I think it helps if voters stop trying to look for a messianic "savior" in the first place. Maybe she's great, but all of this mess started when the DNC chose Bill Clinton over Jerry Brown in the search for saviors. In the case of the Democratic Party, a generation of triangulation and conflating identity politics with class has tarnished the brand of a party that's supposed to represent the working class. It doesn't. It has long been the class of apparatchiks and upper middle-class urban professionals, and has ignored working class white people in the interior states. Moreover, it has ridiculed and rolled it's eyes at leaders who have tried to address this (like Senator Sanders or Jerry Brown, or Dick Gephardt). And by working class, I don't mean minimum wage workers, which is another problem the DNC's handpicked Brahmins seem to have concentrated on at the expense of those who don't qualify for government assistance, but are barely scraping by. Means-testing social programs has created a deep class resentment, and you aren't going to fix that by writing off a huge segment of the population as racists and misogynists and Islamophobes and expecting them to vote for you when you stopped giving a **** about their union jobs that have been automated or shipped overseas like so many other jobs in the western economy. They aren't going to learn to be Python programmers, or patent attorneys, or public school teachers and no one should expect them to support the Democratic Party if it shows contempt for them. It's 2016, and we have a Republican Party that's embracing protectionism and populism (and no longer the friend of small business, the self-employed, or individual liberty) and a Democratic Party that is supposed to represent the interests of farmers, unions, and the working class, but has governed for so long within an elitist bubble that thinks as long as you give speeches about social progress, you can have your late-stage capitalism cake and eat it too, and nominate one of the least popular politicians representing a status quo nearly everyone wants to overturn because, well, "it's her turn." It's meaningless and absolutely without substance. If the Democratic Party wants to embrace diversity, it should be trying to promote labor advocates, scientists, engineers, medical professionals, educators -- this represents progress, not the tokenism of fielding corporate-friendly female and minority candidates and calling voters bigots for not biting. There will always be racism and there will always be sexism. But poverty and class divisions are a hell of a lot easier to address, especially if the US political class can lose it's addiction to sucking on the teat of monied interests and compromising in the interests of those in the electorate who can't afford $2000 dinners to "meet" their public servants. This election offered us two flavors of populism, and the GOP, with all of it's flaws, was at least democratic and transparent enough to choose a candidate that it's voters wanted, even to the point that much of it's leadership disowned the victor of its own process. The DNC was determined to make 2016 a coronation out of loyalty and did everything they could to prevent the populist and progressive voices within it's own party to compete fairly. They absolutely got what they deserved, and all of these protesters should be yelling at people like Donna Brazile to resign and purging the party of the Clinton-era triangulators, instead of a president-elect that won an election fairly and hasn't actually done anything yet. Yes, this election result has emboldened bigots, I've seen it myself, and I won't deny it -- but it's a symptom of a greater problem that's not being addressed, and it's one the Democratic Party is supposed to be addressing. Stop talking about identity and culture politics. Leave that **** for Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee to lose on. Offer solutions to the loss of jobs in the global economy, the decline of labor, the power of lobby money subverting the interests of the greater good, declining life expectancy and quality of life for the average American, the rising cost and declining quality of education. Stop looking for saviors, and stop thinking that just because someone is a minority or a female it represents progress. For ****'s sake, people applauded then the BLM movement interrupted Bernie Sanders and had the gall to say that he couldn't possibly really understand what it means to be disenfranchised. That sort of thing needs to be booed and disowned and treated with disdain. People liked Obama because he spoke about change and bringing the Democratic Party back to it's traditional role as an advocate for the working class, and while I think that was sincere, he was realist enough and smart enough to realize he had to out fundraise his rivals and that he had to make nice with Wall Street in order to do that. That's what gave us things like ACA, and the bailouts, ideas that would have been unthinkably corporate-friendly in the 80's. I have no doubt Hillary Clinton would have been worse. And before anyone derides me, I ended up voting a straight Dem ticket for the first time in my life, holding my nose, and hoping for the best. But go on and rage and scream about Islamophobia and sexism. Keep looking for messianistic saviors. And keep losing elections to cretins that will continue to raise the bar for narcissistic demagoguery as everyone else loses faith in the democratic process. Kamala Harris might be great, but besides sounding hauntingly similar to Republicans four years ago talking about how that clever Bobby Jindal is really going to shake things up if he was only in Washington, it's going to take more than a photogenic minority to fix the Democratic Party. It's going to take a commitment to actually addressing core problems at the source rather than clucking at the symptoms with smug contempt and shrugging off the very real ennui of Joe Sixpack as a lack of sensitivity for the Other. It will require the participation and inclusion of everyone in the base and their futures.
