. And Bernie supporters should know there will always be corporate influences in government. We live in a capitalistic system. I hope the wealthy and corporate donors understand that there are changes coming. More progressive programs are coming, because they have to come. Our system, as it stands today, is not sustainable. Lack of affordable healthcare, a crumbling infrastructure, a captured political class and the bottom 90% of Americans receiving a decreasing share of the wealth generated in this country is not sustainable.
31
And the booming red states with big blue cities—TX, GA & AZ—where Hillary outperformed Obama in 2012 aren't going away either!
And those states did not/will not vote for Bernie Sanders! Note to Bernie & the media: There are more states with more people who HAVE benefited from NAFTA etc than states that have not.
And those states did not/will not vote for Bernie Sanders! Note to Bernie & the media: There are more states with more people who HAVE benefited from NAFTA etc than states that have not.
5
oops-- remind me just how badly HRC lost those states
2
I'm probably not a Bernie guy, and have been an avid Hillary supporter, but I think that single payer health care is a sane fiscal approach; and as a beneficiary of basically free public and private post-secondary education in the late 50's and early 60's, I want that for all future generations as well. Don't emphasize the split; focus on the common goals.
37
If you were a Sanders Democrat who wouldn't vote for Clinton, I hope you learned your lesson. In the end we MUST end the Republican nightmare.
22
I voted for Jill Stein and I'll vote Green again.
You can keep your corporate Democrats and Republicans.
You can keep your corporate Democrats and Republicans.
4
If you were a Clinton Democrat who wouldn't acknowledge the evidence of her unelectability, I hope you learned your lesson. In the end telling people they MUST do something is the surest way to get them not to do it.
Death by quicksand is not a compelling alternative to death by gunshot. And in case you didn't notice, despair is killing more people among white working-class adults than the height of the AIDS epidemic.
Death by quicksand is not a compelling alternative to death by gunshot. And in case you didn't notice, despair is killing more people among white working-class adults than the height of the AIDS epidemic.
16
I was for Sanders and voted for Hillary
. I learned my lesson. Never do that again. Ny times, wallstreet for Hillary and she lost ignoring states. My mistake tobote for her.
It is time for Sanders and health care, etc.Forget Hillary wing of party. Just out of date.
. I learned my lesson. Never do that again. Ny times, wallstreet for Hillary and she lost ignoring states. My mistake tobote for her.
It is time for Sanders and health care, etc.Forget Hillary wing of party. Just out of date.
11
Do they realize that the base is The People and the Party are the Politicians that can't win without the base? They've lost over 1000 seats so far. Time for a different strategy. Like, wining with policies for The People.
23
Exactly!
Bernie has been in DC for over 25 years. Please tell me specifically what he has accomplished for "The People" you're referring to in all that time?
As a Trump supporter, my views of the Democratic tension may not mean much. But here goes...
Trump won primarily because he convinced old-school, blue collar Democrats in swing states to support him. Many of these Democrats, especially those in manufacturing areas, were globalization losers who lost jobs or faced wage pressure.
The U.S. shareholder class became globalization winners by using immigration to push down wages and offshoring of production to low wage, high pollution, low worker safety countries.
We have two paths forward. We can equalize the playing field for the "losers" by restricting immigration and applying surcharges to products from high pollution/low worker safety countries. Alternatively, we can claw back the lost social wealth from globalization winners via higher taxes.
If Democrats would embrace one or both policies, they could reclaim enough swing state voters to notch major wins. Therefore, in my opinion, the Democrats need to move left of economic issues.
Trump won primarily because he convinced old-school, blue collar Democrats in swing states to support him. Many of these Democrats, especially those in manufacturing areas, were globalization losers who lost jobs or faced wage pressure.
The U.S. shareholder class became globalization winners by using immigration to push down wages and offshoring of production to low wage, high pollution, low worker safety countries.
We have two paths forward. We can equalize the playing field for the "losers" by restricting immigration and applying surcharges to products from high pollution/low worker safety countries. Alternatively, we can claw back the lost social wealth from globalization winners via higher taxes.
