A word of advice about controlling the Democratic Party message

[BainsBane]

To all of you who feel you know what the Democratic Party message should be,

You believe you're right about what a winning political message is. Maybe you're right. The way to find out is for you to run for office using that message. Because, believe it or not, the Democratic Party isn't coming to DU to read about what the next campaign should be based on. That is for individual candidates to decide, and elections reveal the relative success of those messages. So if you truly believe you have the answer, run for office. You could get every last DUer to agree on your OP and it would affect nothing. The only way for you to control the message is to deliver it to voters yourself.

[NCTraveler]

1. I think people should read the party platform and formulate their message.

The outline is excellent and is there for everyone to view.

[BainsBane]

2. A number of people seem to confuse positions or message

with what the media chooses to cover. They are not the same.

[NCTraveler]

3. Message is derived from positions.

The media is a completely different beast all together.

[BainsBane]

6. Unfortunately for many

Campaigns, or at leat the Democrats general election campaigns, don't exist apart from television. It's amazing how many still refuse to look at what Clinton actually proposed, despite claiming expertise about what she should have run on.

[brer cat]

39. Amen. nt

[Uponthegears]

4. Obviously we need as many good candidates as possible

However, the idea that "candidates" determine the message of the party is poppycock.

Until and unless Buckley v. Valeo is overturned and money is no longer equated with speech for the purposes of the 1st Amendment, the success of any candidate (particularly at the local level) is dependent upon funding from the handful of party officials that control the money and the wealthy donors behind them (Aside: Overturning Buckley is a tall, but not insurmountable obstacle - though Buckley was not a 5-4 decision, enough of its concurring opinions leave open a path to its reversal. It should not be considered unassailable).

Please pardon my suspicious nature, but I believe you are well aware of this fact. I believe this OP is little more than the umpteenth version of "Hillary won the primary, therefore her message was the right one" and/or "What about Zephyr and Russ . . . they lost, that shows progressives can't win."

I know you would rather not talk about how the middle-of-the-road policies ushered in by Bill Clinton . . . which EVERY candidate must pay homage if they are to receive the national funding and on the ground party support to that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to win in a Buckley/Citizens United/Koch Brothers world . . . have produced the greatest loss of political power in the history of the Democratic Party at every level from dog catcher to POSU. I know you would rather not talk about how those policies have worked for only two presidential candidates; the first a Southerner preaching welfare reform, the war on drugs, the death penalty, and free trade, and the second the most dynamic and inspirational candidate (and person) in the history of this party/country. I know you would rather not talk about how the sub-$50K workers who you tried to paint as racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes during the primary were the ONLY economic demographic to join us in the black community and our gay, Muslim, and Spanish-speaking brothers and sisters and vote IN A MAJORITY for who should have been our President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. For sure, I know you do not want to talk about how the precious white suburbanites (who the current party structure STILL believes it can get back - even after they left OUR neighborhoods, left OUR schools, left OUR cities, AND, most important of all LEFT OUR PARTY - if only we made their 401Ks hum and kept quiet about how THEY are keeping us on the bottom) voted in a solid majority for a psychopathic oligarch instead of a candidate who (even if you didn't like everything about her) was every bit as good as any candidate we've ever run (with the exception of our current president).

Of course you don't want to talk about the party that you control and how it has failed.

If you did, you might have to actually sit down with people with whom you disagree and come up with a solution.

[BainsBane]

5. Hillary Clinton won voters earning under $50k

And had her widest margin with voters earning under $30k. Trump won incomes over $75 k. And as much as you might like to pretend the Klan, neo-Nazis and White Supremacists in the White House aren't racist, don't matter, or can be explained away by your obsession with Bill Clinton, the evidence doesn't support your claims.

Tell me how exactly I control the party? Really, I would like to know how I amassed such massive power? My income doesn't rise to the level of the average Trump voter, though it would be nice if it did. I don't live in the suburbs or exurbs. It is true that I am a woman and survivor of sexual assault who believes that rape is wrong and that a sexual assailant doesn't belong in the White House. I don't make excuses for hate crimes and the Klan, and if that makes me your enemy, I am proud to assume that mantle. I am simply one of the inferior people that your Trump voting heroes demanded have my rights stripped away so they could make America Great again.

You had an opportunity in the GE to work toward overturning those Supreme Court decisions turning elections over to big money, but you decided the scourge of white supremacists being called racist was a more serious problem. You now have a fascist about to enter the White House, and several times a day one of those non-racist Trump voters attacks or beats a woman of color in Trump's name.

My post was not about your obsession with the 90s or outrage that a Hillary Clinton won the nomination by 3.8 million votes. Its purpose was exactly as I said. If people believe they have the answers, they should run on that message. This site does not determine the future of the party or anything else.

I'm sorry you so resent voters like me and that you see the marginalized as part of a cabal against the oppressed, middle and upper-middle class white men that decided this election. All you despised was defeated. The Clintons are finished. The nefarious civil rights-concerned Democrats have been soundly defeated. America is great again. You really have no reason to be angry at me, other than you can't accept the fact I have the right to exercise a vote, because one vote is the extent of my power.

