I don’t think it has anything to do with smoke-filled rooms. It’s not like anyone can’t join. It’s about commitment, down ticket and to the party. Bernie and his followers were all about co-opting the hard work of others without wanting actually to support the organization that those people had built or really dialogue with them. I don’t think that you can credibly complain about exclusion while signalling unwillingness to accept the responsibility that goes with a seat at the table.
Again though, his “followers” are democrats or people who don’t officially identify as democrats but vote democrat 99% of the time.
I’ll say the same thing i always have. Feel free to ignore voting groups if you want, but don’t be surprised when they don’t support you, especially if you go out of your way to spurn them. They might not vote republican, but that doesn’t mean they will turn out for you.
I guess I don’t see that expecting your party’s candidate to be a member is to ignore voting groups.
For the record, I’m also not persuaded that the outcome of the 2016 election would have been worse if party rules had made it clear that Bernie needed to put up or pursue his goals independently. You never really know what would have been, but I’m doubtful that the folks I saw whining about things like registration deadlines could have mounted a credible third party campaign–and if they had, well a thought-provoking campaign that pushed Democrats to think about what they really believe might have been a good thing going forward. It’s not as though allowing a non-Democrat to run as one, saved us from the current assault on our institutions.
I agree with Bernie on a number of issues–like single-payer (because subsidizing a for-profit health insurance industry just adds too much to the cost of providing health care)–and I certainly agree that it’s foolish for a political party to ignore the opinions and concerns of potential allies, but I don’t see that that requires handing over the keys to the ranch to folks unwilling to join, even if you have friends in common.
If Bernie had run third party in a general election without running in the primary I would have voted for him over HIllary insted of holding my nose for Hillary.
Also, Bernie is more popular among Dems than the Democratic party itself- they need Bernie.
Pretty sure the answer to the thread title isn’t “more of what got us here in the first place.”
I think an interesting race for early next year is the CA Senate primary between incumbent Diane Feinstein and challenger Kevin De Leon
This is Feinstein’s 25th year in office (4 full terms and a partial term) and the next 6 year term begins in January 2019. Feinstein has been a pretty reliable Democratic vote in the Senate, albeit more moderate than liberal and is a fixture in CA. She’s running with the support of the CA democratic party, included recently elected younger Senator Kamala Harris, and is running based on her years of service and experience.
De Leon has served in the CA state legislature for a total of 11 years, 4 as a rep, 4 as a state senator and the most recent 3 as the State Senate President (roughly equivalent to Majority Leader). Based on the info available, De Leon is fairly conventional liberal Dem (advocate for teachers’ unions, representative from a minority-majority district, fairly conventional liberal positions). He is Hispanic and has said that “half his family” has been undocumented at some time. He’s running as a fairly stiff finger in the eye to Trump and as a more liberal and more energetic alternative to Feinstein.
It’s easy to describe this as a “moderate Dem establishment” versus “more lefty Bernie-type” race but that’s only a part of the picture IMO. There’s also an issue of simply standing for Dem values versus actively resisting Trump that seems to be part of this race. Also I get the sense that the issues of age/energy/potential for change are going to be significant. Also, De Leon is liberal but his emphasis seems to be somewhat more on issues of racial justice, education, etc. rather than the more economic Bernie platform.
Personally, although I’ve voted for Feinstein all 5 times she’s been a candidate, I intend to vote for De Leon based on the current info. My biggest reason is a desire for the Democratic party to be more energetic, to push harder for change, and to push in a more liberal direction. Feinstein has IMO served honorably but she’s served a long time and I feel new blood is appropriate. Also, Feinstein, would be 91 years of age at the end of this next term, which raises issues of health and energy level to me. I don’t base a decision like this solely on age but in the context of CA having a new generation of younger, potentially charismatic rising stars who could benefit the national party, I think the old guard needs to make some way.
We’ll see how this shakes out. It’s much more complex than a simple “Hilary v. Bernie REMATCH!” (which is how it will be reported I’m sure.)