Funny, I had a similar reaction. Democrats control nothing in government and they really need a win. Do they really want to run with the double-handicap of a female minority?
If anything, that is a great advantage. If they ran a younger minority woman instead of an old white woman who is the very definition of "privilege" then I think they beat Trump easily. If she was black, you likely get upwards of a million more blacks to vote and that alone could have swung the election. If she was Hispanic, Trump probably doesn't get 24% of that vote. Basically I think it would be a mistake for Democrats to ever run a white candidate again. They can excite their base and motivate them to get out and vote based on skin color alone...that's a pretty powerful thing that they should have utilized this time.
Probably true, but the key word here is "privilege", not "old", not "white" and not "woman." I think Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would have been better candidates for the time and would have been a much better general election policy debaters to go up against Trump, but then, "it was her turn." I really hated the idea that somehow the American people owed Hillary Clinton a job, because that was the message. Had people not been scared shitless of Trump, turnout would have been much lower.
That's true, and if the Republicans ran a legitimate candidate instead of Trump, it would have been a complete blowout election. Hillary really was the worst possible candidate.
The "legitimate" candidates were soundly rejected, and for good reason. As I said before, I think it's a credit that GOP's primary process was at least transparent and fair enough to represent the will of its voters, even if the result was a very unconservative, narcissistic populist. It's who they wanted. Democratic voters weren't so lucky, and the DNC still needs to answer to that instead of deflecting and playing shoot the messenger: "but Trump," "but sexism," "but Russia", "but Assange isn't really a leftist so we can't trust him when he leaks bad things about US," etc.
There is alot to unpackage there so I won't be able to respond to everything, but I will say that the notion about the "Messianic Savior" quest is overblown a bit here based on my point. I just wanted to note that the DNC, if they want to win the race in 4 years, needs a product to sell like they had with Obama, but there are other needs too that need to be addressed to win against Donald Trump in his re-election campaign. The notion that you said about the true need of addressing poverty, declining education, & global lobbyist interest is of course most importance & will resonate to voters more than anything, but I would have thought that would be understood even though you addressed it deeper. Voter suppression was in fact a thing this election because folks were just not that ENTHUSED about the candidate to turn out. I'm really just referring to winning an election. The message that nominee delivers has to speak to those working class folks in the swing states but the importance of the fact that it will be Donald Trump he/she is running against is important. Ideals & culture will be second to calling out BS & lies. Trump will fabricate and flat out lie about how great things have been since Obama left office and he took over and there is nobody that can say otherwise. That's why the "attack dog" mentality will be important with who they pick. They have to deliver a clear concise explanation as to how Trump is lying, but they can't get in the "policy weeds" like HRC was bad at doing where she over-explained things too much. The working class folks don't have the attention span nor care enough to hear a 15 minute explanation on NAFTA trade agreements. The Bobby Jindal example is quite spot on to what the Democrats should learn from the Republicans. Tried to use Michael Steele too in order to address their electorate demographic needs. Don't overreact to demographic needs in winning elections. It can be sometimes heavy handed and make people roll their eyes like it did in this thread. Stick to the issues & the candidates that can speak to what the swing state electorate cares about... their pocket book. Reg the Jindal makeover... Republicans got lucky that a 3rd party candidate ran under their banner & saved the jobs of the Republicans in Congress, House, & Senate. Now they get to deal with Trump & see how much fun they have trying to control him & Bannon. But if I was advising the DNC, again my consultation would be for them to focus on three key aspects with the next batch of candidates to be propped up in the next two - three years - -Can attack & call out flat out BS. No pussyfooting (mind the pun) around. Trump & co. will play dirty so be ready to get hit with low blows. -have a better product to sell. The face is one thing but the policies are more important too for what they represent. -Can get CNN/FOX to talk about the issues instead of their character questions/scandals. Remember that Trump won the swing states despite being maybe the worst human being on the planet from a character perspective, but the same standard wasn't held for Hillary. You have to operate under the assumption that Trump will again be normalized for his repulsive personality. More important will be to show people that you were duped/conned into thinking Trump was looking out for you guys with his policies (which will likely be Bush policies) or lack thereof entirely , and you are. You don't ride a Golden Elevator from your pent house suite daily. You relate to those folks on a personal level, with a clear message, and you don't take sh#$. Thinking you are just going to win by appealing to demographics is foolish.
