-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Atlantic: Democrats Bet on a Populist Message to Win Back Congress
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Adam_Vania
Banned
dude "better future"! that sounds amazing! sign me up! where do i donate?
really love this populist message. people LOVE a better future!
really love this populist message. people LOVE a better future!
acheron_xl
Member
I don't care what they do as long as they stop being nice and start playing dirty. This is total war, and the GOP need to be eliminated at all costs.
And if it gets those stupid flipped democrats, who dont know what's good for them, to show up then I dont care. We need to make gains in preparation for the next census year so we can undo the gerrymandering bullshit that stifles our demographic power.
No offense but as an outsider poor communication is a way bigger issue for the party than poor policy.
Just look at all the dying socialist parties in europe who have a decent platform but cant get their message out.
As a european who isnt up to date on their policy proposals the only thing that would make me vote for them is because its anti Trump.
They dont really have much else going for them from my PoV
Don't know how well the Populist message will go if it was what got us to this point in the first place. Last thing that we need is to be placed into yet another Ultimatum if the last time they tried this, it failed for them.
Democrats need to regain the trust of the people since if the election was any indicator, more states found more trust in a wild card than in them. Who knows how 2018 will play out, but it would be insane to think that doing nothing and watching the other side "self-destruct" is going to mean that they will magically turn things around and they will regain control.
Democrats need to regain the trust of the people since if the election was any indicator, more states found more trust in a wild card than in them. Who knows how 2018 will play out, but it would be insane to think that doing nothing and watching the other side "self-destruct" is going to mean that they will magically turn things around and they will regain control.
Both of these policies resulted from compromise with Republicans, which made them worse. It does not mean that *Democrats* abandoned their social or economic principals. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Democrats will maintain a strong element of social justice. I cannot understand where you're seeing any evidence of Democrats abandoning those elements to win votes.
I really agree with the bolded point.
I definitely agree with maintaining skepticism. It's why I also understand and largely agree with some of the posts in this thread skeptical of if the democrats will fully attempt following through on this. It's also why my first post here was cautious optimism and a desire to see them release updated immigration, civil rights, police reform, and voting rights positions. Criticism and skepticism are healthy. I'd be pretty shocked (and pissed) if democrats abandoned civil rights/social issues. I think the party has had room to shift left on pretty much everything. I don't see why shifting left on economics has to result in sacrificing elsewhere. Though I totally understand skepticism and support demanding more of representatives that fall short.
Gunblade47
Neo Member
I find it bizarre that many believe that economic and social transformation are exclusive.
During the last election process Sanders and Clinton were both frequently mocked by the media for agreeing too much during the debates.
When Clinton won she vowed to make her platform more economically progressive as well. Why can our candidates stand together but we resort to petty insults when dealing with other progressives?
As stated before. Sanders supporters overwhelmingly supported Hillary during the general election. Trump had less votes than Romney for god sake! You don't need to jump into bed with Trump supporters. There are many out there that declined to vote. Provide a united Left that inspires them!
During the last election process Sanders and Clinton were both frequently mocked by the media for agreeing too much during the debates.
When Clinton won she vowed to make her platform more economically progressive as well. Why can our candidates stand together but we resort to petty insults when dealing with other progressives?
As stated before. Sanders supporters overwhelmingly supported Hillary during the general election. Trump had less votes than Romney for god sake! You don't need to jump into bed with Trump supporters. There are many out there that declined to vote. Provide a united Left that inspires them!
It's not necessarily populism that's bad but the political ends it's used for. It was bad last time around because it gave us Trump. Trump straight up lied to his base and they believed him and voted him in and he has failed in all ways to deliver what they wanted (because it was impossible in the first place). There is no reason the Dems can't employ the same tactic.
sorry but that is absurd.
GoldenEye 007
Member
As far as Democratic platforms, that is true from my understanding. And that is the only opposition party that matters.
This right here. They've had chance after chance to put their money where their mouths are and they never get it done either because they don't have the guts or they actively don't want to work in the interest of the people they say they represent.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29595
Hillary was pushed to the left by bernie for sure, but in terms of American political history she is fairly centrist liberal
googleplex
Member
No.... That's and objective FACT.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Ok, and instead of incremental change, you now have active measures to blow even that up. The Us does not operate on sudden progressive change. It's never worked that way. It's not how the country was designed.
So now you have Trump. I think I said it earlier, but how's that going? What would have been the better outcome?
Regardless, in 2016, the Democratic Party had the most left leaning political platform it has ever had.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Oh. 1932. Ok. Also, 1932 was before minorities were considered fully human. Things tended to change as soon as things like Civil Rights started coming up...
Yes, in general the US is center right - even if because of unfair over-representation by low population rural areas/states. But this platform in the modern political climate was quite left leaning.
No it didnt. Maybe moreso than her husbands and the platforms that lost against Reagan and both Bush's but that is an absurd claim.
FDR is the most left leaning president in our countries history. What does race have anything to do with this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt's_record_on_civil_rights
the 2016 platform was pushed fairly left by Bernie, that is true. But to call it the most left leaning platform in American history is absurd.
Autodidact
Banned
The New Deal purposely excluded minorities so white people would embrace it wholeheartedly. Can FDR really be as far-left as you say when he minimized civil rights, a core tenet of liberalism?
And as for Hillary's platform not being the most liberal we've ever seen, I must've missed those sections in JFK and Jimmy Carter's platforms that demanded full equality for gays and condemned white supremacy.