If Democrats would embrace one or both policies, they could reclaim enough swing state voters to notch major wins. Therefore, in my opinion, the Democrats need to move left of economic issues.
33
There are more people in this country who HAVE benefited from globalization than there are people who have not.
I'm not American, but I have American family in RI and Mass. They all have good jobs, so their worries were not about jobs, but the integrity of the USA. Ohh, they struggled with who to vote for! They hated Clinton, thought her a criminal (WAY WAY before the release of Clintons emails, and therefore "Russia"), but they also struggled with Trump.... But the more Trump talked, the more they saw his vision. The more Clinton spoke the more they saw her inadequacies.... Trump's speeches had a vision, Clinton's speeches just attacked Trump... And America voted... And CORE America went for Trump.... And if Dems want to change that, then you better come up with damn good leader with great ideas FOR THE COMMON AMERICANS..... Until you do, you're lost....
John, see my reply to WMK above. Couldn't you have found somebody more decent and effectual than Trump? Or are Trump's faults the message?
1
The Democratic Party is like a bird with two wings. We the farsighted idealism of Sanders, but equally the practical experience of seasoned of politicians and workers. If one wing says to the other I will not flap because the other is not doing its part or has a slightly different perspective then the bird will not fly.
I find this whole discussion disturbing and pointless because this wounded duck is helpless in the water because it has forgotten how to fly. In the sixties President Johnson and Martin Luther King worked together admittedly imperfectly towards the goal of Civil Rights legislation. We need both points of view if we are to accomplish anything.
I find this whole discussion disturbing and pointless because this wounded duck is helpless in the water because it has forgotten how to fly. In the sixties President Johnson and Martin Luther King worked together admittedly imperfectly towards the goal of Civil Rights legislation. We need both points of view if we are to accomplish anything.
Bernie Sanders offered the possibility of a beginning to reverse the have-have not society we are becoming. If you don't think this is important, consider the, ahem, sanguine ending it will likely result in if things progress as they are.
Secondly, he is serious about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I believe that much of what is called "social injustice" is economic injustice. Racism et al exists, of course. But at the least, MONEY exacerbates it. If the Democratic party can't earnestly talk about The Money and propose real changes, then it sure won't have my support.
Secondly, he is serious about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I believe that much of what is called "social injustice" is economic injustice. Racism et al exists, of course. But at the least, MONEY exacerbates it. If the Democratic party can't earnestly talk about The Money and propose real changes, then it sure won't have my support.
24
So here I am....a free market liberal.....stuck between Donald and Bernie.......both similar in tone if not substance.........both wish to dictate and own me.......two sides of the same coin.
16
You don't know Bernie, I'm afraid. Ask a Vermonter about the degree of overlap between him and Trump.
12
I grew up with both Bernie and Donald....I know them very well.
3
John S.,
Your kidding right?!
Sanders has ranted the same inequality, justice, working man shtick for over 40 yrs in office. He has lived and breathed and legislated everything he espouses. The man literally walked the walk and was jailed for it.
Trump is and has been a grifter since his daddy gave him his first millions. He has lived a life of grand and petty theft and cons. He brayed out the most evil populous things to rile the deplorable masses and now has gone back on every single one of his campaign promises. Much to his zombie followers that couldn't care less. As long as the "other" is hurt or at the least made to look small. The Authoritarians dream. They now have a bully daddy.
"Two sides of the same coin"?! Dude! WAT~!
Your kidding right?!
Sanders has ranted the same inequality, justice, working man shtick for over 40 yrs in office. He has lived and breathed and legislated everything he espouses. The man literally walked the walk and was jailed for it.
Trump is and has been a grifter since his daddy gave him his first millions. He has lived a life of grand and petty theft and cons. He brayed out the most evil populous things to rile the deplorable masses and now has gone back on every single one of his campaign promises. Much to his zombie followers that couldn't care less. As long as the "other" is hurt or at the least made to look small. The Authoritarians dream. They now have a bully daddy.
"Two sides of the same coin"?! Dude! WAT~!
8
Bernie lost Florida, remember? His own people in the condos voted for Hillary. Bernie is too old and should RETIRE.
15
Newsflash for you - Hillary lost Florida too.
