That's just the truth of it, the Democratic party is moving away from neo-liberalism because many don't see the difference between that and say a guy like Mitt Romney outside of a few social stances. The older democrats are going to have to hand the party over to them eventually, the longer they hold out, the more damage I think they do to the party. I also agree that it is a mistake to just think the base is going to just come out and vote no matter what, I think 2016 showed that we can't take those votes for granted. Clinton's biggest mistake IMO was not giving ANY kind of olive branch to the progressive wing. She picks a lame moderate dem for her VP when she could have picked a progressive and she should have gotten more behind some of Bernie's ideas, not all of them, but most. I think too many people that are more moderate here seem to think that the Democratic base doesn't matter. That it's good strategy for the GOP to appeal to their base but bad strategy for the Democrats to do the same. It is always good strategy because that's where the enthusiasm comes from, that's where the excitement comes from.
We will see how Pete does in other more diverse states, I really don't see him holding up as the race goes on and Biden will do a lot better as it goes south. Also, 2016 was just a different primary, it was Bernie's first time and he did not have the name recognition that he has now...and he has received more votes than Pete in Iowa...this is a pretty big deal, because people thought in a heartland state like that Bernie couldn't sell his message, he basically tied for first there and one the popular vote there. And Clinton getting more votes than Trump of course doesn't matter, she did not drive out votes for where it matters. And everyone is following Bernie, he's controlled the conversation of the left since he ran in 2016. Affordable college, healthcare, non-interventionist foreign policy...he's been controlling the conversation since he entered the conversation and all of the candidates are going more towards him, not away. The debates have basically been "How can I be MORE like Sanders...but not too much like him?" Klobuchar is the only one really that has stood her ground there...and Biden I guess but he has to basically support all the things he did under Obama. Who knows what will happen but if a moderate wins the primary I can't see the next round of democrats being more center, I think you're going to see a lot more people in the DNC with an ideology closer to AOC than Obama. The future generations just don't like middle of the road politics...because it just hasn't worked for them.
It's highly likely that Bloomberg will be the nom. and probably win against Trump. He's the anti-Trump that moderates can live with.
don't know if anyone has posted the actual transcription that's on Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville love this part: Sean Illing So your complaint is basically that the party has tacked too far to the left? James Carville They’ve tacked off the damn radar screen. And look, I don’t consider myself a moderate or a centrist. I’m a liberal. But not everything has to be on the left-right continuum. I love Warren’s day care plan just like I love Booker’s baby bonds. That’s the kind of stuff our candidates should explain and define clearly and repeatedly for voters and not get diverted by whatever the hell is in the air that day. Here’s another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this ****. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message. The real argument here is that some people think there’s a real yearning for a left-wing revolution in this country, and if we just appeal to the people who feel that, we’ll grow and excite them and we’ll win. But there’s a word a lot of people hate that I love: politics. It means building coalitions to win elections. It means sometimes having to sit back and listen to what people think and framing your message accordingly. That’s all I care about. Right now the most important thing is getting this career criminal who’s stealing everything that isn’t nailed down out of the White House. We can’t do anything for anyone if we don’t start there and then acquire more power. Can I say one more thing about the cultural disconnect? Sean Illing Sure. James Carville I want to give you an example of the problem here. A few weeks ago, Binyamin Appelbaum, an economics writer for the New York Times, posted a snarky tweet about how LSU canceled classes for the National Championship game. And then he said, do the “Warren/Sanders free public college proposals include LSU, or would it only apply to actual schools?” You know how ****ing patronizing that is to people in the South or in the middle of the country? First, LSU has an unusually high graduation rate, but that’s not the point. It’s the ******* smugness. This is from a guy who lives in New York and serves on the Times editorial board and there’s not a single person he knows that doesn’t pat him on the back for that kind of tweet. He’s so ****ing smart. Appelbaum doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party, but he does represent the urbanist mindset. We can’t win the Senate by looking down at people. The Democratic Party has to drive a narrative that doesn’t give off vapors that we’re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.
I'm not at all convinced that Sanders can win in November. I agree that "he probably loses a lot of other elections for Dems this year and almost certainly in 2022."
You're mixing up several things here. Overall voter turnout so far this cycle can be attributed to Biden and the weak moderate field just as much as Sanders. You can't make the argument that Sanders only has 30% support and simultaneously claim that he is responsible for the other 70% not boosting overall turnout for their moderates candidates. Pick an argument lane and stick to it. Sanders is bringing his 30% bloc to the polls hence the popular vote leader in a crowded field. The other 70% needs to pick up the slack for their moderate candidates. Also, I spoke about Bernie bringing in NEW VOTERS i.e. youth, college students, millennials, disenfranchised people, potential voters with apathy for the election process. That's why Sanders did so well in satellite caucuses where he picked up additional SDEs to close the delegate gap between him and Buttigieg at the top. Nobody else in this race is reaching out to new voters outside the party's traditional voter bank except for Bernie who is expanding the electorate. Now, it may not be huge voter bloc, but it's there an it's happening elsewhere in the country. Finally, the "case study" I was referring in my argument was the 2016 general election of Hillary vs. Trump. I have always accepted Sanders defeat in the primaries to Hillary without resorting to conspiracies, DNC attacks, etc. It was a valiant effort by Bernie to come out of nowhere and run against an unopposed Hillary. Sanders took her head on in Iowa and New Hampshire before she won outright on Super Tuesday. That's a fact and so it's time to move on and focus on the contest at hand.