Clearly you don't sit down with those you disagree with. You can't even read a post without unleashing venom, projecting all kinds of views onto strangers who you don't respect enough to even ask how they see the issues you ascribe to them. You do not now and will never have any idea what I believe because you view the entire world through your prism of resentment. I can't do anything about your animosity toward Democratic voters. All I can do is continue to exercise my right to vote as long as I still have it, and it is precisely that which so enrages you.

[Uponthegears]

8. What utter tripe

We ARE the "civil rights concerned" Democrats. We are the coalition of the oppressed nourished by Doctor King. In fact, judging by your description, we are you.

That total hogwash you people pulled out about how Sanders supporters "weren't concerned about civil rights" doesn't play any more. A majority of Sanders supporters, those >$50K voters YOU attacked during the primary and again here VOTED FOR HILLARY. They voted FOR the candidate who (at least while she was in the primary) acted like she cared about civil rights. You even admit it in your post (title and first paragraph) and STILL you keep spreading the same LIE you pushed in the primary.

I worked on the ground for Hillary during the general election even after campaigning for Bernie during the primaries. I went from one urban community to another in the South telling folks that she still cared about their problems, that she was the same person who actually spoke to them and about them in the primaries. Do you have even the slightest idea why I had to work so hard to get that message across? Do you even care why so many black folks did not come out? So, the next time you think about calling Trump voters my heroes, you might try THINKING AT ALL.

The ONLY thing I pointed out was that the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic POS group that voted for AS A MAJORITY for Trump wasn't the working people struggling to get by that you vilified (and a majority of whom STILL voted for Hillary), it was the smug white suburbanites who aren't hurting at all . . . the very same suburbanites that the party has been pandering to for a quarter of a century.

Build your straw man somewhere else.

[BainsBane]

13. I didn't mention Sanders or his supporters

The Democrats in general support Civil Rights and diversity. I made that reference because of your claim that we somehow unjustly accused white male Trump voters of being racist. Trump ran on racism. It was central to his campaign. Voters affirmed that view of America when they voted for him.

Your projection is off the charts. It's impossible to have a discussion when you project crap onto me that I never said. You should take your obsession with the primaries and the 1990s to someone who wants to have that discussion.

[Uponthegears]

31. And yet, we could not agree more on some things

Every person who voted for Trump is, at least in my mind, utterly unredeemable. While I know this may upset some, the fact is that Trump did not run on an economic agenda, or any other agenda for that matter. He ran on hate, nothing more nothing less.

That means that if they voted for Trump, they are one of two things. Either they are, well, "deplorable," in which case WE DON'T WANT THEM BACK. Or, they are so stupid that they believed Hillary was distinguishable (at least in the negative sense) from every male candidate that our party has ever run (subject to the Obama exception and he was probably one of a kind), in which case they are simply not worth the work it takes to bring them back into the fold.

My concern, and I believe it has carried over to the post mortem, is that Bernie's primary supporters (who were lumped in with the "deplorable" group during the primaries) are now being called "Trump supporters" when the statistics show they were actually the only economic demographic that were Hillary supporters. This to me bodes ill not for the past, but for the future.

For the reasons I explained in my first post, we can't count on a majority of white suburbanites to vote with us. They are the "deplorables." Bernie's sub-$50K voter base are hurting and they voted in a majority for Hillary anyway. They are not the actually-not-hurting-at-all $70K "Trump supporters." Cleaving off Bernie's base who we both want and need if we are to regain power quickly (and the future of this country and the people you and I both care about are in immediate danger if we don't) is simply a bad move.

I want to apologize for lumping you in with those posters (and yes, there are more than a few here) who are current party regulars/professionals who insist on arguing that white suburbanites remain the key to electoral victory and we cannot attract them without running as moderates AND who have made a concerted effort in this forum to blame what happened on "leftists" because they don't want the party to move to the left. I mistook your passion for an agenda. My rant was for them. I was obviously wrong to direct it at you. At this point, all I can offer is my apology.

Again, we are on the same side.

Thanks for listening.

[DonCoquixote]

28. please make this it's own op

as someone who moved from Bernie to Hillary, and got people in Florida to vote for her, I am really tired of these attempts to demonize anyone that thought we still needed to have a primary.

We voted for your Lady, stop treating us like we voted for Trump!

[PotatoChip]

51. +1000

[Eleanors38]

9. "Clearly you don't sit down with those you disagree with." Are you referencing the poster?

In any case, those with whom we disagree seem to be the very ones we need to talk with.

[BainsBane]

14. Yes, I was

and I agree in a general sense, though I think it more important for political representatives to do than individual voters.
Part of the problem with the increasing polarization of politics is that it is related to location. The range of political views of people who live near me run from Democrat to Green. I have some Republican in-laws who don't live in the city, but my sister insists quite vehemently that we don't discuss politics at family gatherings.