"Biden allies reportedly pan Harris' 1st foreign trip as a 'disaster'": https://theweek.com/boris-johnson/1...en-boris-johnson-tries-to-make-indestructible Biden allies reportedly pan Harris' 1st foreign trip as a 'disaster' BRENDAN MORROW JUNE 10, 2021 Some allies of President Biden don't sound thrilled about how Vice President Kamala Harris' first foreign trip went. The vice president's trip to Guatemala and Mexico is being viewed by allies of the president, as well as some people close to Harris herself, as a "disaster," The Hill reported. The allies, in particular, reportedly felt that Harris seemed unprepared for questions about why she hasn't been to the southern border in an interview with NBC News' Lester Holt. "It wasn't great," a Biden ally told The Hill. "A little cringeworthy too. I don't know how they weren't preparing for these questions." Another ally said "it was terrible," while Democratic strategist Christy Setzer told The Hill that her comments were "clumsy," and The Hill wrote that they "left almost everyone shaking their heads inside and outside the White House." When Holt noted in the NBC interview that "you haven't been to the border," Harris shot back, "And I haven't been to Europe. I don't understand the point that you're making." "The White House's lead spokesperson on immigration should be able to talk about the root causes of migration and what's happening at the border without getting defensive or handing the opposition an infinitely replayable soundbite," Setzer told The Hill. The Biden allies also pointed to comments Harris made at a press conference telling migrants "do not come" to the border, and they overall felt that statements made by the vice president gave critics "an easy talking point," The Hill wrote. Politico also reported that while Harris' aides and allies "tell us she did what she was supposed to do" during the trip, "on the politics," they do "admit her performance could have been smoother." One White House official argued to Politico, though, "The trip was a success. Was there one moment in one interview that is taken out of context and being used? Yes, but she did what she came to do."
I will have to say that I thought Harris would be a lot more out front on things and after that interview and the border trip I see why.
The scrutiny for the veep is heightened as much as it was for Hillary as Sec. Of State It's somewhat deserved since no one knows what she stands for or will do. But y'all fools better recognize she has to work two to four times harder than Pence since she's not a pasty record player praisin God n Cuntry every time The Donald lets one rip on Twitter. Can't say she's not asking for the attention though...
Heres a hint, go back to her time as AG, senator...she doesn't stand for anything except her own Ascension. Covering up the OC corruption police charges as a favor and deal to the police union? No problem.... giving in to private prisons labor contracts by looking the other way on mariuan convictions, one she laughed at and got to enjoy freedom of, no problem...the list goes on that she is 'pragmatic'. Does that make her any different than majority of our political climate? no...thats the point. She has an odd politics response to almost any uncomfortable question with laughing it off and then twitter warriors just try to make it into cool memes of someone owning something... So yea, although obama, harris, bill, george bush wouldn't have passed white house's own test, they still in 2021 sent home any staffers who admitted to using using mar1juana, while biden demands more compassion for his drug addicted son who has avoided prison, but we continue to have millions of incarcerated adults who have no violent history, by all accounts could've been good members of their family or community instead tax payers are funded 30-80k per person, we're losing the opportunity cost of the taxes they would be paying, and the DEA still has an insnae 100s of billions budget too enforce marijuan, meanwhile legalizing cuts off the major fund of gangs that is coincidentally drugs.... I agree, she'll probably have it harder than pence. But this is politics and governing, this isn't about Kamala's legacy or anyone else, this is about governing efficiently for the people and we need to move fast ontop people who will put the people first rather than defending cnn/fox news styles legacies as if these guys are hall of famer nba players. They just don't matter, get the work done a a public servant, go home.
The problem is the border issue is a problem that has been festering for 50 plus years. There is no easy solution. It is has been highly politicized by the right who thinks building a wall is a solution… it is not. So Republicans are looking for any misstep as an “AH HA!” Moment.
