Support NeoGAF

[Averon]

If Democrats are still this weak-willed after everything Trump and the GOP has done, then I guess Justice Democrats is the way to go. Doesn't sound so silly now.

These spineless, complacent Democrats is giving indirect support to Trump and the GOP as far as I'm concerned. They need to be primaried if they refuse to fight.

 

[Blader]

This talk of approval raitings is just more democrat nonsense.

No, it's exactly why midterms almost always punish the president's party.

Everyone was fucking certain 2016 would be the begining of the end for the GOP.

This should be reason enough why prognostications about how doomed the Democrats are just as absurd.

No one gave a fuck about approval ratings and they showed up to vote even more GOP than before.

More than before? Trump's vote total is the same as McCain's and Romney's. It's not that more Republicans turned up to vote, it's that fewer Democrats did.

Opposing Obama at every turn just solidified their base. How can you even say for a second the GOP tactics of being obstructionist failed when they have near complete control of our country at various levels?

That level of obstructionism didn't emerge until the GOP had won back the House. As the minority party for Obama's first two years, the GOP saved their obstructionist fire for the bigger legislative issues.

It is time to try something new. Maybe sticking to liberal ideals and doubling down on them is a good starting point. This centrist shit is a losing game for the left and a guaranteed success for the right. The left tried moving right and it lost them everything. Time to go hard left and energize your base and the massive wave of young voters who don't give two shits about the established way of doing things. They want change now and they want leaders who vocalize, vote, and stand for that need at every turn. It is a politician's job to cater to us, not the other way around.

This has nothing to do with "the established way of doing things" or veering to the center (the Democrats have been moving consistently to the left over past decade so I'm not sure where this centrist digression is coming from). The Democrats literally do not have the numbers to stop cabinet nominees from going through. All they can do is tarnish them to make them as publicly toxic as possible, and there is very limited public and media attention for doing that.

You're right, politicians should cater to their constituents. As a Democratic constituent, I want my elected officials to concentrate their efforts on the DeVoses and Prices of the world, who can do the most harm and have the most skeletons in the closet. I am way less concerned about the Nikki Haleys and Elaine Chaos being confirmed, and think any effort to block them for the sake of blocking them is a waste of time, energy, and attention.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

It's worth noting that Bernie Sanders did not get where he is with the "Justice Democrats" strategy. He's been an independent his entire career. He ran for mayor and state congress as an independent. He helped build the Vermont Progressive Party. He's been an independent in congress and senate.

I know it's tempting to think "he got SOOOO close to the Democratic nomination that he (or a comparable lefty) could actually win next time!". But look at the super delegates. The Democratic party is NOT the dark blue line, it's the light blue one. Progressives in this party are swimming against an overwhelming current:

Dump these losers and build a party we can actually be proud of!

 

[Eidan]

Have we learned nothing? You need to energize your base first and foremost.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Democrats need to energize the base. I think you're just going to see that a lot more in upcoming fights like the Supreme Court nominee, moreso than cabinet appointments. I also think that right now, protecting the Democrats' numbers in the Senate is of the utmost importance, and under that the degree that some of those vulnerable Democrats toe the party line is very much up to how much the base actually helped them win in the first place.

Dump these losers and build a party we can actually be proud of!

An idiotic idea. Completely idiotic.

 

[Waylon Drums]

I've never been a Democrat so much as an Anti-Republican. Democrats never seem to have their shit together.

 

[Ketch]

It is unbelievable to me that after the last 8 years and this whole shit show now that people actually think the solution is to become more like the tea party. Unbelievable.

What would Obama think?

 

[Blader]

Dump these losers and build a party we can actually be proud of!

I hope that pride is worth never having any power.

I've never been a Democrat so much as an Anti-Republican. Democrats never seem to have their shit together.

The Democratic Party represents more diverse interest groups than the GOP and is generally more interested in governing. Those are both far harder tasks than what Republicans have to do to win office.

 

[Xe4]

The tactical argument for not going out of their way to cast pointless "no" votes on relatively unimportant things strikes me as pretty reasonable, really.

Like, when the Republicans had control of Congress and were opposing Obama on absolutely everything, their approval tanked. Everyone understood to some degree that the Republicans were uninterested in working together with Obama for the good of the country. They were willing to take this hit because by actually preventing Obama from getting anything done they made the government look ineffective and made the country worse off, and that reflects poorly on the party of the president in the eyes of many voters.