I do have a friend who is an old-school Republican, but he voted for Clinton in the general election. It surprised me, but he said he would have voted for any Republican other than Trump or Cruz over Clinton, but of course the party base doesn't give him that option.
So I do discuss politics with him. That's how I know that Obama is despised in the financial sector, despite claims by some here that he is their bestie. They clearly do not see it that way.

[Uponthegears]

11. On a more concilatory note

I am appalled that a majority of this country voted for a man who used his power and wealth to coerce sexual favors from women. It's disgusting.

Unfortunately for me (and I am guessing almost everyone else), I completely missed what Trump was doing by marching out the Paula Jones brigade. I thought it was some over-the-top misogynistic message about Hillary not having the ability to control Bill, so how could she control the country (which I figured would actually offend every thinking person on the planet). I was dead wrong. It was about whether a man who uses his power to coerce women for sex is unqualified to be president. In other words, it was about Trump, not Hillary.

I would hope all of us would answer that question "Of course such a man is totally unqualified," but the fact is that many of us (particularly older voters) did not give that answer during past elections.

The fact that we should be damned for that silence obviously does not in any way justify damning ourselves yet again. It does, however, suggest that the message that Trump is a sexual predator might have been better received if it were presented as a chance for our redemption. (Apologies for the religious allusions).

We are on the same side.

Edited to add (NOT A MAJORITY, not by 2.8 million+ voters, only a majority of electoral votes)

[Hekate]

12. BB. +10000

I'M STILL WITH HER, AND WE ARE STRONGER TOGETHER.

[Gothmog]

33. Same here

[George II]

7. Unfortunately some want to control the Democratic Party message from the outside.

[JCanete]

10. That is not an accurate gauge of whether a message can resonate with people. Just running and tyring

to fund a campaign as an individual without party apparatus behind you, is not likely to get you very far, although granted, you could break through the constraints, but if the DNC knows what kinds of candidates it wants, and what kinds of messaging it prefers, yours may not be it.

You might say, "If your message is so hot, you shouldn't have problem getting funding," but that isn't reflective of reality. People like messages all the time but don't put their money or time behind them, because they see them as lost causes. In a system where two parties have essentially locked it up, outsiders only operate as spoilers anyway, which comes with a whole other can of shit that helps to marginalize them.

We do, as a collective, have to decide what we want out of our party leaders and to let them know. Your own perspective I believe, is that we already have the party you want. That's fine. But this is DU after all, and the Democratic party is sort of centered prominently, and for the most part we are liberals and/or Democrats on these boards. I think it makes sense to attempt to communicate ideas with people who care about politics, and have at least some politics in common.

[bravenak]

17. But that's the thing, isn't it?

To get a message across to millions you really do have to either have some celebrity status, be a part of an 'established' political party, or have so much fucking charisma that people have to hear you.
People around here try to make it seem super easy and they truly believe that everybody wants to do things exactly the way they want to but they are wrong. What you are dealing with is that more peopke within the party like the party than want to break it down and remold it into the image of their particular marxist fanfiction they enjoy. But life does not work like that. People have to be convinced. Better to run and get ideas out there. Even Bernie could not run without the establishment giving him the stryctures to use to try to make a go of it. Without the democratic party to use for resources, no way he would have made it far enough to be heard at this point in time.

[JCanete]

23. Winning with our current party is fan-fiction that our leaders keep regurgitating and fawning over.

You are right about what seems to be what Democrats on this board want, which for the most part is more of the same. More of the same is playing nice with a media and corporate machine that will always keep us around as a back-up, and will never ever cede us the reins of power. Obama got a paltry two years of a semi-favorable senate and house, and you know he had to be superhuman to even get that. That was as good as its ever going to get until we actually start calling out the people who broker elections through their propaganda arm--our main-stream media.

Changing the message to something that speaks to more economic success for everybody, as Bernie tried to do, is nice, but that got as far as its ever going to get, and for those who think that is the path to success forward, there's no reason for us to try to adjust our message to fit some demographic if we have no way of controlling the message that the American people hear.

The most significant cornerstone about Bernie's campaign was that he was saying the system is bought and paid for by big money, and it is. Which is why Clinton came within inches of the White House and was denied. She's a good back-up player for the corporations. She keeps nudging them to make concessions to the American people, and they're like, "here's some money, get into office and we'll talk." And then they fund her opponent and republicans in down-ticket races so that even if she wins he wings are clipped, and totally destroy her in the media while puffing up a buffoon who wears their preferred colors.

I'll say it again, the fantasy is thinking we can win by playing nice...by not calling out our mainstream media as the corporate propaganda wing that it is. Why we on these boards are predominantly preoccupied with vilifying liberals or in rare cases, attempting to downplay social justice in favor of "jobs," I have no idea. Either the DNC starts taking aim at the media as a whole, or we are going to continue to play out this kabuki theater we call elections.

[Gothmog]

18. I disagree with your analysis

It is true that fundraising does affect the viability of a candidate under the current system but during the initial stages the party does not get involved. The only real time that I have seen the party step in was when a LaRouchie ran and got the nomination. Otherwise the party itself stays of out these races.