IrishNinja
Member
concern platforming
And let's not forget the internment camps, yo
Simply put: You're not talking about the same thing that other people are referring to when they refer to a party's platform. What policies a sitting president enacts during their term or the causes they support as president does not necessarily constitute a platform. You're derailing discussion because of that misunderstanding.
Here's the 1932 Democratic platform, so that you know what I'm talking about:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29595
While it is progressive, it is certainly not far more progressive than the 2016 Democratic Party platform.
Honestly? Basically every establishment Democrat to resign from the DNC. Which won't happen.
The two camps are already reconciled. There are just fringe elements that refuse to compromise on anything.
Seriously. I'm hoping that it could be as simple as a young, attractive politician that says the right things (a Kennedy and Obama type).
cheezcake
Member
Sorry I just want to clarify who I'm talking to. Is this coming from a Hillary supporters perspective of a Bernie supporter or a Bernie supporter?
Ehh, remember the flare up when they chose new DNC leadership?
At this point it's going to be hard. If Al Franken wasn't so hated by the right I'd say he has a shot.
I'm a Bernie supporter, but I bit the bullet and voted Hillary when the general came. Now I'm just looking for a way to get single payer passed.
LinkAndEpona
Banned
For the most part I agree, the economy is the most important aspect to get all Americans aligned on.
TheLaughingStock
Member
What's populist about the message? It doesn't seem like any Democrat called themselves a populist. And they've simply pulled together mainstream ideas and old ideas from decades ago. I'm assuming the author is claiming anything the Democrats view as the right thing to do and that has widespread appeal is populist?
Fallout-NL
Member
Sad they have to call it populism because socialism is such a dirty word in the US.
I've always wondered how Republicans from that era would have voted if they had been in power during the 30s and 40s. In any case, there was a parity between parties in black voter registration until FDR's EO 8802 (Fair Employment Practice Committee) in 1942 and Truman's EO 9981 (Armed Forces Desegregation) in 1948.
Would FDR losing have been enough to stop the Southern Strategy, or would economic and social issues brought the parties to the same place regardless?
BUNTING1243
Banned
free basic health care for all seems pretty straightforward! but yeah I agree it really comes down to basic messaging, which Dems have always struggled with
gutter_trash
Banned
Single Payer is not a clear word, i agree
Univerasl Healthcare would be best
Univerasl Healthcare would be best
You do not win shit without those democrats but yeah let's split the party.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
At this point they can do whatever, people will just check out.
I think it's safe to say the loudest and most strident voices here are not representative
I think it's safe to say the loudest and most strident voices here are not representative
hydragonwarrior
Member
Now all they need is good marketing and a damn good voice behind this message to unite behind, and start deciding upon this before 2k18.
Dems need to be loud and aggressive voice or else they'll be drowned out by the already loud and aggressive Republican media machine.
Dems need to be loud and aggressive voice or else they'll be drowned out by the already loud and aggressive Republican media machine.
Grizzle_Dat
Banned
Something like this would go over great...
"To make a New world, a Better world.....A DEMOCRATIC WORLD!!!!
Earthstrike
Member
I would say logical consistency personally. Bernie endorsed Hilary. Any Bernie supporter that supported Bernie EXCEPT who bernie felt should be the next POTUS just isn't logically consistent.
I mean, you support Bernie, meaning you think he has desirable political positions and knowledge. So when he makes an assertion about who the next president should be among two choices, would that not be a reflection of his political positions and knowledge?
Ethical Hedonism
Banned
Will it be like the GOP who has campaigned for 8 years on the issues they can't put forward even when in full control of government, tho?
El_Tiguere
Member
Bernie progressives is the grassroots party pushing for women and minorities to lead the way. Bernie progressives are the people pushing for equal pay for women. Grassroots progressives are usually the ones advocating for more affordable housing and fighting for Planned Parenthood. Bernie progressives are the ones embracing BLM and fighting against abuse of power.
Have you been to a Bernie rally? he addresses all those issues, including economic justice. Who should we blame if you think that one issue will overshadow the other? an effective government tackles all.
timetokill
Banned
Medicare For All, For Fuck's Sake
#MFAFFS
#MFAFFS
El_Tiguere
Member
There is an existential undercurrent in this country about the encroachment of corporations onto every aspect of our lives, because they have reliable paid-for partnerships with people who are supposed to represent the will of the people they were elected represent. Through this state-private partnership, power players at the top have bought themselves unfair advantages over the rest of Americans, including deadly advantages such as being able to over-charge for mediocre health care that many can't afford.
This is an existential threat that destroys even black people, who are being persecuted by police (corporate enforcers?), who are all too comfortable feeding private/public prisons, where lo and behold, corporations have a den of free slave labor for their wares... in 2017. It's not surprising to find paid-for legislators who could give three fucks about black people, yet happily sign legislation to facilitate all of this.
Considering so many aspects of our lives suck because our government promotes monopolies/oligopolies versus promoting more competition, Bernie progressives want fighters that will fight against this trend. If single-payer will cut the insurance bill by half, and will guarantee access to everyone, and if every other developed country in the world has figured out how to do it.... DON'T FUCKING TELL ME THIS POLICY IS TOO MUCH TOO FAST (because some lobbyists is whispering in your ear about campaign donations). If you are that kind of Democrat, you are NOT what the country needs right now.
Similar threads
- Locked