16
Bernie's people live in the Green Mountain State - not in "condos". Florida, like NY, is controlled by the Democratic machine.
My first and last thought was has the NYTimes reduced itself to "concern trolling"?
Real,politically analytical journalism has been having a rough ride for the past few years. See the 96% probability of electoral victory for HRC in the closing weeks of the past election. See the apothesis of Comey from archvillain to hero.
I find it sad that the NYTimes has debased itself to the point that HRC can claim that she is a leader of the "Resistance" , whereas Sanders is a sabot throwing radical.
Real,politically analytical journalism has been having a rough ride for the past few years. See the 96% probability of electoral victory for HRC in the closing weeks of the past election. See the apothesis of Comey from archvillain to hero.
I find it sad that the NYTimes has debased itself to the point that HRC can claim that she is a leader of the "Resistance" , whereas Sanders is a sabot throwing radical.
29
What about a new "New Deal"? FDR did it; why can't a democratic candidate do it again? Whoever gets elected will inherit a scorched isolated environment.
Think new!
Think new!
23
New York Times would be better off giving Sanders and his base some decent ink. I subscribe and I back Bernie
37
I subscribe but I'm about to end it. Fool me once...
14
This is a newspaper, not a party organ. Bernie will get some decent ink when he deserves it.
1
Wealthiest country in the world????? Yet throughout our cities humans are sleeping and dying on the streets. Will the Democrats address this paradox? What do they propose? If Senator Schumer and other of the so called leaders represent the strong voice of the Party, they seem more like the silent minority with no urgency of becoming otherwise.
17
What we call Democrats, in Canada and other countries, would be split into two major parties - Labour and Liberal. There is much overlap and agreement between these, but two distinctive perspective are more clearly articulated.
There is great tension now in USA in trying to bridge these critical perspectives in one party.
There is great tension now in USA in trying to bridge these critical perspectives in one party.
13
I can't remember the last NYT article I read where the Tea Party caucus, or any other far-right group, has been described as "militant." Apparently, the term is reserved for people that think that global warming is a serious problem, that income-inequality has skewed out political system in favor of the wealthiest, and that our foreign policy has become too interventionist, especially where corporate profits are at stake.
38
It is infuriating when conservatives try to govern without a thought to the opinions of liberals. It is likewise wrong when we liberals try to govern without consideration for the opinions and feelings of moderate conservatives. The more idealogically broad a government is, the more bipartisan support it will enjoy and the more successful it will be. Bold, new ideas are wonderful, but it is critical to ask how we can work with the other side of the aisle.
4
C'mon folks. Get your act together. Each race will have its own needs. We are not going to do this. I can't stand this. Omg. Stop fighting and wake up, our democracy is at stake.
7
The Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy disappeared during the Left's decades of anger over Pres. Ronald Reagan's success in the 1980's. By the 2000 political races, the Dems who hated communism, loved the U.S., and tried to follow God were shoved out the door.
The actual Democrat workers the party once admitted it needed are still religious, patriotic, and know there are things governments must never try to do. The progressive wing is more or less as Soviet as Bernie the millionaire.
Oh, isn't it interesting how the media never ask Bernie about that? And now, the WaPo even christened itself free from ever having to balance its overage.
Trump is just so icky, you know.
The actual Democrat workers the party once admitted it needed are still religious, patriotic, and know there are things governments must never try to do. The progressive wing is more or less as Soviet as Bernie the millionaire.
Oh, isn't it interesting how the media never ask Bernie about that? And now, the WaPo even christened itself free from ever having to balance its overage.
Trump is just so icky, you know.
5
The Bernie Bros are the same people who nominated George McGovern in 1972, before Reagan, & Walter Mondale during Reagan.
Vermont is a small state. We know Bernie well. (I'm a former resident.) Ask VTers if Bernie is legit. You may not like what he says, but he is authentic.
