Democratic (Party) Direction

I find the way various dimensions of justice (social, racial, economic, etc) get teased out and separated from each other or ranked is very tiresome. people like Tim Faust have done a great job illustrating how the fight for single payer has vast positive implications for many different sectors, and I'd love to see more writing and argumentation along those lines, not least of all because it's based on providing a hopeful path forward and not just complaining about libs

The reason why I specifically keep bringing up the racial aspect of this and hammering on intersectionality (because my priorities align left and, while I don't hate capitalism, I would not be sad if we swung towards a more socialist system) is because the assumption that these economic changes will automatically help people of color is not actually borne out by the history of social programs in this country, which have historically been designed to implicitly or explicitly exclude people of color or have been ferociously gutted once the common perception is that more people of color benefit from them than white people. I will not take any economic message seriously that does not explicitly address this and keeps it as a core tenet for success rather than a hoped-for side-effect, which is exactly what neoliberalism has already done to these communities.

otm. I don't know how we can read about the New Deal, for example, and not realize that people of color were not among its primary beneficiaries. And the Progressive movement was worse.

You can't credibly argue that things are different now, either; not after this past election.

great post xp

thank you DJP

for what it's worth, it's precisely these same frustrations that is driving leftist POCs I know (both IRL and online) to fight for change that is as inclusive and thorough as possible.

oh hey here's Ellison big-upping Matt Bruening's progressive thinktank, nice

We need more progressive think tanks. Excited to see the People’s Policy Project up & running. Check it out:https://t.co/i8dBrv8BDT

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) August 7, 2017

While I concede that I am putting words in this dude's mouth, they are words that have been spoken time and time again in this country, hot off the heels of an election where the electoral math decided that an ignorant venal racist should be President and that his platform was tolerable enough that the party who put him forward only lost 2 seats in the Senate and 6 seats in the House. Direct statements addressing the concerns I'm raising are no guarantee of success; nothing is. It does show that the concern being raised is actually being taken into account, though, and gives something tangible against which to measure success. Blithely assuming "if we take care of poor people, we will automatically help people of color" is at best dangerously naive (and also contains some gross assumptions that the only people of color worth helping are poor and/or that middle-class people of color exist in an egalitarian space where they across the board don't need any help, something that the Google manifesto and its reception should have people thinking twice about).

And yes, before anyone asks me, I do take primary criticisms of figures like Booker, Harris, and Patrick from people of color more seriously. I do not take it seriously when white people hop onto those criticisms and say "See? Black people don't like them, either!"

I just learned of the Google thing thx to yr post and uh wow, "Don't Be Evil" indeed.

so Matt Bruenig changed the name of his blog, called it a think tank and is hoping we'll forget that time he was such a dick on twitter he had to run a donation campaign to stay solvent?

My impression is that he and some like-minded DC folks plan to write policy papers in support of things like single payer. I they have any success at all I don't really care who's a dick about it.

Idk.

I really hope Warren is the candidate in 2020. She doesnt come across as a triangulator and I think she would run eviscerate Trump in any debate, and do so in a manner that voters would respond to. Her style is more Bernie-esque than Obamanian -- that is, bellicose rather than high-minded -- but I think that's what the people want now, in this era of crushed hopes.

I would like to believe that but all Trump would have to do is call her "Pocahontas" a couple of times and his base would be satisfied that he had won.

I say this because I know people who claim to be anti-racist who have zero problem with that epithet or the line of attack it represents, and I live in a state that LIKES her.

ugh

hopefully he doesn't live long enough (note to feds: because he is super unhealthy) to do that again

Hillary eviscerated Trump in the debates, fat lotta good it did her.

Trump has a bigotry card to play for his base with every single Democrat - his base are not the people to worry about.

exactly. what percentage of Trump voters who will 100% show up again in 2020 are going to change their vote to the Democrat? 1%? less?

it's certainly possible Trump will be so far under water in 2020 that more or less any Democrat could beat him. Trump-as-candidate peaked with the election. granted, there's something to be said for being an incumbent but I still think if the election is tomorrow and a theoretical candidate with the exact same bio as Hillary who isn't actually Hillary (in other words, doesn't have that stink of losing on them) would win. but I acknowledge it's an awfully big risk to take.