Before the Republicans controlled Congress, they had a different strategy. This one was about pretending to be participating in good faith while moving goalposts and sadly finding fault with finalized plans, only choosing a small number of things to call out as unacceptable. The passage of the ACA was dragged out for over a year even though Democrats could have just rammed something through. There was lots of bipartisan negotiation. And the end result is that Republicans "found" the final bill totally unacceptable and it was enormously unpopular, and the general perception is that it was rammed "down our throats".

The argument on the other side seems to be that Democratic voters demand lots of pointless signalling of opposition in order to feel like showing up for elections. And maybe that's true. But it seems to me that if the real concern is about voters perceiving Democrats as spineless even when nothing they're doing so far indicates genuine spinelessness, it's just making the problem worse to, say, title a thread about it this way.

Yeah, I agree. I feel as if this is just more of the snake eating its own tail. If Democrats don't try to block Tillerson or whatever shitty anti Roe v. Wade fucker they try to shove on the supreme court, I'll come out with the pitchforks as well. But that doesn't mean they have to block every little thing, even votes that can pass without a single democratic vote like Halley. People keep telling democrats to act like republicans, and I think they're ignoring the way republicans act (even outside their policy), is a large reason why they are so hated by a lot of people. A DNC that acts like the GOP is not a DNC I want to be a part of.

 

[Eidan]

It is unbelievable to me that after the last 8 years and this whole shit show now that people actually think the solution is to become more like the tea party. Unbelievable.

What would Obama think?

The biggest strategic blunder of Obama's presidency was not listening to the clear declarations that Republicans gave him that they'd never work with him on his agenda, and instead negotiating with himself on key policies like the ACA to garner Republican support that would never come. Judging by his last minute tip to congressional Dems before he left telling them to not help Republicans with a replacement of the ACA, I'd hope that he's learned his lesson that the GOP can't be worked with. Only defeated.

 

[LegendofJoe]

It's worth noting that Bernie Sanders did not get where he is with the "Justice Democrats" strategy. He's been an independent his entire career. He ran for mayor and state congress as an independent. He helped build the Vermont Progressive Party. He's been an independent in congress and senate.

I know it's tempting to think "he got SOOOO close to the Democratic nomination that he (or a comparable lefty) could actually win next time!". But look at the super delegates. The Democratic party is NOT the dark blue line, it's the light blue one. Progressives in this party are swimming against an overwhelming current:

Dump these losers and build a party we can actually be proud of!

I'm all for millenials taking over the Democratic party. We have the numbers, we need to take advantage of that and push out the old guard.

 

[aeolist]

It is unbelievable to me that after the last 8 years and this whole shit show now that people actually think the solution is to become more like the tea party. Unbelievable.

What would Obama think?

obama presided over the utter destruction of the democratic party. obama backed DWS as she ruined the DNC. obama helped clear the deck for hillary. obama continued the police state buildup from the bush years, cracked down even harder on whistleblowers, and deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history, and set the legal precedent for killing US citizens with drones then handed all that to a fascist clown with a bow on top. and on top of that every good thing he did will be gone within 6 months.

basically every single decision he ever made regarding the republican opposition was wrong. we should not be caring about what he thinks now.

 

[PantherLotus]

-- yes there are probably better battles to pick

-- yes the entire concept of 'maybe if I do X then when it's our turn they'll be more willing to Y' is so absurd, so entirely disconnected from reality, such utter bullshit, it is entirely appropriate to wonder what exactly is going on here. nobody who has paid an ounce of attention over the last 20 years -- not just the last 8 -- would think otherwise.

-- 'no quarter' does not mean to pick your battles, it doesn't mean to not be petty, it doesn't mean to rise above the fray. it means to recognize your opposition for the evil, evil motherfuckers they are.

 

[rjinaz]

This is good.

Well for me personally, it's a banner declaring my hate for Trump more than anything. But that a few people doing it is already annoying certain people, it's already worth it. I can change your avatar if you like.

On topic. Democrats need to start playing smart. And they are smart, they can do it. They need to push things that annoy Trump. They need to egg him on, push him over the edge. Make it so Trump and the Republicans look like the bad guys when they continually say no to bills that benefit minorities, just as an example. It's time to step up the game.

 

[gcubed]

I'm all for millenials taking over the Democratic party. We have the numbers, we need to take advantage of that and push out the old guard.

that would require them to get off their couch and vote... something they don't do and the reason why they have no power. Good luck

 

[Eidan]

I'm all for millenials taking over the Democratic party. We have the numbers, we need to take advantage of that and push out the old guard.

If Millennials want to take over the Democratic Party now (as opposed to the inevitable later), they need to show up in a midterm. All this grand standing after a painful presidential loss where they also didn't show up in the numbers needed means fuck all.

