What's the way forward for Democrats?
- Thread starter puppies
- Start date
- Status
I generally only cry "fowl!" if scared by a large bird, but other than that, point noted.
Also:
And we saw the damage this can do only recently. It can even cause Congress to investigate you.
This is really the "best of" argument in the smallest nutshell.
Anyway the thing to note about that article wasn't a cult of personality surrounding a Clinton, it was how the Democratic party in Arkansas has become a husk of it's former self, like other places, and that's unfortunately the hardest part of the "way forward", not picking another "anointed one".
Fuck the Democrats. Hopefully that party burns to the ground in the next election or two so a real leftist party can take root in it's place.
When the Dems finish burning to the ground, the nation starts burning down.
If that happens, the future left-wing party will spend decades trying to claw back to where we are now. I can see them running on a "We will bring back public schooling" platform.
If they don't win, and win big, in 2020, you'll likely get your wish. Left leaning groups throughout history do not deal well with repeated failures, and do what we're seeing now - turning on each other, mostly. And becoming so vile and nasty to everyone that nobody outside really wants in anyway.
At this point in the US's arc through history, that party will likely be in whatever eventually rises from the ashes.
I don't see much turning on each other. The Dems came out last month and vastly exceeded expectations in an off-year. Also the only real bickering is leftover from the 2015-16 primary, and that seems to have mostly died down. There's somewhat of a leadership vacuum, and once that is filled, 2015/2016 will finally be put to rest.
As to your "vile and nasty" comment, my eyes are about to roll out of the back of my head.
Also can we please just stop with the fantasizing about the end of civilization? I like a good zombie apocalypse scenario as much as the next guy, but it gets tiresome.
Short of nuclear war or a major unforeseeable disaster like a plague or something, the USA isn't going anywhere, and neither are the two major parties. Their power will wax and wane, and their platforms will evolve with the times, but they're here to stay.
Let's be fair here, the advantages she's gotten from having them as her parents FAR outweigh any disadvantage she might receive for them being her parents if she decides to run for elected office.
It's hard for me to feel sorry that they will be used against her in a campaign, when they have opened so many doors for her.
I personally won't hold them against her or for her, but I know people will do one or the other and maybe even both.
Except they're not so much a historical "left leaning group", as they are on the American "left", compared to the right-leaning Republican party.
US Democrats are Centrist or Center-Right in a median Western democracy. I doubt that they would react in any sort of radical way if confronted with further marginalization. If anything, it's likely that Dems would straddle "Right" in an effort to pull in wishy-washy Independents. The Sanders wing is personally tied to one elderly bumbler and is unlikely to outlive his eventual retirement.
Until big donors forgo large profits for real interest in income inequality and climate change, I expect the Democratic Party of America to stay radical centrists.
Left leaning groups throughout history, such as? N.B. history is about five thousand years old at this point.
If you include in your criteria for "best choice" name recognition and likelihood of actually being elected,
YES.
As drewJ said, check virginia.
PS: only one group is nasty, the democrats are calling people out for what they actually are. The right has spent decades making liberal synonymous with the devil. The right's team hate is so strong they are literally about to elect a child molester over a democrat.
Who exactly would that be? Is she officially running? Has "the other side" nominated somebody to run against her?
But his neighbors are just so nice that there is no way what your saying is actual truth for decades.
Joe Kennedy III was on one of the Pod Save America pods a while ago; seems like a good guy (also, if I remember correctly, he told a story about having Professor Warren as an instructor). He seems good. I’d vote for him for anything. Currently he’s a US house member for MA.
Maybe it is some latent sexism on my part, but I’d be less excited about Chelsea — haven’t heard her doing anything to build a resume. A US senate seat is kind of a big deal. Why not start in a state house seat?
The name is a minor negative factor to me — we have limited info about how skilled they are, and you know they got a hand up based on the name — but not a complete dealbreaker. And of course, against any Republican, who’re you going to vote for.
Go check her Wikipedia page, she's more qualified for governance than a lot of people. Of course the fact that she's a Clinton and married a Jewish investment banker means her chances of winning in a non-blue state are effectively nil.