If you want to see how the process works, get involve with your local county or if possible state party. The process is interesting and there is no magic cabal dictating who the candidates will be. If you have a good message that is winning, then donors will support your. Otherwise, the message is meaningless.

I have been to several state conventions and now have been to one National Convention. The process is important and cannot be ignored

[JCanete]

21. How can you disagree with my analysis and then say if your campaign resonates, donors will

support it? The donors that matter at a stage of little to no exposure are the ones with actual money. There is a liberal spectrum, and generally speaking, this particular base is not hanging off the left side of it. What is a winning message to these citizens, is not necessarily a winning message to the public at large, and your message may actually be anathema to the way they see the world. So what then?

[Gothmog]

32. Have you worked on a campaign?

Your analysis is simply wrong and does not reflect how campaigns work. At each stage of the process you need to have a message that appeals to the key groups in the Democratic base. I have seen this first hand. I am good friends with one of the labor leaders and he was bitching several years ago that the candidate for a congressional district went to met with the labor group and had no idea as to their issues. The candidate in question did not know what card check was and had actually pissed off the labor leaders and ended up getting no money from this key group. This candidate ended up losing the primary to a LaRouchie.

In the real world, one has to have a message that appears to each audience. I will not take a candidate to any of the major donors in my neck of the woods unless I knew that the candidate had a good message. The message is key in the real world. I know that I have given to some candidates who I know will lose because I wanted to get their message out there. Again, the real world is a harsh place but it is important to know how it works

[JCanete]

35. who are those key groups? Who are the people usually engaged at this level?

You are only showing me how somebody who is otherwise rightly situated can be derailed. You are only reinforcing that those major donors are a part of the equation at some fairly early point, and I'm saying they like what they like.

On what point are you saying that I'm wrong?

[Gothmog]

37. Again, you are not answering my question

Or more appropriately, you are answering my question in the negative. I urge you to get involved in local county politics and to work on some campaigns. You would learn a great deal about the real world.

There are key demographic and public interest groups in all all campaigns on all levels. I have worked on several campaigns and no campaign is going to get off the ground unless it has the support of one of more key groups in the area in question. Labor is always a key source of support in Democratic politics as are the areas major donors. Unless a candidate can craft a message to appeal one of more of these groups their campaign is going nowhere. In my area, the support of the African American groups is critical and there are different decision makers/leaders in these groups who you need to meet and convince that you have winning message. The local African American elected officials are a key starting place but there are other groups. Without crafting a message to appeal to these and other leaders, a campaign will not go far. In my area labor is active both as to donations and GOTV/block walking.

In every local or regional party there are groups who help fund races. Again that is part of the real world and money helps in elections. Major donors are looking at the message and the elect-ability. In addition, the backing of local political clubs and affinity groups are important. I was pleased to see Harris County go blue with a fairly weak county party but with the support of some major donors and strong local political clubs. One of the delegates who went to the DNC national convention is the president of a local club who did an amazing job of GOTV and fund raising.

The analysis in your post is simply wrong if you live in the real world and have to work on of help fund raise for a campaign.

[JCanete]

40. So, the premise I was responding to was basically "if your ideas are so hot prove it

by getting elected on them." My statement was that that would not be an effective gauge of whether or not the ideas were hot, or even whether they appealed to the people, because there are gatekeepers that are the funders of campaigns.

I never did, nor would I, make the argument that people should not do what BainesBane or you are suggesting. We absolutely need to do that, but the reasons implicit in the post seem to be for the purposes of giving cause to dismiss any ideas that can't survive our political process as it stands, giving no consideration for the implicit biases within that system that could make an idea DOA.

You have effectively told me that people running for office have to craft a message that appeals across a spectrum, which is not something I knew I was calling into question. The problem is, and you only keep reinforcing it post after post, that one of those hurdles are the people with the purse strings.

You keep saying I'm wrong and then you keep showing me how I'm right. "Major donors are looking at the message and the elect-ability." The operative wording here is MAJOR DONORS, who are making a judgement about a message according to their sensibilities. I know that organizations such as labor contribute to campaigns, but these are very politically complicated decisions...its always better to support the candidate you think is most likely to win, because you kind of need them to remember you should they get into office, and fondly at that.

This is the system we have. Again, no bones with that assessment. I'll just repeat what I said at the beginning incase it got lost in the deluge. Because of that gatekeeping capacity, a platform that doesn't end up gaining traction can not simply be said to be unappealing to the public. That is not a fair or reasonable metric to impose.

[Gothmog]

42. Again, go work with a county party or on a real campaign

The fact that you think that you are right is really sad and wrong. The real world has mechanisms that rely on testing real messages to get candidates with the best message. The large donors are only one of the gate keepers and not necessarily the most important when dealing in the real world. For Democrats in Texas, labor and elected officials are very important gate keepers. Labor can provide block walking support (a key part of a campaign in the real world) that is far more important than the money. Current elected officials are very important gate keepers who want candidatures on the ballot who will not hurt their chances or the image of the party. In addition, the various clubs and affinity groups are important. The LGBT groups were very effective for all Democratic candidates in Harris County.