 

[Zoator]

I think it's worth posting Elizabeth Warren's full rationale for the Carson vote:

OK, let’s talk about Dr. Ben Carson.

Yes, I have serious, deep, profound concerns about Dr. Carson’s inexperience to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Yes, I adamantly disagree with many of the outrageous things that Dr. Carson said during his presidential campaign. Yes, he is not the nominee I wanted.

But “the nominee I wanted” is not the test.

Millions of American families depend on HUD programs, including tens of thousands of families in Massachusetts. For many of them, HUD assistance is the difference between a safe, stable home and life on the street. As someone who has spent a lot of time working on housing policy in this country, my focus is on helping these families – and the countless others who could benefit from a stronger agency.

During the nomination process, I sent Dr. Carson a nine-page letter with detailed questions on a whole range of issues: Section 8 housing assistance; lead exposure in public housing; programs to prevent and end homelessness; programs to help victims of domestic violence; fighting housing discrimination; HUD’s role in preparing for and recovering from natural disasters; and, more broadly, the standards he will use for managing the department, including the steps he will take to protect the rights of LGBT Americans.

Dr. Carson’s answers weren’t perfect. But at his hearing, he committed to track and report on conflicts of interest at the agency. In his written responses to me, he made good, detailed promises, on everything from protecting anti-homelessness programs to enforcing fair housing laws. Promises that – if they’re honored – would help a lot of working families.

Can we count on Dr. Carson to keep those promises? I don’t know. People are right to be skeptical; I am. But a man who makes written promises gives us a toehold on accountability. If President Trump goes to his second choice, I don’t think we will get another HUD nominee who will even make these promises – much less follow through on them.

If Dr. Carson doesn’t follow through on his commitments, I will be the very first person he hears from – loudly and clearly and frequently. I didn’t hesitate to criticize past HUD Secretaries when they fell short, and I won’t hesitate with Dr. Carson – not for one minute.

I understand that some people might have made the call differently. I appreciate your making your thoughts heard. Unlike the new Administration, I don’t believe in ignoring or silencing people who disagree with the choices I make or the votes I take.

We’ve got a lot of nominees to consider, and a lot of places where we need to turn up the heat under the Senate Republicans. (Yes, Betsy DeVos, I’m looking at you. And Pruitt, Mnuchin, Puzder, Price, Tillerson – it’s a long list.) Either way, we need all of us in this fight. Your voices are powerfully important, and I hope you’ll keep speaking up for what you believe in.

Honestly I find the premise of this thread to be a bit absurd. Democrats in the Senate have been routinely speaking out about Trump's actions and his nominees on social media and speeches, as well as grilling the appointees in their confirmation hearings. Establishing some arbitrary ideological purity standard is helpful to no one here. The reality of the situation is that Democrats can't do anything now because they have no power. Voting for a nominee that you think is incompetent, but at least well-intentioned, makes sense insofar as opening doors for you to work with and influence said nominee. If they made a bunch of commitments in writing that other nominees have been more hesitant to make, that gives you more leverage to hold their feet to the fire later.

We'll see how the Democrats play the fillibuster card when the opportunity arises, but for right now, there's nothing they could do to stop anything that Trump has done up to this point. They have done well to speak about these things, though, and try to introduce some accountability.

 

[Barzul]

Sorry but they can't fight everything and after what Reid did in 2013, the party accepted that this was a plausible scenario. A president imo does deserve to pick his or her cabinet. The fight should be when it comes to Supreme Court justices, maybe clearly incompetent picks like DeVos and Obamacare repeal. If the law is not completely repealed it can be reinstated by a Democratic congress and president in 4-8 years.

 

[gutterboy44]

No, it's exactly why midterms almost always punish the president's party.



This should be reason enough why prognostications about how doomed the Democrats are just as absurd.



More than before? Trump's vote total is the same as McCain's and Romney's. It's not that more Republicans turned up to vote, it's that fewer Democrats did.



That level of obstructionism didn't emerge until the GOP had won back the House. As the minority party for Obama's first two years, the GOP saved their obstructionist fire for the bigger legislative issues.



This has nothing to do with "the established way of doing things" or veering to the center (the Democrats have been moving consistently to the left over past decade so I'm not sure where this centrist digression is coming from). The Democrats literally do not have the numbers to stop cabinet nominees from going through. All they can do is tarnish them to make them as publicly toxic as possible, and there is very limited public and media attention for doing that.

