I take Booman’s gracious words to heart. I still think the temptation (all over the Net on Progressive sites) to restrict or denigrate unwelcome news and views has done more damage than good. We are at the same place the Republicans were, only listening to what we want to hear. But we also was poorly served by our Democratic infrastructure. So here is a quick “Why” and “What now”
Candidate matters.
History, talent on the stump, message, baggage. Sorry but that is a fact. Shutting down debate or denigrating anyone pointing those facts out does not help the Progressive Cause.
Institutional problems
The DNC failed the country by not keeping a level field so the best candidate could arise. The idea that super delegates could be sown up before the first primary vote is cast was insane. No super delegate should commit until his state has voted in the Primary. The DNC, institutionally, has to be neutral until the candidate is chosen
Party policy problems.
The shift away from working people to Wall Street may have been expedient in the 90’s,but after almost 20 years of trade deals, loosened financial regulation, free international flow of capital, and ignoring the center part of the country ; we have the map of this morning. The “Recovery” isn’t happening in most of the country and our Candidate did not address that fact effectively. The other, while being unrealistic in his promises, did. Like it or not, that is a fact. Its always, “The economy, stupid”
You cannot create a winning coalition based on the coasts, Ill. and Mich . The warning signs were there before the election and during the Primary. I wrote here about coal and Appalachia the total lack of support for HRC there as opposed to 8 yrs earlier. You have to ask why the total drop. You think votes in Eastern Ohio or Western PA would have helped?
At other sites, I was pooh- poohed as they were all sexist rednecks anyway. Coal is dead. Maybe, but the total disregard for the 100s of thousands who work those jobs, their family and relatives is just emblematic of a wider distain for hourly workers. Textile in Va and NC. Heavy Machine and auto in upper Midwest. Small town and farms in South and midWest. All WERE the backbone of the Democratic Party. All have walked away. Why? It has been the dream of some in the Party, “We can ignore most of the states if we just win the right ones. We won’t have to accommodate then, listen to their concerns or even go down there. (restaurants are bad anyway) They are all uneducated xenophobic, racist, KnowNothings and I don’t want to be around them.” Well they just handed us our head and the Progressive Cause has been set back.
Way forward.
-The DNC leadership needs to go. All of them. Replaced with people familiar with the ground in ALL 50 states. Some will be bringing unwelcome ideas to the table. Too bad. It’s an election in 50 states, not one National election.
-Emphasis should return to the curbing the power of elites and corporations; and spreading the “Recovery” to the rest of the country. The big mistake of Obama’s Admin was having Wall Street in the Treasury Dept and at the table in the White House (Clinton Adm veterans) in 2008 and 2009. Fraudsters should have been prosecuted, big banks broken up. Anti Trust brought back. Steep regulation on them. If Congress would not go along, then campaign hard on it 2010. Those are missed opportunities. There is a reason Sanders did so well with those messages. Learn from past mistakes.
-No more big donations. The Party should make a pledge, no more PAC money for candidates. No more big donors. Commit to small donations as was done with Sanders. If the candidate has the support, they will get the money. Personally, I would also commit, for state or Congressional contests; “no donations from individuals or organizations who can’t vote in the election” No out of state money. No out of district money. No special interest money. One of the most effective lines of Trump was the common sense notion that you don’t give $200,000 for a boring lunch talk. You are buying influence. Same with big donations. No one is being fooled. Maybe then the interests of the non corporate millionaires would be taken seriously.
-Campaign on the revolving door/lobbyist issue. That is another known problem. (Evan Bayh anyone?) Commit to any candidate getting Democratic Support that they won’t go into lobbying business for 5 years? Can it be enforced? No, but if you don’t deal with them in Congress later; they aren’t effective.
-If there is any money left, start working at the state level again. Rebuild from the States up, not Washington down. That has been a problem. Interests of K Street and DC bar hoppers don’t match with an out of work machinist In Wis. a coal miner in KY or a farmer in Ark.
Those are some ideas off the top of my head. There are more out there. What THIS and other Progressive sites must NOT do is blame the voter. They are always right. If Hillary lost, its because they didn’t believe her or like her or was not convinced that her policies were correct and could be implemented. Whose fault is that?
Ridge
A voice of sanity! I’d join you if it wasn’t so painful pulling this knife out of my back that Sanders plunged in there. I cannot trust any of them any more.
Dean geeked. Sanders geeked. No more. too much betrayal of their followers. Too many insincere words.
The only thing Sanders did was campaign for an office open to him. When he didn’t get it, he was on the road for HRC; as much or more than other losing primary candidates.