It is like we are in a perfect storm. The corrupt, authoritarian GOP has taken control of the government and is actively protecting a man with no principles or values except wealth and power and who is actively destroying our relationships with allies as well as key democratic norms. The media struggles with holding any of them accountable especially the GOP leadership who are doing nothing to provide oversight for this corrupt regime. The president seems to have fired anyone and everyone who has sought to hold him accountable including Yates, Bharara, and Comey in what looks very much like an effort to obstruct justice. If there ever was a time for a special prosecutor, not a weaker version like the council, this would be it. The GOP has retaken the Supreme Court that has already sided with gutting voter protections and is actively pushing forward with conservative judicial appointments with no filibuster. And now, now, when our country requires everyone, right, left and center who cares about our future as a democracy, a time that demands unity, thee guys are picking this fight right now? Come on Sanders. If you want to be a leader, lead at this moment which requires unity. We can work on a more progressive party later. Our country must be saved first.
16
What's weighing down the Democratic Party is that it's not energized by inspiring party figures, does not have a recent track record of delivering on core democratic principles, and for years has been absent a strong center. The party allowed Liberalism to be demonized by republicans. Democrats even acquiesced to the outward redefinition of the party by embracing the "progressives" moniker. Even allowed Republicans to diminish the party by calling it the "Democrat" Party rather than the Democratic Party. The only hope for the party is to be bolder and tie into its history of standing up for the disenfranchised.
The time is now for the American Left to define itself within the Democratic party and determine if they have the strength to split and be relevant. Are you a Corporatist or an Individual? THAT is the question.
29
This article appears to have been recovered from a time capsule. Do you understand anything about the current state of politics in America?
14
Half the country has a household income of $52,000 or less. All of those people would benefit if the demands of "the base" became law. And, all of those people suffer as a result of Republican efforts to eliminate taxes on the wealthy. Yet, these articles are invariably written as if gearing a campaign to the vast majority of Americans who fear for their economic future is some sort of wild-eyed idea. The conventional wisdom is that the party platform must be pro Wall Street, and the trick to winning is to not offend suburbanites with household incomes of over $100,000. That is precisely why the factory workers who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 gave up on the Democrats, and voted for Trump in 2016.
31
Jim -- your "conventional wisdom" is a straw man. Nobody in the Democratic party thinks that you can win national elections by being "pro wall street," and winning only suburban households with incomes over 100K$.
Lots of Obama-voters just didn't vote -- not enthusiastic about HRC, but not going to vote for Trump either.
As it turned out, you can look at it as
narrow votes in some rust-belt states put Trump in office, or
losing Florida did
But claiming "factory workers" cost her the election is nuts; there aren't enough of them to matter, and most real factory workers do vote Democrat.
Lots of Obama-voters just didn't vote -- not enthusiastic about HRC, but not going to vote for Trump either.
As it turned out, you can look at it as
narrow votes in some rust-belt states put Trump in office, or
losing Florida did
But claiming "factory workers" cost her the election is nuts; there aren't enough of them to matter, and most real factory workers do vote Democrat.
1
Democrats should listen carefully to Sanders message. He articulates well the principles that the party should stand for. He focusses on the issues people care about, jobs, education, healthcare and providing a more level playing field to allow people to succed and live productive lives. Importantly, he gets his message through without drowning in the diversity topics along the way, even though he fully supports them.
23
NYT is going after Bernie Sanders -- again! This paper and its sister paper the Washington Post are one of the main REASOS we have Trump! Sanders could almost surely have beaten Trump, but Hillary was the choice of the two papers of record, Sanders was vilified in the early contests, and here we are! They're doing it again now.
47% of eligible voters didn't vote. If we assume that only 2 percent was due to suppression, we can easily say that 45 % of the population felt it didn't matter or there wasn't a choice. Maybe the Democratic Base should get what it wants. Maybe the voting public should get a candidate that can give them a real reason to go to the polls.
(Also, could we get instant run off voting?)
(Also, could we get instant run off voting?)
10
Surely you jest. The outcome of this election is proof that it does matter and there was a choice. Bernie and his followers, in part, birthed Trump.