You're right, politicians should cater to their constituents. As a Democratic constituent, I want my elected officials to concentrate their efforts on the DeVoses and Prices of the world, who can do the most harm and have the most skeletons in the closet. I am way less concerned about the Nikki Haleys and Elaine Chaos being confirmed, and think any effort to block them for the sake of blocking them is a waste of time, energy, and attention.

I do not share your confidence in the current Dem establishment being able to even focus down a single target, live Devos or Price. I have even less faith in them pulling back enough power in the midterms to make a difference before Trump get's re elected in four years. Republican voters punished the GOP establishment by showing up and voting for even more hard line right wing politicians with the Tea Party. Democrats punish democrat leaders by just not bothering to vote. Until Dems can motivate their base again, I don't know where this power swing comes from. Right now, the "reject Trump at all costs" seems to be a pretty powerful motivator and understanding why people are frustrated and sick of the same old shit might be worth acknowledging by the top left leaders.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

It's worth noting that Bernie Sanders did not get where he is with the "Justice Democrats" strategy. He's been an independent his entire career. He ran for mayor and state congress as an independent. He helped build the Vermont Progressive Party. He's been an independent in congress and senate.

I know it's tempting to think "he got SOOOO close to the Democratic nomination that he (or a comparable lefty) could actually win next time!". But look at the super delegates. The Democratic party is NOT the dark blue line, it's the light blue one. Progressives in this party are swimming against an overwhelming current:

Dump these losers and build a party we can actually be proud of!

Isn't the number of super delegates changing drastically in 2020?

 

[Kill3r7]

An idiotic idea. Completely idiotic.

Correct, splitting the party now would be a surefire way to guarantee a second Trump term while completely losing power in the congress for the foreseeable future.

 

[geardo]

Absolutely perfectly said OP. Echoes my thoughts exactly. The Democratic Party as it currently exists needs to be shown the door and replaced with new blood.

 

[Neoweee]

It's worth noting that Bernie Sanders did not get where he is with the "Justice Democrats" strategy. He's been an independent his entire career. He ran for mayor and state congress as an independent. He helped build the Vermont Progressive Party. He's been an independent in congress and senate.

I know it's tempting to think "he got SOOOO close to the Democratic nomination that he (or a comparable lefty) could actually win next time!". But look at the super delegates. The Democratic party is NOT the dark blue line, it's the light blue one. Progressives in this party are swimming against an overwhelming current:

Dump these losers and build a party we can actually be proud of!

Superdelegates don't really matter in what quickly thin down to two-person races. If you dumped them, Hillary still wins.

If you dumped them in 2008, Obama would still have won.

If you dumped them in 2004, Kerry would still have won.

If you dumped them in 2000, Gore would still have won.

They're there in case of multi-way shitshows where no candidate is a clear, unambiguous, majority winner of the contests.

That this year of all years became the year that people bring up superdelegates completely boggles the mind. Hillary won by ~12%. By GE standards, that's a complete epic blowout. In primary standards, there's not really a comparison because candidates typically drop out after they've lost any real chance at getting the nomination.

 

[Cagey]

It is unbelievable to me that after the last 8 years and this whole shit show now that people actually think the solution is to become more like the tea party. Unbelievable.

What would Obama think?

Who cares.

One party declared total war on Obama. His reaction showed ignorance that he was at war.

America needed a war time consigliere and we had a peace time one. Tom Hagen wasn't the right guy for that battle and he's not right for this one.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I hope that pride is worth never having any power.

Democratic power is practically worthless. It's not like they try really hard, but get stymied by limits of the office. They don't fucking try. Obama never tried to hold Wall St executives accountable for the '08 crash. He didn't need congressional approval. Through the bailouts, we literally could've nationalized the banks. We could've at minimum fired the executives who perpetuated the fraud. We should jailed more than few of them. But no, they're still in their jobs, still making obscene bonuses, and average person continues to struggle.

And the ACA is another one. It didn't start as a universal program and got negotiated down to the health insurance industry sweetheart deal that passed. It was that from the beginning. The Public Option was gone months before Republicans had any input. Obama first negotiated with himself, then he negotiated with the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, then he negotiated with Democrats, then finally the GOP tried like hell to block the pittance that was remaining.

If this is how you want to do politics, then have at it. I think you're going to lose.

Here's what ONE independent city councilor can do:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benja...-minimum-wage-movement-entered-the-mainstream

Nobody gives a shit about city council. It's tiny. Yet, a motivated independent with a movement behind her can jump start a radical reform nationwide. This is the strategy I want to grow.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Yes, the Democrats inadvertently screwed themselves in 2013 by defanging the fillibuster like that.