I have seen this in the real world. I ran for and was elected a delegate to the National Convention. That campaign involved winning the votes of delegates from a number of counties. The message was important and I had help in crafting my message to appeal to a large number of delegates. One candidate used some nice printed post cards with his picture and another had some great pictures in their e-mail and letter. I had the money to use these tools but I relied on one simple letter that I also e-mailed to the delegates that was crafted with a compelling message and I got the largest number of votes in my senate district. The message and the personal contacts were important.

Again, you really should consider working with a county or state party and really working on a campaign. The real world is a fun place and your understanding of the process would improve greatly if you volunteer in the real world. If you had some real world experience, you would understand why your analysis is wrong

[JCanete]

46. sad and wrong... your words are the things I was saying were reinforcing my argument. Not that I

would actually claim to truly know the ins and outs of local level government, but you keep confirming rather than refuting what I'm saying, by for instance, agreeing that yes, the money is a gatekeeper. Saying it's just one, or that occasionally it is circumvented doesn't invalidate my original post's claim. Nor does it address what happens when the big donors literally don't want somebody.

But all that said--I don't want either of us to have to keep beating a dead horse--I do think that world would be fascinating. I do know that I could stand to learn a lot from hands-on experience, since my sense of it is colored by my own holistic read of the bigger picture. I also appreciate your far less cynical outlook about the way things actually work in this nation, at least at the smaller levels of government, even if I remain skeptical.

Just for fun, what would you say the most liberal candidate you've ever run through the donors sounded like when it comes to economic policy?

[Gothmog]

53. In the real world the concern is electability and being competitive

Your lack of experience in the real world amuses me. The real gatekeepers care most about having a candidate who will help the ticket and the party. Donors become more relevant after a candidate satisfy enough of the key demographic and other key groups at to viability and credibility. Again your posts are amusing but show that you have never worked on a campaign.

[JCanete]

55. now you're basically saying that in the "real world" donors don't give a shit about policy, just

electability, which is outright nonsense. You have to admit that that is utter tripe.

[BainsBane]

22. I understand there are all kinds of obstacles to running

but it's not necessarily the party apparatus. For many local races, the key contest is within Democrats or Republicans. For example, in a state senate district near me, Ilhan Omar won the primary against a very long-serving Democratic State House member. While the national media didn't pay attention until the GE, it was that primary that determined her election.

Many other local offices are unaffiliated: School board, water commission, etc... Party has nothing to do with those races. While Trump's first foray into politics was the presidency, most people start at the local level.

Part of what bugs me is that people imagine that compelling DUers to adopt their assessment of the election or their particular messaging is that it is based on the absurdity that doing so actually matters. This is a website, not the Democratic Party. As much as some are determined to get, for example, Clinton supporters to pronounce their own primary candidate superior, it is absolutely irrelevant to anything. "We" are not the party. "The Party" doesn't look to DU to decide what to run on. Moreover, if the party is to be competitive nationally it cannot be the monolith that the demands for agreement on messaging seek to enforce. Politicians need to be able to respond to the concerns of their local constituents. What that means in my city of Minneapolis is quite different from a community in rural Texas or Georgia, for example. I have seen Democrats in such districts maligned and, in the case of Mary Landrieu, their loss celebrated. That celebration, as should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of politics, was really for the GOP picking up a Senate seat and increasing their overall control over government. But the fact is some will always see the Democratic Party as the enemy. One quite wealthy former DUer celebrated Landrieu's defeat and swore he would never vote for Clinton. He preferred Republicans gain control, and he got his wish.

So it's not that I think the current Democratic Party is ideal. Rather, I don't see it as the enemy. For those who reap advantages under GOP rule, they can afford to look down on Democrats that don't meet their standards. Then they can sit back while their taxes go down and enjoy seeing the women, or others, they so resent have their rights stripped away. I have seen people justify any number of right-wing positions under the guise of progressivism.

The election defeat hasn't changed anyone's views. It's simply served as an opportunity to advance their preexisting agenda. That is why we see the ones who insist the party isn't "progressive" enough for them refuse to engage with questions about exit poll data or the defeat of politicians they do approve of (Feingold and Teachout, for example). Part of what is so frustrating is that the proclamation of being sufficiently "progressive" appears to have no ideological consistency and relates more to the long-decided primary fight than any set of policies. It is far too much about the politics of personality. The admiration of Tulsi Gabbard is a key example. Some don't even want to know her position on issues. That she picked the right guy in the primary is all they care about. I find that very difficult to respect.

"We" decide what we want through our votes. And as much as people here resent the fact that others exercise their right to vote in ways that differ from their own, they can damn well deal with it. They get one vote, just like everyone else, regardless of how superior they may feel.

