Something is wrong with the Democratic Party

[malaise]

It's the same thing wrong with all the progressive parties in liberal democracies that have abandoned their convictions and become RW light. I know a man who represents a leading party here. Even after the party lost a shocker he thought remaining in a particular position for 25 years was more important that taking responsibility for the loss. We talk about others' egos but our parties have the identical problem even if they are more subtle.

The first step is to get back to the party's core philosophical convictions and at the same time abandon all third way/ Blue dog folks.

I'd love to see how many of them voted for the Con. .

[napi21]

1. I woulds have agreed with you except for the 2016 campaign.

I think Bernie changed the Dem platform this year. Howard Dean tried when he ran. Who knows what the Party will do in the future.

[malaise]

2. He was rejected

even here

[napi21]

3. So you don't like Bernies approach to politics nore Hillary. JustW do you think

would be the best choice?

[malaise]

5. Of course I like Bernie's economic policies

I simply stated that the party abandoned them even though they are a core part of their own philosophy.
The same question is being asked everywhere? What exactly do our parties stand for?

[Dustlawyer]

27. The problem started when too many of our politicians started taking Wall Street and big corporate

money. They lost their roots of union workers, minorities, and Progressives who saw them cave to the Republicans over and over. It became the Washington Generals vs The Harlem Globetrotters, a fake game that we thought was still the real thing. TPTB decided it could buy both Parties and they were right!

[malaise]

29. And the same is true everywhere

Yes they were right

[WhiteTara]

36. Of course, Reagan destroyed the unions

that were the backbone of the Party which forced the candidates to go where the money was/is.

[ehrnst]

57. Barney Frank took Wall Street money to win, and then wrote "Dodd-Frank" (nt)

[leftofcool]

37. Bernie's approach to politics?

Is this the same Bernie who wants to work with Donald Trump for a 10.00 per hour minimum wage? The same Bernie who whined about a 12.00 per hour minimum wage that Hillary originally proposed? That Bernie's politics?

[Grey Lemercier]

43. he started at 15, then 12 now 10, he will get 25 cents raise

and call it a victory for the "revolution".

[Uponthegears]

55. So where would we end up

If we started at

$9.00!!!!!!!!!

[Ken Burch]

79. It's not as though we'd have won more votes by keeping it down to 12.

n/t.

[oberliner]

94. No he wasn't

His team wrote the party platform and made it the most progressive its been in a while.

[VMA131Marine]

4. I dont agree with your premise

The problem is that people who vote Democratic are too concentrated in urban areas so that they are not being accurately represented by the electoral system. My fear is that we are entering an era where Dem presidential candidates consistently win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. This is already becoming the norm for the House of Representatives.

[marylandblue]

6. If that's the problem

then the answer is appeal to rural whites by promoting policies that will benefit them.

[VMA131Marine]

8. Nothing seems to appeal to them more than racist dog whistles.

[treestar]

31. They aren't very progressive people

That's the problem, so many here demanding the party be more progressive yet that's not going to win because there are not enough progressive in rural America.

[AgadorSparticus]

62. 1!

[LisaM]

24. Yes, this is the problem.

It's not just urban area alone - people are piling up on the coasts. I wish companies attracting younger workers would start opening more offices in places like Kansas City and Milwaukee (which are great cities). Instead we are piling up on the coasts.

The Electoral College is beginning to have the opposite effect of its intention.

[radius777]

87. Agree, Dems should double down on a metro strategy, IMO

instead of trying to win over rural conservatives whose values are in direct conflict with metro values.

Focus heavily on policies that appeal to cities and their surrounding suburbs, as well as industrial towns that have more pragmatic and secular (rather than socially conservative or religious) white working class - that is a strategy that will work.

Build up metro areas across the country and Dems will have a permanent majority.

We see it with places like NC, GA and even TX - all becoming more metro and diverse - and thus more Democratic.

[Lunabell]

7. Yep.

We were once the party of the working clas before the corporatists took over.

[boston bean]

9. Jesus, the way some people talk you would think there wasn't one working class person

located in a city or suburb..

Also, you do realize Hillary won the working class of black persons and hispanics, right?

You also realize she won by 8% points those who make under 50K/yr While DJT voters made over 70K on average?

[SunSeeker]

28. Interesting how some people talk like AA and Latinos and women are not the working class.

...as if only white men work.

[leftofcool]

38. Don't you know by now that only white people work?

Those same poor white people making an average of 72K per year?