I find it had to believe that free college tuition is now an issue. It's early 1920's, my father and his brother, orphaned at age 13 and 14, flip a coin. One will go to college, the other will work to put him through. My dad wins, so my uncle goes to Berkeley, graduates with honors. He helps to design the P-38 [that plane was a major factor in winning the war in the Pacific], is in charge of electrical system design for the Douglas Aircraft DC-8, twice president of the Aircraft Electrical Society. If there had been no free tuition then, his skills most likely would have been lost to society. How many like him are we losing today?
25
The Democratic party showed it's colors when they steam rolled the base with Clinton and Tom Perez. I've heard all the lies about "Clinton won more Votes than Sanders though!". Well, thats bound to happen with CNN giving her all the debate questions and the party and Goldman donors going full in for her.
Sanders, Warren, Harris can just forget about it in 2020. You'll get whomever the Super Delegates decide that you'll get. Likely Mario Cuomo.
The writing is already on the wall for 2018. Tom Perriello is about to get hooked for Northam and that will be a scene thats repeated again, and again, and again.
Sanders, Warren, Harris can just forget about it in 2020. You'll get whomever the Super Delegates decide that you'll get. Likely Mario Cuomo.
The writing is already on the wall for 2018. Tom Perriello is about to get hooked for Northam and that will be a scene thats repeated again, and again, and again.
17
Independent voters are wary of neo-liberal Democrats, not the Sanders wing.
25
I am an independent and am wary of both.
Absolutely!
5
This analysis says a lot more about the reporters and the general attitude of the Times toward what they seem to think are "extremists"; i.e., regular citizens who want government to be able to help us folks, instead of those already rich in power and money. NYTimes articles about the so-called left are always condescending and critical. According to most Times stories, we haven't thought anything through; we're just lazy bums who demonstrate because of nostalgia, or because we have nothing better to do.
It's tiresome, NYTimes, very tiresome. And all too predictable. The NY Times: the newspaper for the residents of the Shining City on the Hill.
It's tiresome, NYTimes, very tiresome. And all too predictable. The NY Times: the newspaper for the residents of the Shining City on the Hill.
27
The Democratic Party took a leftist tilt during the Obama administration, and was basically wiped out at the local, state, and federal level. So Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren may fire up rallies, but they are unlikely to win back the house and the White House.
15
Obama was symbolically progressive (because of his racial make-up) - and this was a great and historical thing. But politically, he was very centrist. His cabinet pick (made by Axelrod the year before) said it all. Those from Chicago knew him as a competent and politically-savvy, high achiever - but not a progressive. Bernie is a true progressive - the real deal (and VTers know this). Elizabeth Warren is a party-faithful, "left wing" Democrat. Politically liberal, but establishment all the way.
9
Hillary Clinton was a huge mistake. And she did not do a great job of campaigning.
How can anyone worry about and campaign on health care and various "rights" BEFORE working on getting the economy of the country working for ALL its citizens? Trump made that the choice, and made it his message, and even if he is personally worse than a fool, it was the better message. And he ran the smarter campaign: he won, and with fewer votes.
There also has to be some recognition of the ignorance and idiocy of the right wing people in the USA: They simply hate black people and gays and everyone else not white and ignorant like them. They cherish order and authority above all, and hate new things and uncertainty. They are not going to vote Democratic any time soon, if ever. There has to be some effort to appeal to independents who might vote with such groups, but some gerrymandered districts are probably out of reach. The problem is that creating "New" civil rights, like the right same sex marriage, is just poison to the right. That has to be presented as a state right issue, because otherwise it just creates more uncertainty for the people who are in love with the (generally imagined) past.
How can anyone worry about and campaign on health care and various "rights" BEFORE working on getting the economy of the country working for ALL its citizens? Trump made that the choice, and made it his message, and even if he is personally worse than a fool, it was the better message. And he ran the smarter campaign: he won, and with fewer votes.
There also has to be some recognition of the ignorance and idiocy of the right wing people in the USA: They simply hate black people and gays and everyone else not white and ignorant like them. They cherish order and authority above all, and hate new things and uncertainty. They are not going to vote Democratic any time soon, if ever. There has to be some effort to appeal to independents who might vote with such groups, but some gerrymandered districts are probably out of reach. The problem is that creating "New" civil rights, like the right same sex marriage, is just poison to the right. That has to be presented as a state right issue, because otherwise it just creates more uncertainty for the people who are in love with the (generally imagined) past.