When he won Mich. and competitive out west, that should have been the wake up call. Several of us saw it here and commented. HRC was not a CHANGE candidate when the country (Republicans, Democrats, Independents) hungered for one. Both he and O’Malley had better elective resumes. The writing was on some walls somewhere.
R
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/28/bernie-sanders-warns-democrats-they-may-not-w
in-in-2016-without-him/
I don’t recall Dean actively campaigning for Kerry, but you could be right. Hillary was such a slimy snake that I’m sure she tried (and succeeded!) to get on Obama’s coattails.
Don’t recall Tsongas campaigning for Clinton, but they didn’t really have ideological differences. Don’t recall Ted Kennedy actively campaigning for Carter, either.
heh – Don’t recall Ted Kennedy actively campaigning for Carter, either.
Different era. Far less access to surrogates on the stump; so, don’t know if Teddy did or didn’t. But the bad blood between the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Carter was thick. And potential 1976 Democratic presidential candidates weren’t pre-positioning themselves and a campaign before Carter pulled off a 2nd place finish (uncommitted finished first) in the Iowa caucus which most Dem primary voters didn’t know existed. (And was hardly a major factor again until 2000.) Several qualified and decent politicians did get in the race, but by then Carter had built up a national public recognition and delegate lead and the others were too far behind to catch up. The choice became restricted by chance (and design by Carter’s team) and outside the south, neither Dem voters nor the party institution favored him.
A shame because that should have been a strong year for the Democratic nominee and we ended up saddled with Carter who barely defeated an appointed incumbent.
An appointed incumbent who was hated for pardoning his predecessor, to boot. Even many republicans that I knew hated that.
Yes, should almost have been as easy to beat Ford with a good and decent New Deal Democratic nominee as beating Trump in 2016. But Democratic primary voters aren’t the most perceptive and wise electorate.
True enough!
Noted something yesterday that I found interesting/amusing. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. ran for Governor of NY in 1924 against Al Smith. One of the tireless workers in Smith’s campaign, rallying the women’s vote was Eleanor Roosevelt, Teddy Jr’s cousin. She had been most fond of Teddy (don’t know about junior), but politics was business.
So do I.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/on-trumps-performance/
i had exactly that thought, that the anti-war left that magically disappeared in ’09 might reappear.
Prioritize small business – how do gov regulations impact small business? – this is an R talking point, but corporations and small business have different resources; it shouldn’t be about helping corporations and destroying small business. goes to the anti-trust post of Booman
Problem is, small business has been so loosely defined as to cover over 99% of US business. 500 employees is the cut off. The political pressure on representatives to include these large local businesses for govt concessions is immense.
Define down to a dozen or less and you will have an impact on small town economies.
R
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecooper/2012/09/20/the-government-definition-of-small-business-is-b-
s/#606eb86e5ef8
a dozen or less,that’s what I’m talking about. the erroneous point made above about jobs – often a family has a business. one thing I’ve heard, for example, gov regulation phased in, say environmental, didn’t support the transition for family businesses to meet the standards – pre ACA I guess the subsidy wasn’t a concept say hiring someone certified for safety or certifying the employees. then the family business can’t afford the cost is gone. standard of living never recovered from that loss.
The Democratic Leadership in the DNC, Senate, and House needs to look different, too. If it doesn’t, the Dems will go the way of the Whig party. Oh, they’ll be around, but they won’t have any power. Wearing the logos of various Wall Street banks and Big Pharma, etc. on your clothes like a NASCAR driver is a losing strategy.
The Democratic Party has been plagued by dual loyalties for much of my adult life. Over time, the part of their base they really needed – working stiffs – had good reason to feel abandoned. Yeah, we don’t have the big bucks corporate America has, but we have numbers. Emphasize reducing income inequality, regulating Wall Street, universal health care – basic bread and butter issues. We need to hear the talk, but we also need the party to do a much better job of walking that talk. Primary loyalty needs to be to workers – and not just white workers as some might argue. All workers.
That is the next discussion I was going to initiate here and others. Was it policies, candidate or a combination of both?
If folks are serious about competing in 2018 and 2020, what policies are they going to run on? Not, not GOP or not Trump. What was missed this year? What to push and what to drop?
You list is like mine. Jobs, income inequality, universal healthcare. Regulating Wall Street and tax reform to remove incentives to export jobs. Also tax money parked overseas. Corporate welfare in general would be a winner. Paid college tuition would be another winner.
I would also add policies to drop.