[Quayblue]

60. "Working class" was the biggest dog whistle this election season. Nt

[DesertFlower]

10. i'm so tired of blaming the democratic party.

hillary was a great qualified candidate. look what happened to the republican party. they had 16 candidates -- some qualified -- some not. look who won. IMO it's all about racism and i will say it even when i take my last breath.

i'm 75 and have never seen anything like this. the racists were out there, but had no one to represent them until trump came along.

[malaise]

11. I haven't examined the data myself but folks in the media said that

many of these people voted for Obama. If that were true, it's more than racism. I've never seen anything like it but one of my sisters did see it coming.

[DesertFlower]

12. i've heard that too, but can't imagine it

being true. anyone who voted for trump has no moral decency.

one trump supporter i know said about the syrian refugees. "some of those men look suspicious". why? because their skin is a little darker than yours.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

15. The sexism makes all the difference

I know people who just think a woman should not be president and some of these people are women. It doesn't matter how good she is. She is a woman. I think that's why they cling to those dumb excuses for not voting for her because it sounds better than saying the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she was a woman. Oh... and the other reason would be because she is pro-choice. There are tons of anti-choice people that only vote for someone who says that are against abortion. Nothing else matters to them. I find it amazing because abortion has been legal for like 40 years. I don't think it has really disrupted their lives much at all.

[treestar]

33. I know a lot of these people

Catholic family. It seems so useless. To base your entire vote on the idea than an R President will appoint enough to the Supreme Court that are somehow not going to follow precedent from 40 years ago. That's not happening.

[DirkGently]

19. I don't think but a fraction believed they were voting "for" racism.

I recall an NPR interview with some local Republican leader in Texas, lamenting that Trump had said terrible things that made him a hard sell.

But they couldn't countenance the possibility of Hillary winning, of course.

Others I have heard supporting Trump literally dismissed his terrible comments as things he didn't mean. But they liked his attitude. They bought the idea he, a silver-spoon real estate conman with a string of bankruptcies and a tacky jet, was one of them.

People voted against Hillary Clinton. Some maybe because they made some reasoned decision, but many because it has been drilled into the conservative base that she is the worst person in the world. More terrifying than Obama, somehow.

At the end of the day, people vote for the people they think are on their "side." It has little to do with who is actually on their side, and a lot with culture and tradition.

Conservatives voted against Hillary. Independents were not moved to cross over. Republicans weren't either.

I'm sure the racists are thrilled. But there aren't enough of them to dictate elections. Political cultural tribalism accounts for most of it.

And the numbers show it. Trump didn't get as many votes as past Republicans. He did not do well overall. But it was enough, in the right states, and Hillary did not come close to Obama's numbers with black and Latino voters, which along with whatever indies and Republicans crossed over, was the magic formula before.

[bettyellen]

61. they voted for a blatant racist and sexist and they support him.

They literally don't have another thing in common with the man but a vengeful hateful attitude toward "others".
Racism does not bother them, and apparently sexual assault doesn't either.

[DirkGently]

67. No one has anything in common with Hillary, either.

He's a rich male jerk. She's a rich female political operative. The question becomes who people think will represent their needs.

That's the problem with betting on identity politics. The idea seemed to be that a woman who said the right things about race and gender and immigration, and promised nothing in terms of changing people's economic conditions, deserved to win over a crude blowhard who told everyone in coal country he was giving them their jobs back.

Hillary promised zero change to institutional power. And people did not come out to vote for her in the numbers we needed.

"Not as bad as that guy" was not enough.

[duffyduff]

68. Your sexism is duly noted. Why am I not surprised you are a man? n/t

[bettyellen]

74. I certainly do! Many working women and gay men can relate....

She wasn't born rich- she worked very hard for it.
Yet you seemed to have been unable to even listen to her, because you don't know her policy stances.
You think more people relate to Sanders? The man who hid his taxes and didn't care to work to pay his electricity bills even though he had a kid? Did nothing in govt for thirty years- even though it was his first real job? I don't know anyone who related to him.

He did only get about 1/3 of the Dem voters so yeah- lots more preferred Hillary. That's why he lost so badly.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. I think the media is confusing overlapping constituencies of who were the "voters"

Based on some of the data in PA, I believe that the surge that we saw here was from previous non-voters on the GOP side. I.e., we know that general elections tend to maybe hit 60% turnout with the other 40% not bothering. And in PA's case, except for the Presidential and Senate seats, Democrats took the rest of the state offices on the ballot - Attorney General, Auditor General, and State Treasurer.