Eh, I still think it was the right decision because we've got some pretty ridiculous barriers to governing the Republicans abused the hell out of, but they were never going to be in power forever. It was *always* a question of when, not if, it got used against them. It's going to be a really sucky next two years, but Dems should never be in the position where using the Republicans' tactics to stop governance is their go-to weapon. Because the Republicans will get rewarded for doing it, the Dems won't. And that means more lost elections and more power ceded to the Republicans.

Here's what ONE independent city councilor can do:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benja...-minimum-wage-movement-entered-the-mainstream

Nobody gives a shit about city council. It's tiny. Yet, a motivated independent with a movement behind her can jump start a radical reform nationwide. This is the strategy I want to grow.

No one gives a shit about city council, which is precisely why she can do something there. More liberals should realize that their local governments impact their day-to-day lives far more and can be decided by far smaller margins.

But I highly doubt that translates to "radical reform" nationwide, especially if your idea of ideal reform is mass nationalization of industries.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Trump's cabinet nominees are pretty much all orthodox modern GOP'ers, I don't see a big deal here.

 

[LegendofJoe]

that would require them to get off their couch and vote... something they don't do and the reason why they have no power. Good luck

It's an uphill battle for sure. The way to change that is to get actual millenials into office. That starts at the local level. If the folks running the Justice Democrats were smart (they aren't) that's what the focus would be. Someone who actually has a clue needs to start a rival organization to do the hard work at the local level to get millenials into government.

If Millennials want to take over the Democratic Party now (as opposed to the inevitable later), they need to show up in a midterm. All this grand standing after a painful presidential loss where they also didn't show up in the numbers needed means fuck all.

People that speak to millenials like Bernie will get them to show up. The more people running that speak to us and our problems and are passionate about it the better turnout will be.

 

[Blader]

I do not share your confidence in the current Dem establishment being able to even focus down a single target, live Devos or Price.

They're doing that already, though. It's the reason why they've let Mattis, Kelly, Chao, Haley and one or two others go through unscathed, while DeVos, Price, Mnuchin, Pruitt, Pudzer, etc. are still in the headlines.

I have even less faith in them pulling back enough power in the midterms to make a difference before Trump get's re elected in four years. Republican voters punished the GOP establishment by showing up and voting for even more hard line right wing politicians with the Tea Party. Democrats punish democrat leaders by just not bothering to vote. Until Dems can motivate their base again, I don't know where this power swing comes from. Right now, the "reject Trump at all costs" seems to be a pretty powerful motivator and understanding why people are frustrated and sick of the same old shit might be worth acknowledging by the top left leaders.

When their party is in the White House. When there's a Republican president, Democrats pick up seats, sometimes dozens of seats, in midterm elections (with '98 and '02 being exceptions in the last 30-40 years). The same is true for Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House. That's because a president's approval ratings always drop, which depresses their party while incensing the minority party.

I am optimistic, more so for House and governors races than Senate races, about 2018 partly because of that trend, but more so because of the tremendous anger I see on the part of Democrats right now. In my life (which is admittedly not that long), I have never seen such an enormous level of vitriol toward a Republican president from the left; I have never seen significant numbers of people my age, many of whom are the typical vote every four years and nowhere else types, suddenly care about mobilizing for midterm elections and organizing other grassroots movements to generate action. There is a powerful sense of complete anger at Donald Trump right now that I just don't see abating any time soon.

If this is how you want to do politics, then have at it. I think you're going to lose.

My progressive-but-compromising party has gotten things that done that mattered to me and actually impacted my life for the better, to say nothing of millions of other people who have been impacted just as much if not more. Your progressive purity party doesn't exist. It's not because no one has had the idea before, it's because they by and large aren't electable on a serious level.

If you want to organize a third party that better represents your interests, go for it; that's your prerogative as a voter. But I think that's a path to never achieving any meaningful power, as history has shown repeatedly, and frankly I'm deeply skeptical that people who hold those views do anything to build up their parties at all. There are many reasons the Green Party is not a major power in national or even state elections, and one of the big ones is that a lot of people who swing that way don't give a shit to do anything about it in the many years between elections.

 

[Hylian7]

I mean, what was the alternative really? While declaring martial law and resetting the election process would have been a dream of many, do you not think it would have caused all kinds of issues that could have still lead to this, especially with the country as divided as it is?

I agree that is definitely not the answer, but a good start would be actually addressing the fact that Russian hacking affected the election and take action other than sanctions. Do we even have any laws for if an election is compromised by hacking? That is definitely something to address.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Correct, splitting the party now would be a surefire way to guarantee a second Trump term while completely losing power in the congress for the foreseeable future.

