Do you think the Dem party should move more right, left or stay the same to win future elections?

[twostrokenut]

Class warfare. Guess who's winning?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/03/inequality-in-the-us-a-tale-of-two-countries.html

Say, doesn't Susan Webber run nakedcapitalism? Didn't she work for Goldman and currently runs Aurora Advisers with clients such as Lehman Brothers and Soros Fund Management?

Does that square well with the sites mission statement which isn't really stated on the site?

"Naked Capitalism is an American financial news and analysis blog that "chronicles the large scale, concerted campaign to reduce the bargaining power and pay of ordinary workers relative to investors and elite technocrats."[1]

 

[Fogdog]

This situation tells me three things;

1. That the Democratic Party knows they don't represent the majority of Americans.
2. They don't care...
3. ...because their internal measure of success does not include representing We the People or our needs.

There are multiple movements afoot to start a third party to the left of the unapologetically corporate captured 'Democratic' party and Bernie has shown that working with the Dems is not the way forward; they've clearly taken on the role of sabotaging anyone from the left.

Therefore, it's time to stop treating the Democratic Party Establishment with any level of respect and to start working for We the People.

Establishment Democrats like @UncleBuck may complain, but until/unless the Democratic Party begins to actually fight for the interests of the 99%, as opposed to just the top 10%, they will remain part of the problem and will reliably campaign AGAINST the solution.

Ok, Its your right to throw your vote away.

My representatives represent me and the things I want. Look them up if you like, Wyden, Merkley and DeFazio are all good populist leaders. In other districts and states, Democratic Party elected officials in DC have a high approval with the people they represent. They are taking a stand against Rump to the point of making the government dysfunctional. How much more do you want?

There can be a lot of other reasons than the three you list. You haven't thought this through very well.

 

[ttystikk]

Say, doesn't Susan Webber run nakedcapitalism? Didn't she work for Goldman and currently runs Aurora Advisers with clients such as Lehman Brothers and Soros Fund Management?

Does that square well with the sites mission statement which isn't really stated on the site?

"Naked Capitalism is an American financial news and analysis blog that "chronicles the large scale, concerted campaign to reduce the bargaining power and pay of ordinary workers relative to investors and elite technocrats."[1]

Maybe you should actually try reading it.

 

[ttystikk]

Ok, Its your right to throw your vote away.

My representatives represent me and the things I want. Look them up if you like, Wyden, Merkley and DeFazio are all good populist leaders. In other districts and states, Democratic Party elected officials in DC have a high approval with the people they represent. They are taking a stand against Rump to the point of making the government dysfunctional. How much more do you want?

There can be a lot of other reasons than the three you list. You haven't thought this through very well.

Easy to take shots.

Let's hear your thinking.

 

[twostrokenut]

Maybe you should actually try reading it.

I've read some. But its like anything else. Reviewers should disclose paid relationships in the industry; a little dishonest not to; no?

 

[Fogdog]

Easy to take shots.

Let's hear your thinking.

I just said it. You talk about some monolithic Democratic Party when there is no such thing. As you posit the one correct alternate ideology to this monolith. I point out that this "uncaring and unrepresentative" Democratic party has elected officials with strong support from their electorate. Not Colorado's liberals maybe, but the electorate in the representative's district or state. It's their right to elect the people they want. Not necessarily ones that represent your ideology.

You jump from "didn't support an election that Democrats were certain to lose" to "Democratic party corporatists don't care to do their job and represent their people". My earlier reply reflects my disgust at a losing strategy. "Thought we'd make things worse" is an excuse for losers. The Democratic Party has weak leadership. They are timid and cautious, which is no way to govern.

You already thought the things you listed as "your conclusions". You seek confirmation of your bias and I'm just saying you aren't going to get that from me. How about a simpler alternate answer: The Democratic party needs to replace a timid leadership for a more assertive one. They have been in place too long and aren't in touch with the times. Now is the time to support that kind of change.

A third party challenge? Sure, I'll support a county commissioner or school board rep who affiliates with the Green Party. But they need to grow at the grass roots level for some time to come before they can contend at the national level. The Green Party or some new party won't be ready to contend in 2020, much less in 2018. If you want to rid yourself of Trump as Prez, it will have to be a Democrat.