But in this case, just like Obama had energized previous "non-voters" on the Dem side to come out and vote, Trump was able to do the same for "non-voter" GOPers. And I think those GOPers who were regular voters and who had voted for Obama previously, either did not vote the top of the ticket this go-around or voted 3rd party, where the 3, 3rd party candidates garnered ~202,700 votes (with perhaps a few going on and voting for Trump).

So their (lack of) votes, plus a reduced Democratic turnout, was offset by a new larger group of GOPers who put Trump over the top by enough of a margin in enough of our PA counties (outside of SE PA) to throw the totals his way.

A question one might ask is what this newly enfranchised group of GOP voters will do in 2018? And for some reason I believe that "non-voters" tend to go back to that state of "not voting" pretty quickly... This is assuming they learn that Trump "is not on the ballot" (just like we saw during the midterms when I had people I work with ask "Is Obama on the ballot?" and apparently since he wasn't, they didn't bother to vote... )

[Grey Lemercier]

53. millions did... Macomb County MI is a perfect example

I watched online streams of US cable shows interviewing people from the area. Mostly white, most said they were doing ok, but they just hated Clinton, didnt trust her, called her flip flopper, and also said the wikileaks showing Bill had made 100 million dollars just reinforced that they both were corrupt. Many bitched about that Obamacare rate increase as well. Most said Trump just seemed to care more about them and looked like he could do big things. I wanted to scream.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

13. It's the triad of hate: racism, sexism, and homophobia n/t

[DesertFlower]

14. exactly. i thought when

he mocked a disabled reporter that would do it.

[DirkGently]

16. Whites voted for Trump in the same numbers they did for Romney.

Fewer, actually. Clinton lost because she did not receive several million black and Latino votes Obama did.

We can lament that white conservatives did not reject Trump for being a bigoted clown, but they did not come out in droves to vote FOR him. More people voted for both of the last two Republican candidates.

[ehrnst]

20. Years of looking at a black president simmered in those groups and was fed by Trump.

It wasn't the fault of the other coalitions that have made Democrats strong.

It took 25 years, and backlash against Obama to take her down, and she STILL got a fantastic number of votes.

[DesertFlower]

23. here's an interesting article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/03/how_donald_trump_happened_racism_against_barack_obama.html

[tblue37]

45. It is also about celebrity worship. That's how Arnold became governor of California. nt

[DesertFlower]

46. arnold was sane and rational. trump

is not.

[DirkGently]

17. Seconded. Principles matter.

Not that Clinton lacked them entirely. But the endless drumbeat that all the "right" people supported her, and her middling policies were "pragmatic" is really just the monied interests explaining why you can't do anything without their support.

This election upended that thinking. Corporate dollars anointed someone, and she lost.

I think a lot of other candidates could have won for the Dems. Maybe even Biden. Thirty years of Republican enmity was too much to overcome.

But going forward, we don't need to hear a single thing about how we need to compromise with Wall Street, and the interests who are certain Social Security and Medicare must go, and all of the other citizen-crushing bullshit that amounts to nothing more than "We want all your money."

No more of this garbage about "progressive purity" and "pipe dreams." Pipe dreams are looking are lot more doable than hard-nosed, business friendly triangulation at the moment.

We can do better, and we have to do it fast.

[malaise]

30. Well said

Watching carefully re Social Security and Medicare

[closeupready]

83. I agree with this.

[ehrnst]

18. Hmm. You mean abandon the coalitions that have made Democrats stray from the real reason we formed?

And go back to the white male concerns that are really at the heart of the progressive agenda?

I see what you're saying. After all, it was the white male vote that was the one demographic that Hillary didn't appeal to. All those others that turned out to give her that amazing lead need to just step aside to return the "real" progressive agenda.

We've abandoned our convictions when we let all these distractions led us astray from the REAL problem that men aren't earning what they deserve.

[DirkGently]

22. WOW. Progressivism equals "white male concerns?"

"The heart of the progressive agenda?" Really?

This isn't the first time I've heard this floated, and I find it fascinating. Back in the primary, I remember some attempt to make Bernie Sanders' ideas "racist," on the basis that things like banking reform and a fair minimum wage were somehow "white" interests.

What "progressive" concerns do you believe are "white male concerns?" In what way?

Because when I look at the history books, I see progressives (including Bernie Sanders)

- in the Civil Rights Movement.

- securing voting rights for women, and pursuing equal pay

- supporting organized labor, child welfare, and health reform

- opposing racism, sexism, marriage inequality, and homophobia.