Transforming the healthcare system? Yes. Impeaching Trump? No. Please. If we lose the bloody focus by allowing ourselves to suffer severely from Trump Derangement Syndrome, then it's over. A reminder: The GOP controls all three branches of government as well as most state legislatures and governorships. Fine. Focus efforts on impeaching a madman that most certainly will be impeached by his own party eventually. Once that's done, look up to see that everything fought for in the past is now gone.
"The Democratic Party must finally understand which side it is on." That's exactly it. The party establishment - monied interests - ignored a faction that tried to bring the party back to its core and the result is well known. Since then, however, the party has doubled down. Until the party gets back to its core that government ABSOLUTELY can be the solution, especially in light of crumbling infrastructure, and the need to catch up to the rest of the world in sustainable energy and low-carbon technologies, then they will go the way of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party.
"The Democratic Party must finally understand which side it is on." That's exactly it. The party establishment - monied interests - ignored a faction that tried to bring the party back to its core and the result is well known. Since then, however, the party has doubled down. Until the party gets back to its core that government ABSOLUTELY can be the solution, especially in light of crumbling infrastructure, and the need to catch up to the rest of the world in sustainable energy and low-carbon technologies, then they will go the way of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party.
7
The Democrat Party needs to wake up and understand that they will continue to lose supporters like me, a 56 yr old female voter that has voted primarily Dem for 38 years, unless they stop moving further and further to the right and become the working peoples party again. If I wanted a Republican Lite, I would vote for a Moderate Republican. I don't want Republican Lite, I want real representation! I want someone like Sanders who is willing to battle for things that matter to me, like health care and living wages.
32
I'm a 47 yo parent. I went to college, gradual school, delayed having children, did what I could to build a solid future for myself and family. And yet I done feel secure for myself or my kids. I want them to be able to choose teaching, social work, truck driving, whatever their heart desires and be able to do ok. I don't feel that way.
I don't want to push them to be doctors or lawyers or bankers if that's not what they want, just to keep from having a holdin-on-by-their-fingertips way of life. I don't want them to have to delay having families til they're 35, 40 just to get out from under postsecondary debt first.
What kind of life is that?
I don't want to push them to be doctors or lawyers or bankers if that's not what they want, just to keep from having a holdin-on-by-their-fingertips way of life. I don't want them to have to delay having families til they're 35, 40 just to get out from under postsecondary debt first.
What kind of life is that?
If Bernie wants to take the lead, he has to prove he is ready to be the leader of ALL the people. He can't be like Romney, who said that that he didn't need to be President of the 47% of people who he claimed din't pay taxes.
Not everyone gets excited about breaking up big banks or increasing taxes on the 1%. As Trump has shown, many more are just worried about their own survival. Keep the revolution in the background and explain how people are going to prosper in the years ahead.
It's the economy, stupid.
Not everyone gets excited about breaking up big banks or increasing taxes on the 1%. As Trump has shown, many more are just worried about their own survival. Keep the revolution in the background and explain how people are going to prosper in the years ahead.
It's the economy, stupid.
8
I haven't read the news for a while because it is not relevant to my life. When I read articles like this I know it's not relevant and that I am right to prefer to defer. I voted for Obama and then voted for Trump (a white woman, Ph.D.) because I wanted chaos and hoped to see a significant decrease in bureaucrats and because I can't stand Hillary, Pelosi, et al. Oh well, nothing turns out like one hopes.
3
Well, you got chaos. Thanks a bunch for that.
10
TheRepublicans win two out of three elections in this country. They don't do it by compromising.
They do it by forcibly arguing for what they believe in.
It is one thing for a few candidates to tailor their message to their district. It is another for a party to be afraid of having any point of view, and to just try to hide in the "center."
If the Republicans are arguing hard for tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else, while the Democrats refuse to demand the opposite, if Democrats move to the center while Republicans move right, then the Replicants define the debate and the Democrats lose. Then the Democrats whine, "why doesn't anyone come out to vote?" Well you didn't offer them anything to vote for.