 

[ttystikk]

I just said it. You talk about some monolithic Democratic Party when there is no such thing. As you posit the one correct alternate ideology to this monolith. I point out that this "uncaring and unrepresentative" Democratic party has elected officials with strong support from their electorate. Not Colorado's liberals maybe, but the electorate in the representative's district or state. It's their right to elect the people they want. Not necessarily ones that represent your ideology.

You jump from "didn't support an election that Democrats were certain to lose" to "Democratic party corporatists don't care to do their job and represent their people". My earlier reply reflects my disgust at a losing strategy. "Thought we'd make things worse" is an excuse for losers. The Democratic Party has weak leadership. They are timid and cautious, which is no way to govern.

You already thought the things you listed as "your conclusions". You seek confirmation of your bias and I'm just saying you aren't going to get that from me. How about a simpler alternate answer: The Democratic party needs to replace a timid leadership for a more assertive one. They have been in place too long and aren't in touch with the times. Now is the time to support that kind of change.

A third party challenge? Sure, I'll support a county commissioner or school board rep who affiliates with the Green Party. But they need to grow at the grass roots level for some time to come before they can contend at the national level. The Green Party or some new party won't be ready to contend in 2020, much less in 2018. If you want to rid yourself of Trump as Prez, it will have to be a Democrat.

I'm cleaving along the lines of Establishment Democratic Party vs the rest of its base of supporters.

I believe there an enormous difference between those who fight for the average citizen and the party leadership, as evidenced by their behavior.

If the threat of being outflanked by a third party is what it takes to force the establishment to start taking the needs of the other 90% of Americans more seriously, so be it.

And though we may disagree on this and other points, it's refreshing to have a discussion on the merits, without tropes, blind loyalties or personal insults. I just wanted to say thanks again for that on this Easter Sunday!

 

[Aeroknow]

If the threat of being outflanked by a third party is what it takes to force the establishment to start taking the needs of the other 90% of Americans more seriously, so be it.

I've got a really good feeling that this current POtuS will actually do some good for a grass roots progressive platform. No third party needed.

Yes I voted for Hillary, i would have voted for Bernie. But there was also such a feeling that Bernie was running on shit that would have never hapened given the current atmosphere. <<pretty fucking ironic rite?

This piece of shit is rallying up the solid support of a grass roots movement as we speak.
I dunno. Just trying to be positive on fake god resurection day.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm cleaving along the lines of Establishment Democratic Party vs the rest of its base of supporters.

I believe there an enormous difference between those who fight for the average citizen and the party leadership, as evidenced by their behavior.

If the threat of being outflanked by a third party is what it takes to force the establishment to start taking the needs of the other 90% of Americans more seriously, so be it.

And though we may disagree on this and other points, it's refreshing to have a discussion on the merits, without tropes, blind loyalties or personal insults. I just wanted to say thanks again for that on this Easter Sunday!

Who is this "Establishment Democratic Party"? Perez? I don't think so. Can you put some names to it? I've already told you I support my local Oregon Democratic elected officials and have listened to them and followed their votes.

Still taking Alex Jones for his word? (Shuffles and kicks dirt your way)

An effective third party alternative to the Democratic Party would probably give Republicans an election or two but I'd vote for them if they were serious, well organized and had built up at the grass roots level with policies aligned my own values. Oh, and I did spend time knocking doors for an initiative for proportional voting that the Green Party sponsored in my area.

 

[ttystikk]

I've got a really good feeling that this current POtuS will actually do some good for a grass roots progressive platform. No third party needed.

Yes I voted for Hillary, i would have voted for Bernie. But there was also such a feeling that Bernie was running on shit that would have never hapened given the current atmosphere. <<pretty fucking ironic rite?

This piece of shit is rallying up the solid support of a grass roots movement as we speak.
I dunno. Just trying to be positive on fake god resurection day.

I appreciate your views and there's more than a grain of Truth in them.

I voted for Bernie in the Democratic Caucus- and when the Establishment Democratic Party threw him under the bus, I swallowed hard and still voted for Mrs Clinton, in spite of my concerns.

If there are better candidates in the next caucus than the Establishment option, I'll caucus for them... And again, I'll vote for the best candidate in the general, even if it means the lesser of two evils.

That's not throwing my vote away, it's using it as I see fit. I suggest you and every other American citizen step up and do exactly the same, because that's how we get a government that represents us!