I don't see any other movement, by any other name, accomplishing any of that.

What do you see?

[ehrnst]

25. I keep hearing that we need to get back to "progressive" principles

And those often seem to be about "centrists" were ignoring the white men.

I heard that abortion is a "social" issue (and not a health issue), and one Senator in particular in 2013 railed about how the Democratic party was hurting Southern Democratic Senators, because focusing on "abortion" and "gay marriage" was not appealing to the white working class, who were more concerned with their economic issues.

I think that Hillary's appeal to women, PoC, new Americans, LGBTQs indicated that the Democrats that voted for her were indeed progressive, and has been ignored at best and derided at worst by those in the party who think that we have 'sold out,' to 'centrists.'

I think that the overwhelming appeal of other candidates to white men who are complaining about not being paid enough attention to says a lot.

I think that outreach to that particular group is appropriate for the person that has been assigned to it.

https://womenintheology.org/2016/11/14/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-white-working-class/

[boston bean]

32. Exactly! Thank you!

[DirkGently]

34. Economic issues are universal. "Centrists" are not progressives.

If there's a perception that things like banking reform and the minimum wage are being pursued to the exclusion of issues of, say, racial justice, that ought to be part of the conversation.But things like income distribution are flat-out for everyone. I have not heard anyone speaking for "progressivism" denigrating reproductive rights or gay rights.

Individual DEMOCRATS, who the actual self-proclaimed "CENTRISTS" sometimes argue we don't need to focus on those things. Hillary Clinton is not the best advocate for abortion rights, by the way, saying it's "sad and tragic," and that abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE."

It's a wild leap, though, to imagine "progressive" values somehow "white and male."

[ehrnst]

56. When "true progressive" comes at the expense of Reproductive health, and LGBTQ rights

Yes, it is.

When a 'progressive' Senator who claims to be the progressive flag bearer says that about the Southern "white working class"

After seeing many white, working-class voters in “low-income states” like Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina voting against their own best interest, he continued that Southern Democratic senators trying to win in the conservative south felt abandoned by the Democratic party:

“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues, They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together."

That is what I'm talking about.



http://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/

[DirkGently]

65. Ridiculous. Economic and social issues are not in competition.

Last edited Tue Nov 22, 2016, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

And it is WILDLY off base to suggest that that "progressivism" writ large means economic issues -- which are actually universal -- at the expense of social issues.

What I see with this line of reasoning is a desire among corporate friendly Dems to conveniently sacrifice economic progress by claiming social causes as their sole prerogative and throwing economic progress out the window so as to keep the monied interests happy. The attack on Sanders, whose civil rights cred is 100 times that of Clinton's, on the basis he wasn't strong enough on racial justice, was a truly wacky attempt by terrified corporatists to find a way to protect an imaginary coalition whereby social issues would be the ONLY progressivism required to win.

That approach just fell flat on its face.

[progressoid]

82. 1

[jack_krass]

88. 1

[malaise]

26. Precisely

[DirkGently]

35. Holy crap where does this come from?

Not talking about this poster, but there was some truly sick, perverse garbage flying around out there in this vein regarding Sanders' candidacy. The thesis seemed to be that there is some deeply economically conservative thread among people of color as a whole that needs to be respected to the point of ignoring intelligent economic reform. That was somehow taken a step further to an idea that it's "racist" to argue for something like the banking reform Sanders was talking about.

I saw this take the form of rants against "liberal white women" in online forums. Fuck that noise. Anyone who thinks they're for something like fair wages or racial justice, but against liberals or progressives of any stripe doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

[duffyduff]

64. It's the Michael Moore naive belief we need to reach these white dudes.

But they can't be reached or reasoned with. They and their fathers and grandfathers have spent DECADES voting against their economic interests.

Racism and sexism have no part in this country anymore. They never did, of course, but there is no excuse for them now.

We need to cut these entitled dudes loose and let 'em drown, figuratively speaking.

[DirkGently]

66. Cultural and economic progress aren't mutually exclusive.

If you want to focus on cultural progress to the exclusion of people's economic security, though, you're going to lose every single election.

Social progress is easy for monied interests -- it doesn't cost them anything to renounce social inequality, so long as economic inequality remains untouched. What I see being floated is some idea that we can keep monied interests happy by ignoring things like financial reform or universal education and healthcare, so long as we maintain social superiority.

That's a recipe for failure.