Be careful you don’t fall for the same trap that the idiot Trump voters did, where in their haste to burn it all down, they didn’t realize that their “plan” didn’t exist at all beyond the burning stage.
I think the Bernie crowd, unlike Trump had real policy ideas, even if they wouldn’t have happened in reality, and I think Bernie would have had enough sense to accept partial victory on some things.
In the end, I think the biggest differences between Bernie and Hillary as presidents would have been two areas- Bernie would have been more of a dove in terms of foreign policy- a bit too much so for my taste, and the thing that made me vote for him: I think Bernie would have been ruthless in terms of using executive power on consumer rights issues, whereas Hillary would have let things continue on a bad path.
I’m hoping more with each passing day that Al Franken seriously considers a run in 2020. I know he prefers to remain in the Senate where he feels like he’s doing the most good, but if there was ever a time this country needed a President with intelligence, empathy, communication skills and a self-deprecating and wickedly sharp sense of humor it’s the President that will follow Orange Jackass. This country is going to need some major healing post-Trump, and very few candidates are qualified to handle that AND run the country effectively.
There will be no healing. If a Democrat regains the White House, the psychotic right will just dig in and feast on their resentments until the next election.
This has been my hope from the start. He should be drafted by the party.
He can pull off the smug act when so many other Dems try but can’t.
He’s my second choice right now.
That said, I agree there can be no healing until Trumpism is made electorally irrelevant one way or another.
First choice is still Tammi Duckworth.
I’m fine with either. Plus we all know how it went the last time a junior senator from Illinois ran for president.
Former Nashville mayor and popular 2-term governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, has declared an interest in the senate seat being vacated by Bob Corker.
That may rub the progressive wing of the party the wrong way. Bredesen is a centrist Democrat in a state where that’s not a bad thing to be. He’s a corporate millionaire, having founded and sold his healthcare company and made millions on that. He’s a hunter, and can talk good ol’ boy with the best of them.
And while he might not be a “fit” for the progressive direction of the party, he’s a pol – like Manchin, Heitkamp, and Tester – who fits the region that might elect him.
Might be the best shot the Democrats have on that seat in 2018.
Oh yeah, fuck those people. They can crawl back under the rocks they came out from for Trump, or preferably just die and do the country a favor.
The healing I’m talking about will be about undoing all the damage Trump and Co. have done to the government, the environment and US world relations. Additionally, someone like Franken might actually appeal to those Trump voters who weren’t ever true believers, but just part of the “Hillary…I just can’t” crowd and who are now feeling very uneasy about the direction we’re all headed.
To defeat Trump we don’t have to convince the hardcore burn-it-down Trumpsters to abandon him, they never will. But there aren’t enough of them by themselves to do anything of impact, despite what he thinks and says. I think the situation we’re in now will bring Democrats and Independents, many of whom may have stayed home in 2016, to the polls in droves in 2018 and 2020. Combine that with a shrinking base of support for Trump, and you’re looking at a landslide IF (and it’s a big if) the Democrats don’t fuck up the nomination in 2020.
If the progressive wing is going to impose ideological purity tests and destroy the candidacy of a centrist who could be electable from Tennessee ([cough] Gore [cough]), then the Democratic party is doomed.
For now I’ll take 50% of something rather than negative per cent.
One battle at a time. :)
Same. I mean, I do get it that Joe Manchin’s stance on the environment and preserving coal jobs sounds really backwards and neolithic to the rest of the country. It’s anti-science, and it sucks.
But it also feels to me like this elaborate dance. Manchin knows his stance on those issues are way outside his party’s mainstream. So he’s going to talk a good talk and “stand up” to other Democrats on coal-related nonsense that plays well in his home state. And then he’s going to be a fairly anodyne presence on those issues in the senate, and be a reliable vote on other issues where he’s needed to be. His reliable “NO” vote on repeal/replace forced Trump into his idiotic, electorate-endagering CSR gaffe.
Motto for Dems in 2018/20:
“No one can blame you for not thinking it could get this bad, but here we are.”