 

[ttystikk]

Who is this "Establishment Democratic Party"? Perez? I don't think so. Can you put some names to it? I've already told you I support my local Oregon Democratic elected officials and have listened to them and followed their votes.

Still taking Alex Jones for his word? (Shuffles and kicks dirt your way)

An effective third party alternative to the Democratic Party would probably give Republicans an election or two but I'd vote for them if they were serious, well organized and had built up at the grass roots level with policies aligned my own values. Oh, and I did spend time knocking doors for an initiative for proportional voting that the Green Party sponsored in my area.

Read it again; I specifically complimented you for NOT being stuck on tropes or blind loyalties! Let's not get that backwards.

Larry Ellison was my choice, I don't believe Perez will do much for the 90%. We can agree to disagree.

Glad to hear you got involved with a third party, I plan to do the same.

I don't listen to Alex Jones, so I have no idea what he says.

I've been listening to Secular Talk and The Young Turks on YouTube, I don't agree with everything they say either but they are much closer to my positions than anything I hear coming from the Establishment Democratic Party.

Worse, the Democratic Party Establishment isn't even supporting its own candidates in places like the recent Kansas election. I find that indefensible and highly indicative of their lack of focus, direction and philosophy.

Building a serious third party alternative from the grassroots is exactly what I'd most like to see. That's what I've been advocating for awhile now, a left of center version of the 'tea party'.

I know it's not something much practiced in American politics, but let's try to find common ground instead of magnifying our differences. I think the effort is well worth it.

 

[Aeroknow]

Me thinks California should primary early once again. Spend the $100 million again to actually have a god damn say.

 

[Fogdog]

Read it again; I specifically complimented you for NOT being stuck on tropes or blind loyalties! Let's not get that backwards.

Larry Ellison was my choice, I don't believe Perez will do much for the 90%. We can agree to disagree.

Glad to hear you got involved with a third party, I plan to do the same.

I don't listen to Alex Jones, so I have no idea what he says.

I've been listening to Secular Talk and The Young Turks on YouTube, I don't agree with everything they say either but they are much closer to my positions than anything I hear coming from the Establishment Democratic Party.

Worse, the Democratic Party Establishment isn't even supporting its own candidates in places like the recent Kansas election. I find that indefensible and highly indicative of their lack of focus, direction and philosophy.

Building a serious third party alternative from the grassroots is exactly what I'd most like to see. That's what I've been advocating for awhile now, a left of center version of the 'tea party'.

I know it's not something much practiced in American politics, but let's try to find common ground instead of magnifying our differences. I think the effort is well worth it.

You words changed and words matter. Earlier post

1. That the Democratic Party knows they don't represent the majority of Americans.
2. They don't care...
3. ...because their internal measure of success does not include representing We the People or our needs.

This post:

Worse, the Democratic Party Establishment isn't even supporting its own candidates in places like the recent Kansas election. I find that indefensible and highly indicative of their lack of focus, direction and philosophy.

I can't find anything to disagree with in the second quote. It's the difference in diagnosis of the problem. We both agree there is a problem. I agree with the second diagnosis. But not the first. The role of the DNC is to provide support for the presidential election. There are other bodies in the Democratic party that work on congressional elections. Perez isn't the principal in those groups. So, Perez shouldn't be blamed for a lack of focus on congressional elections. Nor is Ellison.

This is the weak sauce presented by Democratic congressional comittees charged with promoting elections of Democratic Senators and Congressmen. Literally, this is all they have to say:

http://www.dscc.org/
Take Back the Senate
Stay tuned to learn more about our efforts to take back the Senate.

http://dccc.org/
Get involved today
TAKE ACTION

I think we agree on all but who to point out as guilty. I'd encourage you to name names instead of name a faceless organization. But to be honest, I don't know who runs the dscc or dccc. Whoever they are, they aren't doing much.

 

[ttystikk]

You words changed and words matter. Earlier post

1. That the Democratic Party knows they don't represent the majority of Americans.
2. They don't care...
3. ...because their internal measure of success does not include representing We the People or our needs.

This post:

Worse, the Democratic Party Establishment isn't even supporting its own candidates in places like the recent Kansas election. I find that indefensible and highly indicative of their lack of focus, direction and philosophy.

