Trump

[Cassandra LeMay]

I do think Democrats need to accept that the reason they lost was indeed not only their choice but their message.  In the face of a very disillusioned and angry populace, the Democratic party sent forth their candidate with a message of business as usual.

I think saying that the Democratic party "sent forth their candidate" may be a bit too strong. Granted, Clinton may have been the candidate the DNC wanted, but the primaries were a closer race than most people would have expected, and Sanders did manage to get some of his key positions into the party platform.

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with a business-as-usual message per se. Having a steady pair of hands on the wheel can be a solid, winning message. Clinton may just have been the wrong candidate for that message. Imagine Joe Biden would have run on a similar platform, for example. He might have done better than Clinton, even with the same message.

[HannibalBarca]

While I may have supported Sanders in the primary, I voted for Clinton over Trump, and his behavior and actions seems to bear out my choice.  It seems that business as usual (Clinton), while just treading water and continuing problematic behavior, would have been preferable to what Trump is doing right now.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Nothing is wrong with a business-as-usual message when people believe that business-as-usual is a good thing.  Obviously the difficulty Clinton had in the primaries showed that people did not believe in that message.  Obama was elected on a message of change, he was the change candidate after all.  Even on his re-election he ran on the idea of hope and change.  Clinton essentially tried to ride his coat tails into office and the party leadership failed to read the warning signs.  So the business-as-usual message was a poor choice that I believe anyone should have picked up on especially when Trump made it through the primaries.  People wanted change.  People did not believe their lot in life had improved and believed that the government had to change.  The Democratic leadership allowed Trump to become an embodiment of that change.

As for "sent forth their candidate" being strong the party elected her and few people had any question that she would be the nominee.  Party leadership was even found to be supporting her and people readily knew that the party was backing her.  That Bernie Sanders garnered such a following was a shock all around and should have been a warning to them.

[Vekseid]

Which is why the Democrats caved to so much of Sanders' platform. Bernie tried to make that clear, but unfortunately rather few people heard.

We'd be having a very different conversation right now if the polling error was 1% in her favor rather than against.

Perhaps with fewer murders of people born the wrong shade of brown.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well if they caved such a great deal they did a very bad job sending out that message.  I followed the election pretty closely and had little impression the Bernie Sander's supporters were heard at all.  Except for a slight shift more toward the left, there wasn't much to be found.  Clinton largely kept her message the same.  Plus, by this time, the party was pretty well divided.  Judging by the way the Democrats are going now, I do not think they learned their lesson yet.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Well if they caved such a great deal they did a very bad job sending out that message.  I followed the election pretty closely and had little impression the Bernie Sander's supporters were heard at all.  Except for a slight shift more toward the left, there wasn't much to be found.

The change really was there, and it was significant, or, as Bernie put it:

“We have made enormous strides,” Sanders said. “Thanks to the millions of people across the country who got involved in the political process – many for the first time – we now have the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”

Yes, the message wasn't heard all that clearly, but I am not sure if Clinton and the DNC are to blame for that, or the fact that Trump dominated the news cycle too much. Sanders certainly did try to get the message across, not just on his homepage, but also on several talk shows and in interviews at the time.

But in all this, lets not forget that the question how much the message cost Clinton - and how much losing Sanders supporters cost her - may be impossible to answer. Yes, there are some Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton (and some who did), but the impact on the election may be impossible to judge. Maybe the messaging cost the Democrats the election, and maybe it didn't. We'd need state by state polls of people who voted for Bernie in the primaries to be certain and I can't recall ever seeing polls like that.

Personally I don't think disgruntled Bernie supporters cost Clinton the election. Bernie had a good showing in the Pacific northwest and New England. Clinton carried most of those states in the presidential election. Same for Colorado and Minnesota where Sanders did well, but Clinton also did well there during the November election. Wisconsin and Michigan are more interesting cases, as Sanders did fairly well there, but Clinton lost in November. But that is perhaps a case of demographics working against Clinton (i.e. a strong showing of white, less-educated males voting for Trump) than a sign that Bernie supporters turned against her en masse.

Looking at it this way I wonder if the split in the Democratic party is actually as deep as it appears. Partisanship seems to have played a very large part in how Democrats voted, despite the perceived rift between "progressives" and "establishment". It's the first time that I looked at the results this way, but now that I did, I wonder if we are not being somewhat deceived about a potential conflict within the party by small, vocal groups who will end up voting Deomcrat anyway, even if they don't get their way in terms of party policies.