You don't split the vote in the general. You dominate at the primary level with passionate progressives and remake the party in the process.

 

[Kyzer]

So you want them to obstruct people just because that's what they did to us? The nominees have flaws but to have an issue with schumer saying theyre not playing tit for tat is strange, thats a good thing. Theyre not being petty little children and thats not ok? If they block a nominee it should be for a good reason, not for revenge

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

So you want them to obstruct people just because that's what they did to us?

Obstruct him because of the evil shit he is doing. Send the message he is too toxic to work with.

 

[Kill3r7]

You don't split the vote in the general. You dominate at the primary level with passionate progressives and remake the party in the process.

No chance. The old timers will stick around no matter who the face of the party is in a Presidential race. There is a reason Nancy Pelosi is still around and it is not because of her progressive views or political acumen.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

So you want them to obstruct people just because that's what they did to us? The nominees have flaws but to have an issue with schumer saying theyre not playing tit for tat is strange, thats a good thing. Theyre not being petty little children and thats not ok? If they block a nominee it should be for a good reason, not for revenge

If you're not willing to use power equivalent to your enemy, you lost. Is this really controversial? Democrats want some kind of Honorable politics where you get the Serious Adults together and they hash out their differences through logical argument. That is not on the table. The Republican are insane and shameless. They go to astounding lengths to block black and latino people from voting. They don't care how it makes them look. If you're not going to fight them head-on, then step aside.

 

[Zok310]

If Democrats are still this weak-willed after everything Trump and the GOP has done, then I guess Justice Democrats is the way to go. Doesn't sound so silly now.

These spineless, complacent Democrats is giving indirect support to Trump and the GOP as far as I'm concerned. They need to be primaried if they refuse to fight.

They are not weak, they are corrupt, hence JustUs or Justic movement from TYT and team Bernie. Meaning just focus on the people and stop voting for the best interest of giant corporations that lobby and bribe them.

 

[Blader]

Obstruct him because of the evil shit he is doing. Send the message he is too toxic to work with.

But some of these cabinet choices are not evil shit.

No chance. The old timers will stick around no matter who the face of the party is in a Presidential race. There is a reason Nancy Pelosi is still around and it is not because of her progressive views or political acumen.

Because she's exceptionally good at organizing, raising money and uniting her caucus?

If you're not willing to use power equivalent to your enemy, you lost. Is this really controversial? Democrats want some kind of Honorable politics where you get the Serious Adults together and they hash out their differences through logical argument. That is not on the table. The Republican are insane and shameless. If you're not going to fight them head-on, then step aside.

The Democrats do not have power equivalent to Republicans now, though.

 

[gutterboy44]

They're doing that already, though. It's the reason why they've let Mattis, Kelly, Chao, Haley and one or two others go through unscathed, while DeVos, Price, Mnuchin, Pruitt, Pudzer, etc. are still in the headlines.



When their party is in the White House. When there's a Republican president, Democrats pick up seats, sometimes dozens of seats, in midterm elections (with '98 and '02 being exceptions in the last 30-40 years). The same is true for Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House. That's because a president's approval ratings always drop, which depresses their party while incensing the minority party.

I am optimistic, more so for House and governors races than Senate races, about 2018 partly because of that trend, but more so because of the tremendous anger I see on the part of Democrats right now. In my life (which is admittedly not that long), I have never seen such an enormous level of vitriol toward a Republican president from the left; I have never seen significant numbers of people my age, many of whom are the typical vote every four years and nowhere else types, suddenly care about mobilizing for midterm elections and organizing other grassroots movements to generate action. There is a powerful sense of complete anger at Donald Trump right now that I just don't see abating any time soon.

I agree that the hate of Trump is like nothing we have seen before. I also agree that yes traditionally the opposing party of the president makes gains in midterms. But, I also remember Bush winning re election after what seemed a massive resistance from Dems young and old. I would argue the Dems were less fractured then than they are now. The hate for Trump existed before the election, yet Dems were willing to protest vote or not vote at all. If young voters feel like their local "Bernie" is getting the shaft at the primary level than who is to say they don't fuck off during the midterms like they did in the general election? The threat of Trump was clearly not enough in November, will it be enough in two years? There seems to be two competing tides on the left. Change now, get power back and get power back then change. I am for the former. I want more people in gov't that represent me and not someone who simply isn't republican. Most polling data shows that the younger you are (I am not that young) the more strongly you feel that way. Hey, I get that it could all be even worse and maybe slow and steady will win the race, but the threat of climate change alone and reading things about bills being drafted to sell off national park lands make things feel really god damn urgent, and when urgency is key, it can be difficult to believe in the notion of norms and small steps.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

My progressive-but-compromising party has gotten things that done that mattered to me and actually impacted my life for the better, to say nothing of millions of other people who have been impacted just as much if not so more. Your progressive purity party doesn't exist. It's not because no one has had the idea before, it's because they aren't electable on any meaningful level.