I can't find anything to disagree with in the second quote. It's the difference in diagnosis of the problem. We both agree there is a problem. I agree with the second diagnosis. But not the first. The role of the DNC is to provide support for the presidential election. There are other bodies in the Democratic party that work on congressional elections. Perez isn't the principal in those groups. So, Perez shouldn't be blamed for a lack of focus on congressional elections. Nor is Ellison.

This is the weak sauce presented by Democratic congressional comittees charged with promoting elections of Democratic Senators and Congressmen. Literally, this is all they have to say:

http://www.dscc.org/
Take Back the Senate
Stay tuned to learn more about our efforts to take back the Senate.

http://dccc.org/
Get involved today
TAKE ACTION

I think we agree on all but who to point out as guilty. I'd encourage you to name names instead of name a faceless organization. But to be honest, I don't know who runs the dscc or dccc. Whoever they are, they aren't doing much.

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

As soon as I figure out who to hold responsible, I'll call them out.

My suspicion is that there's a lot of donor cash sloshing around the Establishment Democratic Party and that's much of what's gumming up the works.

I'm still learning about the makeup of the party, the players and their stances.

Therefore, I'm calling out the party because I think they're doing a lot to hide who is responsible, because accountability sucks for those who know they're not acting in the interests of their constituents.

 

[LSD-25]

the more information gets out about the democratic party the more votes they lose .. people are waking up..

 

[UncleBuck]

the more information gets out about the democratic party the more votes they lose .. people are waking up..

you voted for a guy who feigned raptor hands to mock a disabled reporter and your fellow indoctrinated sycophant cult members are long-standing members of the KKK and american nazi parties.

enjoy the few months you have left until trumpee gets impeached for treason and dies alone in jail.

 

[Fogdog]

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

As soon as I figure out who to hold responsible, I'll call them out.

My suspicion is that there's a lot of donor cash sloshing around the Establishment Democratic Party and that's much of what's gumming up the works.

I'm still learning about the makeup of the party, the players and their stances.

Therefore, I'm calling out the party because I think they're doing a lot to hide who is responsible, because accountability sucks for those who know they're not acting in the interests of their constituents.

Who's getting buckets of cash? Jon Ossof, the leading Democratic challenger in Price's former district, that's who. Most of the money from small donations.

Frontrunner and first-time candidate Jon Ossoff raised a startling $8.2 million in the just over three months he’s been in the race — an amount that puts him at No. 11 all-time in funds raised by House candidates in an entire cycle. More than 60 percent of that money came from small donations of $200 and under, with help from a fundraising push by the liberal Daily Kos; 95 percent came from donors outside his district and 80 percent from outside the state. He also reported the League of Conservation Voters Fund bundled $39,000 on his behalf.

That said, he's making the classic mistake (IMO) that Hillary did:

At a panel discussion in March, Ossoff discussed issues of the day. This is one person's view of the discussion:

“I went with no expectations,” Enjeti told me. “I was not leaning toward anyone. I knew there was enthusiasm and excitement about his campaign, but I was not swayed by that. I wanted to hear what he and the other candidates had to say.”

She left the forum unconvinced—and vexed. In the two-hour session, no one had addressed President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration or accusations that his election spawned new waves of racism and xenophobia. “There was a lot of talk about health care, but not the specific concerns of the 6th District, which is very diverse and growing more diverse,” Enjeti said. Indeed, in this district, formerly represented by Tom Price, Johnny Isakson and Newt Gingrich, fully 21 percent of residents are foreign-born. When Gingrich was elected there in 1992, more than 90 percent of the residents were white; now 70 percent are. And large sections of the 6th are majority-minority, Enjeti points out. “There are subdivisions out here that are entirely Asian, or Southeast Asian, with only one or two white families,” she says. And yet Ossoff and the other Democrats on that panel weren’t offering much to those voters.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/outside-groups-pour-8-2-million-into-georgia-6th/

Democratic challengers speak in general terms when voters want to hear specifics. It seems this election can be won by Democrats but they need to stick to specifics. (frustrating). And so, I think the problem is ineptitude, not maliciousness.

 

[esh dov ets]

the more information gets out about the democratic party the more votes they lose .. people are waking up..

waking up to what?

 

[LSD-25]

waking up to what?

all the lies that the democrats have told over the years.. trying to cover up all the crimes..

 

[esh dov ets]

all the lies that the democrats have told over the years.. trying to cover up all the crimes..

what about the other parties? republican doesn't even rhyme with honesty.