Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

It's almost as if proudly standing for your total lack of convicted principles and material ideology doesn't motivate people.

Clinton was the human incarnation of that "Why are you booing me, I'm right" meme.

Speaking of Democrats having a penchant for trying bad ideas repeatedly, John Kerry is floating the idea of a 2020 run. 

Wheels are just turning here but....

It could be a real shit show where there is no good answer for Dems.

What if many Dems independently decide to run, and it looks like what the Republicans did, and we end up with a clusterfuck with some possibly dusty memes thrown in for good measure. If Kerry, why not Gore? Why not Hilary again? Hell why not Bernie again. If people convince themselves another 4 years of Trump is a ticket to hell in a hand basket for America, that can be motivation enough.

Well, on the other hand, having a fierce competition like that may be exactly what the party needs and is actually healthy. It probably helps that we've already seen what can happen in such a crowded field, so, there may be attempts to narrow it down faster, though I hope the winnowing happens naturally.

And if Dems go the other route, and really seriously manage the field to produce the best possible candidate to win against Trump...isn't that the kind of collusion and groupthink that led them to Hilary and froze out Bernie, and alienated a lot of Dems?

They're going to have to do some management at some point, but the DNC seems to be trying to get out of it's own way to not repeat the same mistakes of 2016

Dems need a real leader that can pull everyone back together, inspire Dems again and has enough of a backbone not to cave under Trump's particular kind of pressure.

It's not so much a lack of real leaders, theres definetly those among the Democrats who could fill that role, it's that theres really no single overriding leader. Theres no 'Hillary Clinton' so to speak, Bill Clinton has been sidelined due to #MeToo, Hillary is sidelined for reasons I don't need to explain. Sure, Obama is still around, but he can't run again.

Biden has a good deal of 'Hillary Clinton' power, so to speak, but nobody fears the Joe Biden campaign juggernaut. It's a side effect of the Democrats bench getting hollowed out during Obama and there wasn't a whole lot of bench to come up in 2016, instead, the bench started getting rebuilt more in recent years with up-and-coming leaders.

Dems need a real leader that can pull everyone back together, inspire Dems again and has enough of a backbone not to cave under Trump's particular kind of pressure.

I don't see it happening... there's too much of an ideological split between the centrist and progressive voters. 

First, neoliberalism is irreconcilable.  For all the old guard calls themselves pragmatic, centrist, etc and tries to distance themselves from being perceived as driven by ideology, that is an ideology they will take to their graves.  And so long as that's the case, they will not win over progressive voters, except out of critical desperation to avoid the worst possible evils.

Second, the centrist old guard needs to drop its habit of treating politics as a game with win conditions separated from actual political goals.  You can't have one of the most recognized names in the group saying "We need to adopt the right's stances on immigration in order to win elections" as the right is setting up camps and threatening mass slaughter.  That will only work for someone who does not actually care about anything but the tribal aspect of seeing that chair labeled D.  For the progressive wing, and anyone who actually cares about their platforms, if nothing you care about is being earnestly represented in the end, then you didn't win the election.

This is not a rift that can be simply tolerated for the sake of pragmatic alliance, as with the religious right/libertarian/alt-right alliance.  There's not enough alignment of desired outcomes, and often direct contradiction.  Whichever path the Democratic party chooses, they're going to struggle.

That is something that the primaries may help resolve. Still, the problem is going to come from multiple progressive candidates vying for the same votes, others vying for the same section, etc, leading to thinly sliced pie. With maybe the most authentic or most 'actually cares about their platforms' (which Trump certainly appeared to be to a section of Republicans, so, you're probably onto something here) candidate getting a significant chunk.

[nenjin]

This is not a rift that can be simply tolerated for the sake of pragmatic alliance, as with the religious right/libertarian/alt-right alliance.  There's not enough alignment of desired outcomes, and often direct contradiction.  Whichever path the Democratic party chooses, they're going to struggle.

I dunno about the misalignment of desired outcomes. Depending on where you fall on the Trump Crisis scale, a pragmatic alliance on that basis seems real enough. (Remember, we're in an age where some people think they're one political cycle away from literal death camps.)

Well, on the other hand, having a fierce competition like that may be exactly what the party needs and is actually healthy. It probably helps that we've already seen what can happen in such a crowded field, so, there may be attempts to narrow it down faster, though I hope the winnowing happens naturally.

How'd that go for Republicans? Is Trump the best of a winnowed down field, or was he simply the loudest and therefore the most memorable? I think really fierce competition among democrats would just kind of weaken them when dealing with an incumbent president. I'd also think when the competition narrowed down they'd run the risk of a repeat of the Hilary/Bernie scenario, where both sides love their candidate too much to unite around the winner.

[Teneb]

Article

I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.

Well, I feel reassured.

He has the biggest gut. The best gut. YUGE guts. Rip and tear!

[SalmonGod]

I dunno about the misalignment of desired outcomes. Depending on where you fall on the Trump Crisis scale, a pragmatic alliance on that basis seems real enough. (Remember, we're in an age where some people think they're one political cycle away from literal death camps.)

they will not win over progressive voters, except out of critical desperation to avoid the worst possible evils.

What you're describing isn't alignment so much as ultimatum.

[Reelya]

Article

I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.

Well, I feel reassured.

Steven Colbert: "My work here is done".

[nenjin]

What you're describing isn't alignment so much as ultimatum.

I mean, take some of the things people here have said. They're posing the future as an ultimatum. Again, for elected officials, it's about how bad a future they think they're avoiding by kicking the can down the road for another cycle.