[Vekseid]

As for 'learning their lesson', Tom Perez made Kieth Ellison co-chair of the DNC after the election yesterday.

Kieth's loss appears to be entirely the result of Haim Saban and other pro-Israel elements backing the Democratic party. That's really the only policy difference between them.

This has, rightly or wrongly, pissed some people off.

But Democrats have certainly learned a great deal.

A part of the issue though, is that voters need to learn as well. Which also seems to be occurring, if slowly.

[elone]

The choice of Perez shows that the Democrats have learned little. The party is still influenced by Saban, millionaires, and those with a pro Israel, anti-Palestinian agenda who could not fathom a Muslim leading the party. Why would a single issue determine the chair of the party.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/25/keith-ellison-loses-dnc-race-after-heated-campaign-targeting-him-for-his-views-on-palestine/

Also, Donna Brazile officiating as acting chair after leaking CNN questions and her attempts at rigging the primaries? She should have been tossed aside a while ago, no matter what she has done in the past.

The Democrats are as corrupt and beholding to "millionaires and billionaires" and special interests as they have been for a while now. Still better than the Republicans, however.

Voters need to learn to pay attention to who is pulling the strings. I think that one reason that Sanders and Trump did so well was that they left the impression that they could not be bought.

Keith Ellison is not co-chair, but was made deputy chair, a more subordinate position than a co-chair, and a position that had never existed. Yeah, they threw him some crumbs.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

My impression of how the Democrats are treating Keith Eliison is how they treated Bernie Sanders after the primaries.  They keep them close in the hopes of gaining the vote of their supporters, but do little else with them.  I heard little to embolden my spirit while listening to the speeches afterward on BBC America.  The Democrats are still dancing this silly line of not offending their rich donors while trying to appeal toward the rebellious spirit of their progressive members.  This is mirroring the Republican party's fight between their conservatives and their Tea Party members that have no absorbed the religious right.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I must admit I haven't followed the race for DNC chair closely, but my impression is that Perez and Ellison may not be all that terribly different and that they may just be painted in different lights thanks to whom they supported during election season.

Now that a new, permanent, DNC chair is in place, perhaps the party can sort out its priorities and future course. Something that will not help any repositioning or rethinking of the Democrats is to judge people prematurely. Give them some time to work things out. Painting Perez as "establishment" without giving him a chance will help no one. Lets talk about this again in six months or so and then we can see if by their fruits we can know them.

I think the Democrats are at a point where they might have to do some soul searching - not just about their oposition to Trump. Not just about the midterms in 2018. Not just about the presidential elections in 2020. The next few months (or year or two) could be a real crossroads for the party, so I think we should give them a little time and not ask for haste in decisions that could affect the party for a decade or two. At least give them until the midterms in 2018 till you judge what they did - or didn't - do right, what lessons they learned.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The Democrats have been hurting for quite some time.  This is not a new situation for them that developed with Trump taking office.  Republicans have controlled and continue to control Congress.  I think we are past the wait and watch stage.

[Trigon]

Hmmm... Yeah, I think Cenk from TYT hits the nail right on the head regarding the pick for the DNC chair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=squdPZyk7b4

[HannibalBarca]

Sam Ronan had looked like the best candidate for DNC chair.  I suppose he was too progressive for the post, seeing the results.

[Lustful Bride]

At this point I think a lot of people will just be voting Democrat just because its not Repucblican/trump. Which will open up a new can of worms.

The pendulum has swung to the far right, which means its only a matter of time till it swings all the way to the left. :/

[Vekseid]

The choice of Perez shows that the Democrats have learned little. The party is still influenced by Saban, millionaires, and those with a pro Israel, anti-Palestinian agenda who could not fathom a Muslim leading the party. Why would a single issue determine the chair of the party.

Because a lot of donors had issues with Keith's Nation of Islam membership and defense of Farrakhan. Even though he renounced it.

Right now, with antisemitism being on the rise, I can't exactly fault the likes of Saban for being concerned. I'm not a Jew, no matter how much I can sympathize with seeing swastikas popping up everywhere and graveyards getting defiled, the threat is not as personal for me as it is for them.