Your "progressive but compromising" party is at war in 8 countries and instituted a world wide mass-surveillance program. We're not on the same side of politics.

If you want to organize a third party that better represents your interests, go for it; that's your prerogative as a voter. But I think that's a path to failure, as history has shown repeatedly, and frankly I'm deeply skeptical that people who those views do anything to build up their parties at all. There are many reasons the Green Party is not a major power in national or even state elections, and one of the big ones is that a lot of people who swing that don't give a shit to do anything about it in the many years between elections.

The Green Party fails for 3 main reasons in my opinion:

- They run for unwinnable seats on "awareness campaigns", instead of building actual political power from the grassroots up

- Their platform is a mishmash, not clearly oriented to the working class

- Their ongoing organization is a mess. Their local chapter meetings are filled with disaffected weirdos, each with their own conspiracy theory to promote. At least this is the case in my city, and corresponds with what I've heard elsewhere.

 

[LegendofJoe]

No chance. The old timers will stick around no matter who the face of the party is in a Presidential race. There is a reason Nancy Pelosi is still around and it is not because of her progressive views or political acumen.

I'm not talking about the most powerful Democrats in office, I'm talking about people at the state/local level. It will take time for a millenial to reach the power/influence of someone like Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Iksenpets]

I think it's worth posting Elizabeth Warren's full rationale for the Carson vote:



Honestly I find the premise of this thread to be a bit absurd. Democrats in the Senate have been routinely speaking out about Trump's actions and his nominees on social media and speeches, as well as grilling the appointees in their confirmation hearings. Establishing some arbitrary ideological purity standard is helpful to no one here. The reality of the situation is that Democrats can't do anything now because they have no power. Voting for a nominee that you think is incompetent, but at least well-intentioned, makes sense insofar as opening doors for you to work with and influence said nominee. If they made a bunch of commitments in writing that other nominees have been more hesitant to make, that gives you more leverage to hold their feet to the fire later.

We'll see how the Democrats play the fillibuster card when the opportunity arises, but for right now, there's nothing they could do to stop anything that Trump has done up to this point. They have done well to speak about these things, though, and try to introduce some accountability.

This is a solid rationale for doing this in normal times, but this isn't normal times. And she's right, HUD needs a secretary, and Carson probably really was less odious than whomever would be picked to replace him, but the with the GOP prepared to shove him through regardless, why not let him do it without Democratic votes? There's no downside.

That said, Carson isn't the most important fight in this. Anyone who backs Tillserson or Sessions of DeVos or Mnuchin needs to be thrown out (except I guess Manchin or Heitkamp, who probably really are the best we can hope for from their states, regardless of any bullshit they pull). People like Schumer and Booker and Feinstein need to know that they are under constant primary threat if they don't treat Trump with the urgency their blue-state constituents feel.

 

[aeolist]

carson is extremely homophobic and transphobic, voting for him as hud secretary because he said he'll support LGBT rights in housing and accommodations is naive at best

warren should know better

 

[sugarhigh4242]

carson is extremely homophobic and transphobic, voting for him as hud secretary because he said he'll support LGBT rights in housing and accommodations is naive at best

warren should know better

Yeah, she'd be on better footing if she was just like "yeah sorry, I gotta pick my battles". She shouldn't have tried to defend it on any substantive grounds.

 

[Future]

Democrats definitely feel weak, fragile, and inconsistent in cause. While going high when the opposition goes low, they get wrecked at every turn and then get surprised about it.

Then they wonder why they can't motivate their base. Base doesn't believe they are gonna do shit. True America is this trump nonsense, because they are the ones that believe in anything

 

[sugarhigh4242]

The Democrats do not have power equivalent to Republicans now, though.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention to the last 8 years of politics:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

 

[LegendofJoe]

All focus should be on running young blood at the local/state level. This will increase turnout for millenials. If they see their friends running for office, they'll get out to support them.