[JCanete]

27. Where I agree with you is that refighting the primary is pointless, and that energy spent

explaining what went wrong is pointless. I also agree that we can't know what is going to win the next election. We don't know who is going to emerge and who isn't, or what the political realities are going to be. To talk about a winning strategy is pretty much pointless.

Talking about a sure-fire LOSING STRATEGY though...has got to be done, and I'm going to keep pounding this point, hell, at least until people start actually addressing it in my posts. We can't keep pretending as a party that the media is a disinterested entity. We have got to stop kissing up to it and start, with a united front, taking it to task for carrying the water of major corporations. And arguably, we can't do that, because we're playing nice with those corporations. We're being tactful..."practical." Except that what practical looks like is always having 40 to 48 percent of our branches of government. We have just enough "control" to continue to sell an illusion of democracy to the populace.

There is one force that lost us this election, and loses us election after election, and that is the corporate media, hands down.I tell you, we've got to fight it. I don't care whether you like a more moderate policy when it comes to economics and think that those at the far left are too uncompromising and unrealistic, this is a scourge that affects the possibilities for moderate legislation and liberal legislation alike.

[BainsBane]

38. my problem with your analsysis

And other discussions I've seen about the issue of money and politics is that it places responsibility on a few, or one, select Democrats rather than the system. In your case you are arguing that the party as a whole is too corporate. What needs to be repaired is the campaign finance system, and my personal belief is that the only long-term solution is public financing of elections, which would require a constitutional amendment. That may not be possible, but advocating for unilateral disarmament isn't a winning strategy either. Now someone like Sanders could raised enormous amounts of money and outspend his competitor, but money is most influential in house races and at the state level where voters pay less attention. Having a high profile figure who convinces his supporters he's somehow above the system may help that politician, but it does nothing to address the systemic problem. In fact, I believe that argument set back reform because it means that now even self-proclaimed progressives focus on individuals--claiming some are perfect and others corrupt-- rather than seeking a comprehensive solution. Some used that argument against Clinton in the GE and actually voted against the policies they claimed to support. Trump took advantage of that rhetorical strategy to put himself in power, only to turn govt directly over to the extremely wealthy.

The media operates based on profit, but it turns out the most influential media outlets are not on television. They are right wing and fake news websites. Their ability to persuade voters depends on readers' inability to discern fact from fiction and a desire to use "news" to confirm their anger and biases. That tendency cuts across the political spectrum.

I have no insight into how to communicate with such voters. My own approach to information and politics couldn't be more different. I look at issues, policy proposals, and candidates voting records , and I do fact checking. I don't decide a politician is a hero and refuse to look at anything that contradicts that view. I despise being pandered to, and the more a politician promises, the less I trust him. As much as I would personally love single payer, I knew a GOP congress that had voted 50x to repeal Obamacare would not pass it. And unlike many others, I don't fault a politician for leveling with voters. It is my desire to not be pandered to that prompts you and some others to assume I'm centrist, but the fact is I approach politics pragmatically. I don't see any reason to change that. So people here can talk about what they want politicians to promise them and continue to care more about rhetoric than policy. That is not how I make my political decisions. My views are also on informed by my knowledge of history, and the construction of an ideal past where Democrats were the mythical heroes of the people and not tied to moneyed interests drives me batty because I know it to be false.

So I understand many are concerned more with rhetoric than policy, but I am not, and I will never agree to subsume knowledge for belief. I don't see politicians as heroes, though in defeat Clinton emerges for me as a symbol of the struggle of women for full citizenship.

[JCanete]

41. That recurring theme about rhetoric versus policy--excuse me for being cute--is rhetoric.

Anything Democrats propose to do, no matter how moderate, is pretty much DOA anyway. with a Republican Senate that can filibuster anything and everything it chooses. Nothing at all can be done if the sponsors of the GOP and of BlueDog Dems aren't appeased, which means that anything that does get done has a damn fine chance of sucking.

Why not go for something that is mechanically possible, politically possible be damned? Again, nothing is politically possible. Not any more. Not without getting people so fired up about something that it starts to demand the establishment's attention. There is nothing that Sanders promised to do on his own. He didn't present some fantasy about his power. He promised that together we would fight for these things. He said in order to get them we would need to maintain solidarity and pressure on the system. That isn't a story about unicorns or powerful wizards.

[Gothmog]

43. You do know that Sanders outspent Clinton in most primaries?

[JCanete]

47. but that is nothing compared to the megaphone that went out over the corporate media from

all of Clinton's surrogates..basically the whole democratic establishment and all of the people and organizations that have gotten cozy with it, in a campaign that was pretty brutal to Sanders. That is to say nothing of the media itself, which from my perspective did an intentionally abysmal job in covering Sanders, especially as the momentum was gaining, but throughout, usually right before big elections and sometimes after election victories. That financing model and its success was making history and the media didn't give a flying fuck. But I don't think that model is sustainable in this world. Individuals don't have enough to give like that on a regular basis.

