Democratic (Party) Direction

I can think of one broadly popular politician who polling says is well-liked across the land (though as I've said plenty of times, I'd prefer he didn't run again)

He's constitutionally barred from running again.

xp

I feel like Bernie is popular because he conveys authenticity and he puts his signature issues in unmistakably blunt terms. HIs word choices and emphasis. Him and Warren are good at contextualizing economic justice in moral terms.

whatever anyone thinks of him Obama had a lot going for him, beyond what i think were his considerable attributes. primarily i think he was a guy who was very transparent and honest, so much so that when anyone from the right tried to assign sinister motives to him, or frame him as the head of some conspiracy, or as a criminal (or worse, MICHELLE as a criminal), it wasn't nearly as successful bc it didn't fit what seemed pretty obvious to most of the voters. there wasn't any smoke around him (well, ok https://cdn.meme.am/cache/images/folder904/50x50/10706904.jpg, unlike Hillary.

not saying the smoke around Hillary was legit, she just didn't handle it skillfully.

I don't think Bernie is popular because he's a great orator (he isn't) or personality (meh) but because people actually support left policies and bold social programs if you ask them.

My challop on this is that there's not a politician in the country who's popular because people agree with their policies. Politicians get popular because people feel they're "the right kind of person." From this point of view it's not really very strange that plenty of people voted for Obama and then Trump.

O was a remarkable orator and politician, good luck finding another on his level.

I don't know if I believe something like Single Payer is this low hanging fruit of obvious popularity that Dems choose not to run with because they're "bad" or something and "it would be easy but the establishment doesn't want you to know that" but I feel like now is probably the best time to make that case. Hopefully they draw attention to the precipice ACA will always be close to for something more expansive and less vulnerable to dismantling since the fear of losing coverage really did galvanize people.

it's almost like popular, effective social programs that make peoples' lives materially better get people involved in politics

oh, and class divisions worsening over the course of O's tenure doesn't bode well for more of the same working in future either. people never used to give a shit about wall st speeches and stuff like that.

People didn't care about Wall St speeches until H. Clinton gave a few; I'm not sure you can solely chalk that up to "class divisions".

So why did they care when beloved O gave them?

I'd honestly think now is the perfect time to make the case that single payer would be kinda hard to get through. Because it would, once tradeoffs such as higher taxes would get into it as well. And as someone who lives in a country with socialized medicine, it's still 100% worth it. See also: Jeremy Corbyn and his fully costed plan, which seems to have worked perhaps even better than just easy promises would have. So if it motivates people, motivate them to take the hard battle, instead of promising easy days and having it end up the same way as OCare repeal.

So why did they care when beloved O gave them?

...

This isn't very difficult to work out, plus I don't think you understand what the word "solely" means.

*parades of high-profile white men, including ex-Presidents, give Wall St speeches*
*crickets*
*a high-profile female politician and a black ex-President give Wall St speeches*
"MY GOD, THESE CLASS DIVISIONS HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF HAND"

otfm

I know people have dumb crackpot reasons to believe things, but I think the material changes people are experiencing are a hell of a lot more galvanizing.

also, O ran on change and hope, didn't address inequality, then took big Wall St speaking fees. I don't think it's outrageous to think people might be extra sensitive to that.

I still don't think you understand what the word "solely" means.

I acknowledged the crackpots. I just think they're a secondary concern.

like, what can you really do to please the truly sexist and racist?

They're not crackpots, unless you think most of the white (and white-adjacent) people in this country are "crackpots". That is the problem.

I'll tell you what, if Warren runs and loses I'll believe Clinton's gender is the primary source of antipathy towards her.

Relatedly, didn't Corbyn and his platform convince quite a few UKIP folks to embrace the progressive left?

It's not an easy thing to gauge. Weren't there always coziness to Wall Street criticisms from the left about O during his actual administration? They maybe weren't resonating as big because the optics/landscape is really completely different now wrt party battle lines. I don't know if that can be too diminished as a factor.

Relatedly, didn't Corbyn and his platform convince quite a few UKIP folks to embrace the progressive left?

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, August 2, 2017 10:55 AM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no. it seems many ukip "went home" to tories while labour gains were primarily non-voters and the young

Corbyn didn't get as many UKIPs as some would think; most of them voted for Tories, because Brexit has taken Tories rightward enough to eat UKIP. So much of 'who voted Brexit' tries to pin it on provincial downtrodden types but that allows rich golf-club bigots in the Home Counties (and their counterparts in the regions) to go unexamined. But bigot trade unionist uncles etc. probably voted Labour because voting Tory is anathema to them.

The 'no one cared about speeches BEFORE' is a pretty hollow argument, given how modern a concept it is (Ford being the first to really make a real career of it) - since Carter didn't really partake, that makes Bill and Obama the only two Democratic Presidents of the speaking fee era.

Alright fuckers just because I gave money during the election doesn't mean I need four reminders to sign Barack's birthday card

I mean seriously, if I need him I can reach him on his cell

lol those fuckin emails drive me crazy

"You DIDN'T wanna sign?!"

thanks for building that strong party, 'Racky

The 'no one cared about speeches BEFORE' is a pretty hollow argument, given how modern a concept it is (Ford being the first to really make a real career of it) - since Carter didn't really partake, that makes Bill and Obama the only two Democratic Presidents of the speaking fee era.

The logic of this minus the partisan purity test is still uh, not logic

Most people upset at Obama and the Clintons' speaking fees already hated Dubya and expected the worst of him in every possible regard (and were likely too young to remember Reagan and HW).

Of course, you also have articles from the left and otherwise talking about and decrying the practice well before the 2016 primary:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/17/the_buckraking_practices_of_hillary_clinton_and_8_other_political_heavies_partner/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weekinreview/09seelye.html
http://people.com/archive/eight-days-in-japan-earn-ron-and-nancy-2-million-now-thats-reaganomics-vol-32-no-19/

Hillary speaking to Goldman Sachs in particular being an issue is entirely a product of the post-Great Recession political mood and the push on the left for Democrats to be less beholden to Wall Street.

is there anything to the chatter that O and co. want to run some Bain Capital goon?

Deval Patrick, former Massachusetts governor

If you value your sanity, I recommend not reading the comments on the Politico article where that came out yesterday.

Can we please stop forgetting that Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 3 percentage points, though? Any time. Ready when y'all are.

in trying to verify that (it would be nice if there were a source other than Politico) the next story was O jabbing Romney for his Bain tenure in 2012

can we not rehash the popular vote thing for the love of god, no one has forgotten

I realize this is a rich request as I will fully cop to being the sad king of rehashing shit

lol @ describing Deval Patrick as "some Bain Capital goon" as if that is the sum total of his identity and with zero knowledge of what his job at Bain actually is

That was all I knew of him when I asked the question.

If opponents can convincingly draw a line btwn him and subprime loans that could be a problem, I would think.

It seems weird to follow American politics and not know who Deval Patrick is!

lol @ describing Deval Patrick as "some Bain Capital goon" as if that is the sum total of his identity and with zero knowledge of what his job at Bain actually is

the depressing thing is that he would be a great candidate and this is exactly how he's going to be smeared if he does run

Like, I would say, if you can name 50 Democrats, I would expect Deval Patrick to be one of them, not that I think naming 50 Democrats would be a good use of your time.

uh how do you go to bain after public service and not think "GOODBYE, SERVICE, BEEN REAL!"

I mean all I really care about is, is dude gonna be pro single payer and taxing the fuck out of the rich or not

xp lol true