Trump had no problem offering universal healthcare, and repealing Obama Care too.
Right now history is at a tipping point, and the old guard of the Democratic Party wants to sit on the fence.
Now is the time to convince the American People that the future is on the left, not more kow towing to the global billionaire class.
Viva la Evolution!
They do it by forcibly arguing for what they believe in.
It is one thing for a few candidates to tailor their message to their district. It is another for a party to be afraid of having any point of view, and to just try to hide in the "center."
If the Republicans are arguing hard for tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else, while the Democrats refuse to demand the opposite, if Democrats move to the center while Republicans move right, then the Replicants define the debate and the Democrats lose. Then the Democrats whine, "why doesn't anyone come out to vote?" Well you didn't offer them anything to vote for.
Trump had no problem offering universal healthcare, and repealing Obama Care too.
Right now history is at a tipping point, and the old guard of the Democratic Party wants to sit on the fence.
Now is the time to convince the American People that the future is on the left, not more kow towing to the global billionaire class.
Viva la Evolution!
14
So we're back to blaming Sanders supporters this week for Hillary's loss? I know that Russia/Comey were last week.
I just want to make sure we're blaming the right scapegoats for HIllary's epic failure.
I just want to make sure we're blaming the right scapegoats for HIllary's epic failure.
24
But strangely enough, her values and principles still align far better with mine than Trump's do.
6
There is a problem with a left wing that will not engage in achieving incremental improvements. There is also a lack of understanding that the right wing is now powerful because it struggled for decades to achieve incremental improvements of its own. Of course it is also true that most of the money is on the right, and you can never underestimate the impact of that money on the few percent of voters who are undecided until the last minute. They tune in just in time to see the right wing add barrage.
6
You guys, NYT that is, are calling Bernie Sanders an extremist? Lot of people around the world will probably say he is where the Democrats used to be: Left of the center.
NYT is either playing dirty politics for the elites, the oligarchs and the plutocrats...while pretending to be objective, neutral, fair to both or all sides of the political aisle, blah, blah, blah, or you guys are really really dumb. Did you guys not call for 90% to 95% Hillary victory giving her campaign a false sense of comfortable security? Was that extreme dumbness coupled with incompetence...or was that deliberate? Own up NYT!
And publish this.
NYT is either playing dirty politics for the elites, the oligarchs and the plutocrats...while pretending to be objective, neutral, fair to both or all sides of the political aisle, blah, blah, blah, or you guys are really really dumb. Did you guys not call for 90% to 95% Hillary victory giving her campaign a false sense of comfortable security? Was that extreme dumbness coupled with incompetence...or was that deliberate? Own up NYT!
And publish this.
38
The Democrats are the pre-1980 GOP (a minority party for a couple of generations) and the Republicans have lost their minds/sold out to the highest bidder.
I don't think being the cautious luke warm party will win elections.
I don't think being the cautious luke warm party will win elections.
Democrats, are making me sick. You guys want to win? Just Tell-The-Truth. Plain and simple.
6
FBI Director Comey, sworn testimony before Congress. "Trump lied, plain and simple."
1
Except that Trump won by telling one lie after another....His voters wanted to believe his lies.
1
Labour Party members may be busy congratulating themselves for a night that few polls predicted. But they should be asking themselves why they continue to be on the outside looking in.
Why? They positioned themselves far to the left.
Democrats should pay attention. With the mess of things that President Trump has made, they have a golden opportunity to take back control of the House in 2018, and the presidency and the Senate in 2020.
That won’t happen if they follow the lead of Labour and adopt far-left policies outside of the mainstream. Voters will reward any party that could plausibly claim to speak for mainstream American values.
They are not getting that from Republicans, who at the state level have been pushing a far-right social agenda and at the national level are intent on stripping millions of people of health coverage.
Democrats need to focus on improving health care begun under the Affordable Care Act, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, tax policy that favors Main Street and the middle class, not Wall Street and the wealthy, combat climate change and help the the environment by moving toward cleaner, renewable energy and the move to cleaner, renewable energy and spending on infrastructure. They must fight against the demonization of various groups.
Those are winning issues.