[Gothmog]

52. Again, you are wrong

I would strongly urge you to actually go out into the real world and work on a campaign or a party. Here are some facts for you to ignore Pushing the crazy claim that the DNC fixed the nomination process hurt the Clinton campaign. That claim was false http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary

[JCanete]

54. okay, I see, you're not responding to what I'm posting, just to a preconceived notion you already

Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2016, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

have about what I'm saying. The establishment, people like Albright and Boxer and on and on absolutely used their voice...and I don't mean this conspiratorially--they have every right to endorse the person they want to even though some of them did it with shady as fuck lies about Sanders history, including Clinton--but all of that equates to a hugely connected subset of the population that can call people up and talk to the press, and give interviews that will be on the news.

The DNC leadership just happens to be made up of these people. In whatever impotent capacity, it had biases. They were played out most egregiously in the debate schedule and the real attempt to make this a coronation before the primaries even began, because they thought they already had their candidate.

The reality is that a socialist message does not speak to the sensibilities of these establishment people. It's not illuminati shit and I never claimed it to be. It also doesn't speak to millionaire news producers or their billionaire bosses. This affects the tone of the coverage. It affects when and whether there even is coverage.

You really just posted a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with my argument.

[BainsBane]

45. Rhetoric is meaningless

If your argument is that nothing is going to happen so you might as well go along with the guy who makes the biggest promises or most caustically validates your anger, I'm not interested. I don't see politics as about entertainment or emotional validation, and I don't respect politicians more concerned with appearing on camera than getting work done. If you want a government that doesn't function, that's your choice, but I believe government can improve the lives of people. I do not support the view that polarization or scapegoating for the sake of it is worthwhile. It only contributes to the toxicity of our political system. Sanders is more concerned with white male Trump voters than regular Democratic voters like me anyway. He made clear in the primary he didn't want my vote, and he didn't get it. Nor will he ever. Not because he's too leftist. He isn't. He's conservative in some ways. Any number of Democrats are to the left of him on a range of issues, like guns, immigration, and social justice.

The argument that nothing is going to get done so you should go along with the guy whose talks the biggest game is far from persuasive. I'm not looking for the most ineffective person as president. Sanders doesn't motivate me to do anything but vote against him. He obviously was far less successful than Clinton at motivating voters to get to the polls, despite greatly outspending her. If he couldn't get a majority of Democrats to vote for him, how was he going to get voters in deep red districts to demand Their GOP congress people support his agenda? If he had such an ability, why did he not use it during his three decades in congress? Belief in one's superiority is not evidence of effectiveness, particularly when the congressional record shows the opposite.

I look for competence and thoughtful policy. You are of course free to vote as you choose, but I am hardly going to be convinced by the argument that nothing gets done so might as well vote for the guy who does nothing the loudest. There are lawmakers who do get things done, and Hillary Clinton was one of them. I will continue to make decisions as I see best, and others will vote according to their own criteria. I don't try to control others' votes, so I don't see why they feel compelled to control mine.

[JCanete]

48. Except that I didn't say populist rhetoric was good just cuz it feels good to hear it.

I said if you want to get something done in this environment you have to rally the people behind it with all your might. I gave you a prescription. The same one Sanders gave too. You can't reason with somebody who is voting based upon the interests of the people who got them their seat. You can only get the public to want, and then to demand, something from their government officials. You can use the bully pulpit for that. That is at least something that directly puts pressure on these seats.

You haven't convinced me that shit can be done the other way, and you didn't even try.

If you really think things get done, not from unilateral work, but from within congress, entirely internally, what exactly is it that is getting done? How does it get done? Sure budget battles get prosecuted and compromises have to be made by both sides, and typically are, but legislation? You are pretending that something about moderate policy makes it palatable to the Republicans. It doesn't. You're pretending that in this gerrymandered nation that the Republicans are afraid of being obstructionists and can be reasoned with. They can't be. and you can't rise up a people on vague substance. You have to give them a rallying cry.

And still the bigger picture remains...we are never the party with our hands on the levers of power because corporate interests own our media and we don't take them on, so we're not likely to ever have a majority let alone a filibuster proof one.

But aside from the media, in the context of this conversation who is trying to control somebody else's vote? I'm certainly not. I'm having a conversation, because I learn through these, even if it doesn't seem like it from your side of the discussion.

[BainsBane]

49. You relied on his claim

That he would inspire people to rise up, only he never did. He couldn't even inspire them to turn out to vote for him. His argument proved invalid. Not only that, his campaign deliberately relied on a strategy of low turnout caucus states with low minority populations, as Tad Devine disclosed even before the Iowa caucus. The candidate claimed he would win if turnout was higher, but the fact is he did the worst in primary states with high turnout. Clinton won the majority of open and closed primaries. The only place Sanders took the advantage was in caucus states. What Sanders supporters don't understand is that just because he inspired you doesn't mean he inspired everyone or even a majority. The election results demonstrated as much.

Most importantly, to get things done you have to do the work to craft careful policies based on deep understanding of issues. Reading the NY Daily News interview is enough to show Sanders never did that, even on issues he had been talking about for years. Clinton is the opposite, extremely hard working, deeply versed in policy, but less adept at simple messaging.