[duffyduff]

69. Let me guess--you voted for Sanders.

You have no clue about why I feel the way I do, but I likely am quite a bit older than you. I am right and you are wrong because you have NO idea why these people keep fucking up with their votes election after election, year after year. You seem to think that pushing demagoguery about trade and "jobs" and oh, yes, the minorities and women, is such a winner in elections. These morons who voted for Trump keep screwing up all the time. I have had it with them.

Democrats have won elections over and over and didn't need to pander to these white male assholes.

We haven't had these fuckers for fifty years, since Nixon. You want to rewrite history and say they are part of the Democratic Party base. They aren't, and they haven't been because Nixon played the race card on these idiot dudes in order to get their votes.

The time for these stupid white dudes to have protested was in the 1980s, when Reagan went full force against unions, went for outsourcing and hollowing out the economy, for gutting pensions, for putting in ruinous trade agreements, for peddling crackpot Milton Friedman economics. Instead, these shitheads voted for Reagan and other GOP types. This is a FACT that you want to ignore. Where were YOU, if you were even around then? If you were, you wouldn't make such an uninformed statement as you just did, and trash a woman candidate because of some nonsense about "identity politics."

I am done with these white dude fuckers. They can be homeless for all I care. You cannot reach them because these guys will NOT LISTEN.

Your post is just babbling Berniespeak. Bernie was a LOSER who would have been slaughtered by Bloomberg and Trump if he had had the nomination.

And speaking of Sanders, where was HE in the 1980s? Giving interviews on video blathering about how great Fidel Castro and Cuba were in the middle of the Cold War. And people like you think he would have won the election.

[DirkGently]

86. Who in the world are you replying to?

I said, "Cultural and economic progress aren't mutually exclusive."

You went on a tirade about "white fuckers" and Nixon ????

I wouldn't bet on being older than me.

I voted for Hillary.

Buried in your fusillade of cursing everyone out and calling Bernie Sanders a commie, do you have a substantive response to the post?

[otohara]

84. Did You Know ColoradoCare Failed

not just failed but failed miserably - 80/20 in a state Sec. Clinton won.

You know was out here pushing it hard.

[Kathy M]

89. Thank You

Agree completely .

[Demsrule86]

39. So we need a purge? yeah that will help...

and who decides who is worthy.

[DirkGently]

40. I believe the OP is talking policies, not people.

I didn't see a thing in there attacking people, or suggesting anyone doesn't belong in the party, something I can't say about some Clinton supporters I have run into today. One one them just told me it was my fault Trump was elected because I must not have supported Hillary enough.

But elections have consequences. The things Hillary was selling, the voters were not buying. It's fairly reasonable to suggest her approach is not the way forward, is it not?

[duffyduff]

41. More b.s. You don't have a clue what happened.

HRC didn't lose the popular vote. It was only the EC that she was denied it.

You better look long and hard at the real culprit, the media, particularly Jeff Zucker and CNN. I know it is hard to grasp, but this election cannot be explained like others and it is because the media literally created a presidential candidate who had not started out as any kind of serious candidate at all. Zucker created him. Zucker belongs in Florence ADX.

[malaise]

47. Face this one fact

She ran again a despicable human being - she should have won close to 400 of the 538

[Kathy M]

90. EC is what counts to win election .

Trump entered the election to win from the beginning ........ If you remember in beginning of primaries Trump slammed Bush and family ... Iraq war etc ...... Trump and RNC knew " enemy " and goal did the Hillary and DNC ?

[hueymahl]

42. Agree 1000%

DNC leadership failed completely. They should be held accountable.

[Feeling the Bern]

44. When the Democrats gave up New Deal and Great Society principles to the DLC and Blue Dogs,

they became Republican Lite.

When a Republican runs against Republican Lite, the real Republican usually wins.

When will being an FDR/Great Society Democrat become what we are again? Every election, we shift more and more to the right.

The Democrats are now a Center/Right party and it sickens me.

[JI7]

48. so how do you explain Feingold loss ?

[NurseJackie]

50. I know ... they're still scratching their heads over that. But in time,

... they'll find a way to blame it on Hillary.

[Feeling the Bern]

52. Koch brother fucking. Scott Walker. Wisconsin people like getting fucked by Republicans.

[JI7]

70. and hillary had fbi, kgb, whore media attacking her

[Feeling the Bern]

77. what does that have to do with Wisconsin slitting its own throat with Walker and Johnson?

They had four opportunities to get rid of these assholes, and all four times they failed.

Sorry, but screw 'em. They love getting fucked by Republicans. . .I hope the GOP is kind enough to bring cigarettes.