This is laughable. Trump makings few campaign promises doesn't make him a populist. His actual actions are as corporatist as one can be from deregulation to tax cuts for the wealthy. Bernie has been saying the same **** for 40 years and when he attacks our current revolving door of lobbying and campaign finance bribing, he means it.
Sanders does have some loyal fans who did stay home in 2016 and probably cost Hillary the election. But I am telling you - that Sanders is unliked by moderates in both parties. If Sanders gets the nomination, many Republicans willing to vote Dem will stay home instead. And many moderate Dems may stay home as well. I think the VP should be a progressive, but Sanders has labeled himself a socialist and that is not appealing to the middle of this country.
Trumpism is a form of populism. I am not sure why you don't think so. It's generally well accepted in political circles. He celebrates the common man on the right and represents their values well. His whole campaign was built on populism - in fact his rise to power started with his whole Obama's birth certificate is fake remember?
There were many apathetic citizens who just didn't care for Hillary hence why turnout was low in swing States for Democrats.
So you aren't referring to economic populism. You are referring to culture wars. Trump's economic policies are as a direct foil to populism as a foil can theoretically be. "Political circles" are just opinions. It's an opinion that Trump is a populist. He isn't. He is a panderer of red meat, but far from a economic populist. He very much is advocating for supply side economics.
He is a populist on every level, even economically. He talks about how the pain people feel from jobs being taken away by China and how he is going to fix it. Stopping immigrants from taking jobs. Sucking wealth from blue states and giving it to red states. He's 100% running the country like @mick fry would - that's why they worship him so much. He is literally a uneducated self-described nationalist in the white house.
Again, he isn't an economic populist. His administration is run rampant with supply side economics hawks such as Steve Manuchin. He is deregulating banks allowing for more predatory practices towards the consumer. He signed off tax code where for the first time the most wealthy Americans pay lower effective tax rates than middle class America. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americ...s-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/ I don't care if he's a dumbass. It only takes a dumbass to rubber-stamp GOP supply side economic policies.
Fact is he is caving to right wing desires on how he handles the economy. HIs protectionism coupled with tax breaks for any group that supports him is certainly a form of right-wing economic populism.
I don't know how enacting tax policy that allows for the first time in a 100 years for the top 400 wealthy Americans to pay lower tax rates than the middle class is considered populism. At best he's a fake populist who panders.
Politically he is a populist - maybe not economically, but overall he is a right-wing populist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism
Lou isn't talking about what trump's actually doing, he's talking about the bullshit trump's bellowing to his "base" that is certainly populist. You are fixating on the term. Hell, Hitler was likely viewed by many in Germany as a populist, a "man of the people." The upper classes, the corporate class in Germany thought they could control him, so they essentially handed the government to a madman who had the backing of a minority in that country. In retrospect, of course they made a colossal mistake, which they figured out too late. Hitler broke all the rules and seized power, cheered by the masses who weren't as educated as they should have been, and who had been suffering from the economic disaster of the Depression and the humiliation of the absurd terms imposed on Germany after WWI which made the Depression even worse in that country. There are strong parallels in America today with what happened to Germany in the 1930's, in my opinion. You have an extremist and populist who appeals to a relatively uneducated minority of Whites in this country, appealing to their baser instincts. A man who will gleefully tell lie after lie and sell it to those same people, who eagerly lap it up. The wealthy and corporate interests in America who thought they could control trump made a grievous error. Instead of being controlled, trump broke all the rules, took over the Republican Party, is busy peddling his extremism and, again, still telling lie after lie while doing so. The rich and educated in this country who supported him in 2016, selling their souls to do so in the belief that they could steer him in the direction they wanted, are now afraid to disagree with the man for fear of retribution. Most know that he has made terrible decisions, decisions they disagree with - the absurd trade war, the gigantic deficit created by trump that goes against everything they believe in are only two examples, but they can do little about it. We're in a bad situation. Personally, I don't see Bernie Sanders being able to win the general election in November while being attacked as an extremist and a socialist by trump's megaphone and an incredibly huge amount of money to spend spreading his lies. I will certainly support Sanders if he wins the nomination, but I hope he doesn't.