Guns. Walk away. Everyone not living in dense urban environment has no problem with private ownership of firearms. Clinton, though essentially powerless on the issue still enflamed fear of confiscation through an Australian mandatory buy back. She lost 1/2 of the votes in the red states right there. To no good purpose but to pander to the urban/Calif donors.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-l
ooking-at
Trade treaties. Unless there is built in funded retraining with jobs waiting; its a no go.
There are probably some more but its late and I have to work tomorrow.
R
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-l
ooking-at
And how the Clinton supporters took aim at Sanders as being too soft on guns!
I hate guns. Really, really hate them and wish all of them could be made to disappear and the 2nd amendment shredded and flushed down the toilet. I view those that tote around guns as naive, paranoid rubes compensating for feelings of inadequacy and lacking agency. Only an idiot can’t see that guns figure prominently in daily acts of violence that do great harm.
And yet, all things considered, Bernie had it just right. At this time and at the national level, further restrictions or legislation on guns (with the possible exception of closing the gun show loophole) is a political loser for Democrats. I wish it were different, but it’s not.
thanks for the insults
Why would you take my opinion personally?
reread your comment
Already did and I’m sorry but I’m not changing my opinion about those that “tote around guns.”
well, there you have it, guys. good luck with the outreach
I don’t have any problem with people that personally oppose abortion, would never consider it an option for themselves and views those that do as killers, but also opposes politicizing it and supporting legislation to outlaw it and in person would never call a actual woman that has had an abortion a killer. I would also respect such a person for being honest about their personal view as long as it wasn’t being offered as an attempt to persuade others.
We humans aren’t going to agree on many issues. However, there are also many issues that we can set aside for various reasons that also reduces tensions and leaves space to communicate on issues where more agreement is currently important.
free advice: I would start by setting aside the insulting language;
Marie said, however, gun control “is a political loser for Democrats” so technically and tactically she’s your ally, for now.
wow. DNC style outreach. as I said, good luck with your outreach project
Thanks for the chuckle.
Excuse me. I didn’t know that this blog is an outreach project and that personal opinions aren’t allowed. That one should exercise self-censorship to avoid any possible hurt fee-fees from a generic statement of opinion. That mush-mouth comments are what people respect. How very odd that mush-mouth lost to an ignorant nincumpoop Trump that challenged Republican articles of faith without sugar coating any of them.
I understand, but after the Heller SCOTUS ruling, broad 2nd Amd. reading is settled case law like Roe v Wade and Brown v Brd of Ed. As Roe has become a single issue vote for some constituencies, so has Heller. It can be revisited with the right court, but to get that membership; you need to win elections.
Heller has left the door somewhat open for individual state regulation, and some are taking advantage of it. Conn and Calif. are two that come to mind. Fine. But don’t expect to win any elections other large portions of the country, based on restrictive policies.
I will say that there is evidence of some support for better or more broad background checks; but due to a history of statements and flip flops NO ONE would trust HRC anywhere near the issue in general. It will take a period of time and work to get where a Dem national candidate will be trusted on guns; (as long as they don’t step on their ** talking to fundraisers in Calif or Westchester, Conn.).
R
Aren’t we saying the same thing?
Back in 2003 when I said “Drop the gun issue” because it’s a political hot potato that accomplishes nothing other than election losses for liberals in elections that otherwise might have been won, I got a rash of push back from self-identified progressives. Did I mean drop it for all time? Of course not. But unless or until public opinion evolves on this issue, the GOP will continue to use it as a winner for them as long as Democrats push it and thereby, make it a loser for Democrats. A purely pragmatic political position on my part after decades of seeing how little progress has been made to reduce gun violence and the high political cost to other good public policy efforts.
Public opinion can change drastically over a short period. Look at same sex marriage and orientation discrimination. However, I attribute the overwhelming public support (or muted opposition) to the fact that those effected are someone’s son, daughter, brother, cousin, neighbor, childhood friend. That and the shifting attitudes of younger generations stopped all the Bible thumpers after a few years.
The issue you will run into with firearms are that they are a cultural artifact and a legal artifact. both woven into the mythology of the country. Add to that all studies show a vast decrease in firearm related crime over the last 20 + years. Outside of a few urban hotspots, a large majority of Americans will never be affected by firearm crime. So the demand for restrictions isn’t there like sexual rights.
And trying to impose an urban intellectualized attitude that goes against the rest of the country’s experience is a loser. Some, like your friends will be disappointed. Others, more realistic like yourself, will see stepping back as a necessary trade off. I would like to see a Democratic nominee address the NRA and quote back their own previous positions on background checks, etc.. while acknowledging the basic precepts of Heller.