[kcr]

72. Same voters in the same election. Can't have it both ways n/t

[Feeling the Bern]

76. WI had three opportunities to get ride of that fucker Walker and get rid of Johnson, who they don't

like.

They failed all times. No sympathy for WI. I hope they get fucked so hard they can't stand straight!

Same with NC and Burr, PA with Toomey, OH with Portman and FL with Rubio. They all poll a little higher than HIV and all got re-elected.

Personally, I hope the entire system burns to the ground.

[malaise]

49. And that is the absolute truth

One more thing - Dems had a great chance to clean the swamp in 2009 and decided to play nice.

[Cobalt Violet]

51. I think they enjoy losing.

If one keeps losing and doesn't change anything they can expect to keep losing.

[Feeling the Bern]

54. Look at my Buffalo Bills. There's the proof of a losing culture

[JI7]

78. you think Feingold wanted to lose ?

[Kathy M]

93. Agree

[LWolf]

58. Yes.

We're at a crossroads. The party can continue to blame everyone but their own establishment, and continue with the same losing attitudes and strategies, or the party can shift. It will be interesting to see which path the voters take; the establishment will fiercely defend their power. It's up to the rest.

[malaise]

59. That simple

[Fast Walker 52]

81. No, it's bullshit, because lots of liberal and progressive candidates and issues have lost

It's not an automatic winning deal to be super-progressive.

Bernie lost. He really did.

We still live in a fairly conservative country, even if there are tens of millions of liberals.

[Kathy M]

91. Agree

[gulliver]

63. Something's wrong with the world.

The Democratic presidency of Hillary Clinton would have been a paradise compared to what we are about to have.

There is no such thing as a Democratic, corporate-collaborationist "establishment" (or Third Way or Blue Dog Group). That's all just the Lord of the Flies kids worrying about "the Beast." It's a combination of pure nonsense, propaganda, and human frailty.

[BootinUp]

71. Swimming against the tide is hard work

The tide carries a bunch of shit with it, and we were smothered with it this time.

[denbot]

73. K&R n/t

[BainsBane]

75. I have had it with this language of going back, taking back

reverting in time. That isn't progressive, it's regressive. What is this core philosophy you think existed in the past? When? Was it during the FDR administration when the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and Japanese internment camps? During the Cold War? Maybe the party of slavery? Are those the traditional "values."

What exactly about Clinton's platform did you find so objectionable? I get that empty slogans are all the rage, but if you all are going to keep going on reclaiming the glory days of the party, we have a right to know exactly when you want to return to, and whose rights you think we should do away with to make that happen.

There is no ideal past. There is a racist, exclusionary past. Hillary didn't run on a Third Way campaign. We are not in the 90s when the Third Way emerged so Democrats might have a hope of winning the presidency.

How is that few of you who use these ahistorical tropes can actually articulate a policy position or value you uphold?
If you mean to communicate something other than the Democratic party should serve white men to the exclusion of everyone else, you need to find a way to articulate some sort of idea rather than a nostalgia to return to the past. That is what Trump ran on.

By the way, 1/3 of those who voted for Bernie in the Democratic Primary in W Virginia said they were going to support Trump in the general election. They sought to ratfuck the primaries. Most or all of the Bernie anointed candidates lost in the general election, and most of them by margins wider than Clinton. You may think if the party were like what the college kids wanted we would win, yet there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

We still get to vote, and I sure as hell am not voting for anyone who talks about returning to the past.

[malaise]

80. Democrats used to defend workers

and Unions

[Kathy M]

92. Agree ..... Also Wanted to add avoiding wars

How long has this one been going on ...... 15?

My nephew was in Army till he found out new contract he was being transferred to Texas ..... He left Army cause he did not want to be deployed overseas again .

War has taken toll on country and families

[baldguy]

85. Something is wrong when supposed liberals vote for the fascist instead of the liberal.

It's not the Party. It's not the candidate. It's the relatively few liberal voters who were taken in by the RW propaganda that says there's no difference between the two parties, that Clinton was corrupt, and that Trump really couldn't be that bad.

The next 4 years are going to be a FUCKING DISASTER!! because of them.

[Horse with no Name]

95. I think you are correct

We abandoned our platform for working people and went right of the middle to snag those nebulous "undecideds". In doing so, we abandoned many parts of our base.

We need to get back to our roots and stop trying to bring republicans into our fold....there are enough of US to win if we just do what we need to do.

[demtenjeep]

96. we are all hurting

https://www.gofundme.com/pamelas-crohns-disease-relief