 

[Blader]

I agree that the hate of Trump is like nothing we have seen before. I also agree that yes traditionally the opposing party of the president makes gains in midterms. But, I also remember Bush winning re election after what seemed a massive resistance from Dems young and old. I would argue the Dems were less fractured then than they are now. The hate for Trump existed before the election, yet Dems were willing to protest vote or not vote at all. If young voters feel like their local "Bernie" is getting the shaft at the primary level than who is to say they don't fuck off during the midterms like they did in the general election? The threat of Trump was clearly not enough in November, will it be enough in two years? There seems to be two competing tides on the left. Change now, get power back and get power back then change. I am for the former. I want more people in gov't that represent me and not someone who simply isn't republican. Most polling data shows that the younger you are (I am not that young) the more strongly you feel that way. Hey, I get that it could all be even worse and maybe slow and steady will win the race, but the threat of climate change alone and reading things about bills being drafted to sell off national park lands make things feel really god damn urgent, and when urgency is key, it can be difficult to believe in the notion of norms and small steps.

I'm not advocating for slow and steady or small steps or change after winning back power; I'm all for a more grassroots-driven, 50-state strategy push, and I see the energy from young and old Democrats to do just that right now. All I'm saying is that when Dems have limited power as they do now, and literally no power to stop Trump's cabinet choices, they need to pick their battles for maximum attention. We know the press and the public both have very limited attention spans; Trump was on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, and enough people just stopped being outraged about within 3-4 weeks later.

Hell man, I want to stop Donald Trump and the GOP too. But I think where there are so many things to be outraged about, it makes it all too easy for that shit to get lost in the noise. So rather than stretch ourselves thin in complaining about Nikki Haley's lack of foreign policy experience or James Mattis breaking the tradition of civilian control of the military and Betsy DeVos trying to undermine public school funding to subsidize already-rich families to send their kids to private schools they were going to already, I'd rather just concentrate all that effort on DeVos. Make that shit stick so you can drag it out in the press for as long as possible.

Your "progressive but compromising" party is at war in 8 countries and instituted a world wide mass-surveillance program. We're not on the same side of politics.



The Green Party fails for 3 main reasons in my opinion:

- They run for unwinnable seats on "awareness campaigns", instead of building actual political power from the grassroots up

- Their platform is a mishmash, not clearly oriented to the working class

- Their ongoing organization is a mess. Their local chapter meetings are filled with disaffected weirdos, each with their own conspiracy theory to promote. At least this is the case in my city, and corresponds with what I've heard elsewhere.

Ok. So what will you be doing in the next couple years to get the party you want?

Just in case you haven't been paying attention to the last 8 years of politics:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

Republicans had the power to be the party of no for the last six years because they had a majority in one, if not both, houses of Congress. In the first two years where they didn't, they concentrated on Obama's biggest priorities rather than picking fights with everything and everyone Obama put forward.

 

[aeolist]

i wonder if it's actually occurred to any elected democrats that the massive deluge of evil shit that's going to be flooding us for the next year could have been done even more easily in the other direction in 2009 if they hadn't been so utterly worthless

 

[Kill3r7]

Because she's exceptionally good at organizing, raising money and uniting her caucus

YEP.

I'm not talking about the most powerful Democrats in office, I'm talking about people at the state/local level. It will take time for a millenial to reach the power/influence of someone like Nancy Pelosi.

Even at the local level the political machine is at full force. The vast majority of people do not make it up the political ladder by happenstance. There is always someone there with deep pockets or influence who shines their light on you and that is what gets you moving. Obama most recently on the Axe Files Podcast discussed his journey in politics and you can tell how he refined his message and ultimately started to gain traction. Sure you can win a small town race but to really move up the political ladder you need the backing of the local movers and shakers within the party. Simply having a positive massage and being a good orator is not enough.

 

[dakini]

I mean even Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have voted for at least one of Trump's cabinet members should they be primaried as well?

 

[studyguy]

The Democrats do not have power equivalent to Republicans now, though.

Feel like that notion is lost on this thread at the moment.
For instance looking at the Tillerson vote:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee split along party lines Monday to endorse Rex Tillerson as the country’s next secretary of state, setting up a confirmation vote in the full Senate that is all but guaranteed to succeed.

Republicans unanimously backed Tillerson in the 11-to-10 vote, after key Republicans who had voiced criticism of Tillerson opted to support his nomination.

Then this goes to a simple majority vote on the senate floor. That's not even something Dems can stop if they wanted to. No one is saying you don't fight, but good lord the thread needs to get some perspective at what happens if we turn things into a genuine wall of obstruction. Lets say you push to block his SCOTUS pick till they're seriously considering the nuclear option, do you consider that a victory? I sure as fuck don't if they exercise that option despite saying they won't.