She will welcome their speaking fees! Yeah, let's go through all that again.
It's also the path that any normal middle/low class individual has to take for elections. I would have less of a problem with her running for office if she ran like everyone else does. Local->State->Federal. Not jumping directly to Federal based on name recognition.
I wasn't even talking about Hillary, I was talking about people like Conyers son/grandson who he said should be put in his place now that he's retired. Or McConnell's wife. Coming back to my main point about nepotism/dynasties should be actively discouraged. I'll add the caveat that if someone goes through the whole bottom to top process, the "name" matters much less to me, because they put in the time and effort.
Any GOP candidate will be an advocate of trickle down economics. That's obvious & entirely sufficient to oppose them regardless of any other consideration as to their character.
Does she have any interest in political office though? She campaigned for her mom, but AFAIK she hasn't expressed interest in running for anything herself, to say nothing of a US senate seat.
Given the amount of shit thrown at her family over the years it's certainly understandable.
The Clintons acted as a team throughout their political careers. Bill even said so. She never was the political wife trotted out for official occasions.
I don't think she does. Pretty sure Yet Another Clinton is just a SB fantasy, not reality.
Non sequitur? She jumped straight to national politics trading on her name when she moved to NY and ran for a Senate seat there. I'm not sure what her level of involvement in Bill's political career has to do with anything.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton was extremely qualified, more so than Obama when he first ran for POTUS.
Go watch a biography of HRC, she was integral to Bill's success as run for Governor and POTUS.
Your inference is that she didn't pay her political dues & is therefore not really qualified. OTOH, its clear that she had a hand in crafting many of Bill's policies. She paid her dues, just in a different way.
I think the point is that HRC started in politics at the state level. Not only was she an active First Lady of Arkansas (and active in WJCs campaigns), she had an official state gov't roles as chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, and chair of the Arkansas Education Standards Committee. She also cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and had a quasi-federal-gov't role when she was appointed by President Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation (and later became chair).
And then after WJC became President, she chaired a Task Force on National Health Care Reform, and had other official duties, beyond being an active First Lady.
I think the disconnect is the difference between being involved in politics (what others mean) and being directly elected to a political office (what you seem to mean, as you claim her political career started when she ran for a Senate seat in NY, when most would argue her political career began decades before that when she was holding state positions in Arkansas.
False, I'm not inferring anything. Just pointing out that there are two paths to national office:
1. Work your way up from local or state office
2. Have a name everybody already recognizes
Obama and Hillary are just conveniently current Democratic candidates who followed these paths.
Edit:
I was agreeing with andlight91 that it would be better for Chelsea to follow in her father's footsteps instead of her mother's.
And I'm sorry your pithy drive-by comment didn't go over how you'd planned.
In case anyone thought that there weren't Democrats actively supporting banks/wall street:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 9e883fa3e/
4 Democrrats on the Senate Banking Committee voted to roll back Dodd-Frank restrictions and 9 Democrats including Tim Kaine are co-sponsoring the bill.
The bill will lift the regulatory threshold from 50 billion in assets to those with at least 250 Billion. These would include: State Street, Credit Suisse, BB&T, SunTrust, Barclays, Ally Financial, and American Express.
The bill would also allow banks with less than 10 billion assets to be exempt from the Volcker Rule which bans firms from making certain kinds of risky investments for their own game.
I don't understand how any democrat is supporting this. Banks need more regulation not less. This is going to hurt all people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 9e883fa3e/
4 Democrrats on the Senate Banking Committee voted to roll back Dodd-Frank restrictions and 9 Democrats including Tim Kaine are co-sponsoring the bill.
The bill will lift the regulatory threshold from 50 billion in assets to those with at least 250 Billion. These would include: State Street, Credit Suisse, BB&T, SunTrust, Barclays, Ally Financial, and American Express.
The bill would also allow banks with less than 10 billion assets to be exempt from the Volcker Rule which bans firms from making certain kinds of risky investments for their own game.
I don't understand how any democrat is supporting this. Banks need more regulation not less. This is going to hurt all people.
- Status