R
I know it was hard for you to take that stand. Everyone else should reassess their priorities. Even me.
Tempered idealism should always be difficult. The uncomfortable part of my not so current rethink on guns is it forces me to consider where I would have been in the past on seemingly intractable major issues where the harm to many and society as a whole was great.
This one shares much with that of temperance/prohibition and if we’re honest, the aggregate harm alcohol does to individuals, families, strangers, and society as a whole is much greater than that of handguns. But people enjoy a drink and consumed responsibly, harms nobody. Handguns are inherently more dangerous than alcohol, but still a kid can die from drinking a bottle of booze.
We have to weigh and balance all aspects of whatever practice, product, etc. exists that we don’t like. Personally, I’d ban selfies because they facilitate individual narcisstic impulses and that increases societal narcissism and that leads to accepting of sexting and voting for Trump.
I live in a small city surrounded by rural areas. Hunting culture is part of the fabric here. The gun talk can go away. I’d be comfortable with that.
Obama’s legacy will be destroyed aside from money that’s already spent. I think he’s capable of acknowledging his mistakes, especially
Obama’s the best president of my lifetime. I gave all I could for his election, and I fear it just got flushed down the toilet. But he’s still the best organizer in the Democratic Party, and he’s already signaled that he was planning to work on gerrymandering rather than following tradition and retiring quietly. I hope he keeps fighting.
Aside from that… Bernie Sanders should be the head of the DNC. Recruit him back to the Party. He’s the only Democrat who actually had a campaign that understood the zeitgeist this year.
Who else do you guys think actually gets it – Catherine Cortez Masto? Al Franken? Kamala Harris? Cory Booker?
And Elizabeth Warren, of course, although I think if she wanted to pursue the Presidency that this should have been her year.
Bullet #4 Forget about working with Republicans. It’s like sitting down to eat dinner with a crocodile. Although honestly, I think bipartisanship is just to con the rubes into believing that you haven’t been bought with big money.
I’m not suggesting more bipartisanship. I’m saying that unless you explain every day what the obstruction is, it’s all the president’s fault.
That’s true.
You are obviously at least a generation younger than me.
Thanks for this constructive diary. I learned a lot. Is Bernie Sanders now head of the Democratic Party? I wonder.
Er, Chuck Schumer might have something to say about that.
Yes, and Schemer’s masters will have even more to say about it.
Excellent post, Ridge.
If progressives cannot figure out how to earnestly talk to the very real concerns of the millions of people who live in fly-over country, we will just have more lather, rinse, repeat.
The first step in getting to that point is we have to stop pretending that the only reason Trump won was because he appealled to all the racists/misogynists/xenophobes/(insert any other offensive trait that Trump exhibits).
I think your discussion of the policy failures of this election is solid. I live in a rural, non-coastal, part of California, and people are still struggling: foreclosures are still happening. As you noted, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
I live and work in two states in towns that have suffered for different reasons but with the same result. Starting with the Clinton yrs the “financialization” of the economy substituted manufacturing for trading 0s on a screen. Add the easy international flow of capital and hording of profits overseas and yeah, why should I pay Joe $14.00 (1995) dollars/ hr when I can pay Jose or Ahmad $1.00 an hour? and park the profits in Ireland?
That problem hasn’t been solved and won’t until political leadership isn’t dependent on corporate money for campaigns.
R
I live and work in two states in towns that have suffered for different reasons but with the same result. Starting with the Clinton yrs the “financialization” of the economy substituted manufacturing for trading 0s on a screen. Add the easy international flow of capital and hording of profits overseas and yeah, why should I pay Joe $14.00 (1995) dollars/ hr when I can pay Jose or Ahmad $1.00 an hour? and park the profits in Ireland?
That problem hasn’t been solved and won’t until political leadership isn’t dependent on corporate money for campaigns.
R
HuffPo:
Irredeemably clueless. Back to wandering in the Wasteland just as they were in 2001.
Shouldn’t be a surprise to those on the left. From The Atlantic Feb 24, 2015 Democrats in Denial
“The packaging” was wrong for 2014. So, what did they do? Repackaged Hillary and shoved her down the throats of Democrats. Except the repackaged Hillary looked eerily like the 2008 Hillary that was rejected. They can’t stop hearing the siren song of the 1990s.
Reuters – Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press:
NYPost – Chelsea Clinton being groomed to run for Congress
Guess she’ll have to carpetbag out of her $10 million NYC digs.