At this point I think a lot of people will just be voting Democrat just because its not Repucblican/trump. Which will open up a new can of worms.

The pendulum has swung to the far right, which means its only a matter of time till it swings all the way to the left. :/

Why do you feel a swing to the left would be bad? Especially in this day and age.

[Lustful Bride]

Why do you feel a swing to the left would be bad? Especially in this day and age.

I don't feel like it would necessarily be bad. I'm not the best at explaining myself. I just think that the current extreme right might end up being answered by am extreme left response which will just repeat the pattern over and over. Or people can get stuck with an excuse of 'Well at least its not trump or not as bad." And then anyone with a right leaning opinion on any topic could end up ostracized as a trumpster.

Bleh I'm terrible at making my points :/ I probably sound like a crazy right wing afraid of 'dem liberals' :P

[Vekseid]

The last gilded age engendered a period of historically high civic engagement in America, leading to the progressive movement, trustbusting, unions, women voting, and the rise of the United States as a global power.

I'm totally down for that pattern repeating itself again.

[Lustful Bride]

The last gilded age engendered a period of historically high civic engagement in America, leading to the progressive movement, trustbusting, unions, women voting, and the rise of the United States as a global power.

I'm totally down for that pattern repeating itself again.

Perhaps im just being a worry wart. Nothing to do but wait and see. :P

[Trigon]

I don't feel like it would necessarily be bad. I'm not the best at explaining myself. I just think that the current extreme right might end up being answered by am extreme left response which will just repeat the pattern over and over. Or people can get stuck with an excuse of 'Well at least its not trump or not as bad." And then anyone with a right leaning opinion on any topic could end up ostracized as a trumpster.

I think at this point the only way to counter the rise of the far-right, is to bank much further to the left, as crazy as it seems. Keep in mind that one of the goals of the far-right is to abolish the Republic all together, so the idea of compromise with them is tantamount to suicide.

Bleh I'm terrible at making my points :/ I probably sound like a crazy right wing afraid of 'dem liberals' :P

Not at all! I think you just need to keep in mind that the center is no longer tenable in this day and age...

The last gilded age engendered a period of historically high civic engagement in America, leading to the progressive movement, trustbusting, unions, women voting, and the rise of the United States as a global power.

I'm totally down for that pattern repeating itself again.

I hope so!

[Lustful Bride]

I think at this point the only way to counter the rise of the far-right, is to bank much further to the left, as crazy as it seems. Keep in mind that one of the goals of the far-right is to abolish the Republic all together, so the idea of compromise with them is tantamount to suicide.

Not at all! I think you just need to keep in mind that the center is no longer tenable in this day and age...

To me that just makes it worse, there always has to be a center, to call both sides out for what they do, to be the middle ground to let them talk to one another, and call for compromise.

Even if it makes me look crazy, or unpopular, or naïve I will always argue for the middle ground and hope for cooler heads to prevail and see that no one side is right and its not just red or blue, but a light shade of purple or grey perhaps :P

[Verasaille]

I actually find myself in the middle a lot of times. It's not that I am pro left or pro right. I find that some of the things that the GOP pushes are not that bad...hear me out!

The Social Security system was put in place to help Americans, of any race or religion from being totally destitute in their old age, also to help the widows and children who are left without a primary breadwinner. I will link the explanation here:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Now it is used to help immigrants, those who have not paid a dime into it, and sometimes not even those who are citizens here legally. I do not think this is right. If they are here to be American citizens, with all the benefits, then they should be expected to live by the same rules as the people who were born here.

To anyone who has tried to get help from the State or Federal government, you know how many hoops you have to jump through to get any kind of help. To those who have never applied for Food Stamps or a Federal subsidized rental program, if you were born here, good luck.

I just recently applied for help. I am a senior and I live alone. All I have is SS. I do not have any other income. It takes a month or more to get any aid at all. And yet the illegals can walk into a hospital and get emergency treatment, even without proving they are citizens. I am all for compassion, it is what makes this country great. But it is draining our funds in SS to give all these undocumented and illegal aliens the help they need, while there are people in this country who cannot get help.

There are veterans living homeless, and among all the other homeless, are families who got forced out of their homes because of job loss or medical problems not covered by insurance. Who is helping these people?