[EnigmaticHat]

Julian Assange was in active contact with the Trump campaign, and both told them in advance what they were going to do, and also planned wikileak's release of data to be maximally damaging.  Oh and one of his contacts was Manafort so its like 95% he was in contact with the Russians too.

...is anyone surprised?  No?

[Doomblade187]

Julian Assange was in active contact with the Trump campaign, and both told them in advance what they were going to do, and also planned wikileak's release of data to be maximally damaging.  Oh and one of his contacts was Manafort so its like 95% he was in contact with the Russians too.

...is anyone surprised?  No?

Not really surprised. We do need to be careful not fo enable attacks on government whistleblowers tho.

[EnigmaticHat]

Look, the entire time all this ruckus has been happening since 2016, I have been against violence in politics.  No assassinations, no beating people up, none of that.  I don't like how Obama handled Snowden.

And I hope whoever comes after Trump sends Julian an exploding cigar.  He's not an American citizen, he fucked with us, he's not under the protection of any government that's actually going to mess with us if we do this right.  Wikileaks can live without its friendly neighborhood Russian contact.

[Doomblade187]

Look, the entire time all this ruckus has been happening since 2016, I have been against violence in politics.  No assassinations, no beating people up, none of that.  I don't like how Obama handled Snowden.

And I hope whoever comes after Trump sends Julian an exploding cigar.  He's not an American citizen, he fucked with us, he's not under the protection of any government that's actually going to mess with us if we do this right.  Wikileaks can live without its friendly neighborhood Russian contact.

Oh, definitely. I'm just saying we should not prosecute the next wikileaks head, assuming they didn't commit treason.

[Trekkin]

One of Trump's former tax people has also been raided, per The Chicago Sun-Times.

It may not be Trump-related, but try telling Trump that in his current state.

[smjjames]

Well, on the other hand, having a fierce competition like that may be exactly what the party needs and is actually healthy. It probably helps that we've already seen what can happen in such a crowded field, so, there may be attempts to narrow it down faster, though I hope the winnowing happens naturally.

How'd that go for Republicans? Is Trump the best of a winnowed down field, or was he simply the loudest and therefore the most memorable? I think really fierce competition among democrats would just kind of weaken them when dealing with an incumbent president.

True, a fierce primary is a double edged sword that way in that it'll likely leave the candidate weakened, but things aren't going to go exactly like the way 2016 happened and theres going to be lots of lessions learned from there that are going to be applied.

I'd also think when the competition narrowed down they'd run the risk of a repeat of the Hilary/Bernie scenario, where both sides love their candidate too much to unite around the winner.

That's going to be a risk regardless due to the split in the Democratic party. Part (if not most) of the animosity came from the way the DNC handled the 2016 race, which turned off Bernie supporters who might have been willing to support Clinton.

[SalmonGod]

Look, the entire time all this ruckus has been happening since 2016, I have been against violence in politics.  No assassinations, no beating people up, none of that.  I don't like how Obama handled Snowden.

And I hope whoever comes after Trump sends Julian an exploding cigar.  He's not an American citizen, he fucked with us, he's not under the protection of any government that's actually going to mess with us if we do this right.  Wikileaks can live without its friendly neighborhood Russian contact.

Oh, definitely. I'm just saying we should not prosecute the next wikileaks head, assuming they didn't commit treason.

Didn't Assange do what any journalist should have done?  It's not like he doesn't release material on everybody.  The stuff that made Wikileaks famous originally was mostly damaging to Republicans.  And it's not like other news organizations don't release stories that are damaging to both parties during every election season.  If he was approached with this material on the DNC and chose not to release it because of concerns about how it would effect the election, I would see that as an even more conscious decision to manipulate politics.  And so what if Russia was involved?  Do Wikileaks/Assange have some kind of responsibility or expectation to handle things differently if a geopolitical rival of the USA is involved?  What bearing does that have on the factual nature of the information that was released?

[Doomblade187]

Allow me to clarify. As I understand it, Assange collaborated with the trump campaign to give them the data before they released it.

I consider this bad. Is it a crime? Honestly don't know.

I do belive they should have simply released the data publicly (as they later did) before reaching out to groups.

If the campaign reached out to them, I see less blame on them. Wikileaks is typically a good thing, and I don't want it shut down.

[PTTG??]

Well, on the other hand, having a fierce competition like that may be exactly what the party needs and is actually healthy. It probably helps that we've already seen what can happen in such a crowded field, so, there may be attempts to narrow it down faster, though I hope the winnowing happens naturally.

How'd that go for Republicans? Is Trump the best of a winnowed down field, or was he simply the loudest and therefore the most memorable? I think really fierce competition among democrats would just kind of weaken them when dealing with an incumbent president.

True, a fierce primary is a double edged sword that way in that it'll likely leave the candidate weakened, but things aren't going to go exactly like the way 2016 happened and theres going to be lots of lessions learned from there that are going to be applied.

I'd also think when the competition narrowed down they'd run the risk of a repeat of the Hilary/Bernie scenario, where both sides love their candidate too much to unite around the winner.

That's going to be a risk regardless due to the split in the Democratic party. Part (if not most) of the animosity came from the way the DNC handled the 2016 race, which turned off Bernie supporters who might have been willing to support Clinton.

I disagree that Bernie hurt the Democrats. In fact, the only time Hillary was in the news without being compared to Trump was when she was being compared favorably to Bernie. Yes, a portion of Bernie voters voted for Trump. But that datapoint is meaningless without knowing how many of those people would have ever voted for Hillary.