I haven't talked about moderate vs. leftist policies because I don't accept that paradigm. I believe that entire construction is a fallacy. I see it as honesty vs. pandering. In 2009, Sanders himself said that single payer was a non-starter even among Democrats, that it could get only about 8 votes, and that was when Dems controlled both Houses. Then in 2016 under GOP control he insists he'll enact it based on "revolution." He knew it couldn't pass but told voters otherwise and used that argument to attack Clinton. That was one of many things that convinced me he was not credible. I could list many more, but my main point is that my concerns are not about moderate vs. leftist but about serious policy and commitment to doing the work to make it happen.

[JCanete]

50. Well that's not exactly fair. He's a Presidential Candidate. He could have said "this is the only

way this can get done with me or without me" versus, "we can make this happen together," but no candidate in history has ever said, "I will not take you there! We will not make it!" I disagree with you that his loss spoke to the popularity of his message rather than lack of sufficient exposure of it in a timely enough fashion, but I don't see much reason in either of us wasting oxygen going back and forth on that.

As to the qualities you prize highest versus those I do, I accept a difference of opinion on that as well, but understand your reverence for wonkishness. I have no objections to that level of involvement on a bill, I'd just prefer the end product doesn't have a shit-load of concessions to big money.

But I keep pointing out to you that there isn't anything honest about saying you can get things passed by reaching across the aisle, simply by working with the other side. That is the canard. Saying "If we want the other side to comply, we have to all apply pressure to them in the streets," is not a lie. Whether Sanders could get enough of a movement going to do that is beyond the point. It is needed. Period.

Also, you are mixing apples and oranges. Sanders isn't an absolutist. Where there are no other options, he's never been one to outright refuse compromise. On the democratic ticket, there were options. He was giving people an option. There is no contradiction here. Saying during the passage of ACA that single payer was a non-starter is not working in the same realms of possibility that running as president on a populist message open up when it comes to energizing people and their imaginations for the nation's future. Nothing starts without demanding it. In 2009 Sanders didn't have the kind of public presence that he had while running in the GE. He didn't have a megaphone or any kind of populist movement behind him. What gave him a movement was telling people that they can demand these things. That they don't have to be the impossible dreams that they were back in 2009. Maybe next time, those dreams will be even less impossible, even less foreign to voters.

Commitment is awesome, but we just keep pushing that boulder up the hill and it keeps rolling back down, and that's because we are pushing against the gravity of the mainstream media, and instead of saying fuck this mountain, and boring a tunnel through it, we just keep trying to push it up the hill and expecting a different result the next time. How do you fight against the mainstream media if you can't expose them, and without let-up, roast them for their corporate interests? Or do you truly believe that they don't operate according to those? Its all just a ratings game and they just get wagged by the likes of the Donald?

[Gothmog]

15. DU does not reflect the Democratic Party or the real world

The Democratic Party looks to its candidates for its message and in the real world, DU is not really considered as good source for validation of a candidates or the party's message. I have worked on a good numbers of local campaigns and the national message rarely filters down or makes a difference at to local or even statewide races. Clinton won my county in deep red Texas but we lost every down ballot race.

If someone really believes in their message, then run for office

[BainsBane]

16. Interesting ticket split in your county

What are the demographics there? Is it suburban?

[Gothmog]

19. Yep

I did some spreadsheets and it appears that we had a good number of straight ticket GOP voters vote against Trump and then vote straight party GOP ticket for all down ballot races.

[mtnsnake]

20. Another way is for everyone to call their Democratic congressmen, lots of them, and OFTEN

When you get their voicemail, leave them a message. If you get no where, call them again.

[BainsBane]

24. Would you actually call based on rhetoric you want them to use?

rather than issues or votes on bills?

[mtnsnake]

30. Do you honestly think that tons of people here are going to follow your advice

and run for office?

[BainsBane]

34. No, but you're advocating calling representatives

What would you have people say?

[think]

25. I would encourage those that aren't the type to run to still get involved and proactively seek good

candidates for 2018 LOCALLY.

State ballot initiatives will also be a powerful tool for direct democracy during the Trump years.

There are some big obstacles coming ahead but if people start organizing and getting involved Democrats can still accomplish important goals.

best luck to all...

[BainsBane]

26. I agree local politics are key

and Democratic voters have paid insufficient attention to them, which is how the GOP has amassed so much power.

[redstatebluegirl]

29. A grad student I talked with today told me my generation was at fault.

She also indicated that we needed to "start paying attention to blue collar workers". I argued we have been, we are the only party that cares. Truth is those young people voted for Trump hoping to "blow up the system" as she put it. They were willing to put up with 4 years of Trump to make their point.

As a party, we have to begin to listen, but so do the young people in this country. We are not totally to blame for what is going on.

[Cha]

36. Great idea, BB. Too bad Zephyr Teachout's message didn't

make it within the New York District.

And, I was sad that Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin.

[Gothmog]

44. And the Sanders supported candidate running against DWS also lost