[TheGlyphstone]

I actually find myself in the middle a lot of times. It's not that I am pro left or pro right. I find that some of the things that the GOP pushes are not that bad...hear me out!

The Social Security system was put in place to help Americans, of any race or religion from being totally destitute in their old age, also to help the widows and children who are left without a primary breadwinner. I will link the explanation here:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Now it is used to help immigrants, those who have not paid a dime into it, and sometimes not even those who are citizens here legally. I do not think this is right. If they are here to be American citizens, with all the benefits, then they should be expected to live by the same rules as the people who were born here.

To anyone who has tried to get help from the State or Federal government, you know how many hoops you have to jump through to get any kind of help. To those who have never applied for Food Stamps or a Federal subsidized rental program, if you were born here, good luck.

I just recently applied for help. I am a senior and I live alone. All I have is SS. I do not have any other income. It takes a month or more to get any aid at all. And yet the illegals can walk into a hospital and get emergency treatment, even without proving they are citizens. I am all for compassion, it is what makes this country great. But it is draining our funds in SS to give all these undocumented and illegal aliens the help they need, while there are people in this country who cannot get help.

There are veterans living homeless, and among all the other homeless, are families who got forced out of their homes because of job loss or medical problems not covered by insurance. Who is helping these people?

I posted (links to) some data a page or two back, but illegal immigrants actually put into SS more than they take out. Roughly 15% of them get some sort of federal aid/assistance, and 50% of them pay some form of taxes on their income (plus obvious stuff like sales tax). And without a valid SS number, they can't draw on it at retirement age. SS is seeing a negative cash flow, but that's due to the aging of America overall, not any sort of flood of illegals.

The shameful and disgusting treatment of our veterans is a completely different issue.

[Lustful Bride]

The shameful and disgusting treatment of our veterans is a completely different issue.

My own father needed help from the VA once. Every horror story you hear about them and how abandoned our veterans are. Is an understatement.

If you ever have a chance to help a vet out or contribute to Wounded Warriors or some similar group, please help. Because the government sure as hell wont. They treat them like windup toys and throw them away as soon as possible.

[Lustful Bride]

I actually find myself in the middle a lot of times. It's not that I am pro left or pro right. I find that some of the things that the GOP pushes are not that bad...hear me out!

The Social Security system was put in place to help Americans, of any race or religion from being totally destitute in their old age, also to help the widows and children who are left without a primary breadwinner. I will link the explanation here:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Now it is used to help immigrants, those who have not paid a dime into it, and sometimes not even those who are citizens here legally. I do not think this is right. If they are here to be American citizens, with all the benefits, then they should be expected to live by the same rules as the people who were born here.

To anyone who has tried to get help from the State or Federal government, you know how many hoops you have to jump through to get any kind of help. To those who have never applied for Food Stamps or a Federal subsidized rental program, if you were born here, good luck.

I just recently applied for help. I am a senior and I live alone. All I have is SS. I do not have any other income. It takes a month or more to get any aid at all. And yet the illegals can walk into a hospital and get emergency treatment, even without proving they are citizens. I am all for compassion, it is what makes this country great. But it is draining our funds in SS to give all these undocumented and illegal aliens the help they need, while there are people in this country who cannot get help.

There are veterans living homeless, and among all the other homeless, are families who got forced out of their homes because of job loss or medical problems not covered by insurance. Who is helping these people?

I disagree with a lot of this, but I can see your sentiment is born more out of feeling abandoned by the government, rather than any real hatred. Its not as simple as you make it out to be. Illegal immigrants aren't just here to drain resources, they do contribute in their way to helping out, they just need to be here now and cant or wont wait for the normal longterm vetting processes.

[Sara Nilsson]

And yet the illegals can walk into a hospital and get emergency treatment, even without proving they are citizens

oO are you seriously saying we shouldnt give emergency treatment to people just because they are not citizens? I am assuming you didn't mean it as harshly as you stated there. I can understand frustration about being a citizen and seeing illegals and us immigrants get help when you struggle to get it. But myself, being here legally and not a citizen (due to US government fuckups) pay our taxes and get nothing back. So we are contributing to the economy, taxes, job etc. Is the system perfect? Of course not, I was on wellfare back in Sweden when I lost my job and I saw lots of immigrants there who where gaming the system to just gain money. But that is a minority, and as such I wont hold that against them all. But emergency treatment should be for everyone.