Who knows anymore

i have consulted the magic ball of dystopian future, and this is what it says:

trump will start a major war in 2019.
the majority of america will support the war, even though it is a very bad idea.
democrats in 2020 will be forced to either run on opposing the war (and losing the election) or supporting the war but using different tactics
regardless of the 2020 election's outcome, we'll be involved in the war, this time with bipartisan support

what do you mean "this time"

in this hellscape of the future, there is a brief glimmer of hope before the election because some house democrats representing cities are still listening to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents. but afterward, nearly all of the democrats are united against the enemy. one nice thing about this future is that it has a really cool techno soundtrack and there's an anime version of it that is the fucking bomb

but don't worry, this won't come to pass because trump and "the generals" are definitely not going to lead us into a giant ill-advised war

the nice thing is the Dem nominee will v likely be someone who already has their $ multimillion war chest on display, and there's nothing we can do about it. Don't kid yourself.

you mean the Dems that just voted for a bigger defense budget than a Republicans? of course not.

also i dont really find theoretical scary future Trump war any scarier than the real giant ill-advised war we still haven't given a second thought to

I'm unable to find any other sources that back up that defense budget screed from forbes.com that Morbs linked in the Trump thread

are suggesting that Morbz just posts whatever reinforces his existing prejudices regardless of their veracity

how dare u question forbes dot com

nice yer as skeptical of Forbes as of the 'Cept

is a "screed" anything that points out when the donkey takes a dump?

more like morbes dot com

the 'mainstream' bloc here shd take over the DNC

at least you know Russia is no longer Communist, unlike Donna Brazile

(the Forbes story is 3 weeks old btw)

I mean here's the thing, the article links to clerk.house.gov and I looked at the bill on congress.gov and that all adds up but no other outlet took that roll call vote for anything meaningful. The "real" bill which folks have taken to calling a "security bus" and includes funding for the wall on top of the national defense authorization was passed almost exactly along party lines on July 27, five defectors each from either side. So that guy on forbes is just flipping out over a procedural vote to get to the real vote two weeks later, which is why he was also the only one to bother covering it.

too complicated DEMS R BAD etc

People have weird ideas about what the DNC is/does.

mea culpa

Shakey, complicate my asshole

Never underestimate the allure of metonymical shorthand.

people interested in how far-left political theory and the concept of intersectionality can support each other (a little off-topic from the main thread subject, I recognize) might find this piece worthwhile.

Answer as always seems to be 'nearest iceberg'

Depressing institutional obstacles too nauseating to talk about for long:

From Bernie to Biden, anybody who wins the Dem nomination in 2020 is going to be well to the left of the median votes in the House and Senate. Exactly how far is relevant for issues within the purview of the executive branch, but in terms of major legislation the distinction is trivial.

And if the answer to this is “better median votes,” well, given the way the House and Senate are configured, how? You can have congressional nominees in marginal jurisdictions the left of the party will trust more that Cory Booker (who, again, whatever his faults is well to the left of the median Democratic vote in the Senate), and you can have Democratic congressional majorities, but you can’t have both. If people on the left of the party thinks that winning the presidential nomination is most of the ballgame, they’re going to be bitterly disappointed.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/08/breaking-american-institutions-overrepresent-rural-conservatives

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/07/bernie-sanders-democrats-medicare-primaries-241388

House and Senate Democrats have wondered for months whether Bernie Sanders’ supporters might choose to focus their energy on launching primary challenges to party moderates in 2018. They’re about to get an answer.

Sanders has decided the moment is right to launch his proposal for the single-payer health insurance system that helped form the backbone of his presidential message. And Democrats who don’t get behind it could find themselves on the wrong side of the most energetic wing of the party — as well as the once and possibly future presidential candidate who serves as its figurehead.

The Vermont senator himself has not explicitly said he’ll support primary challenges to those who won’t support his push for a so-called Medicare-for-all health care plan. But there are plenty of signs that Sanders and his allies view the issue as a defining moment for Democratic lawmakers.

“Our view is that within the Democratic Party, this is fast-emerging as a litmus test,” said Ben Tulchin, the pollster for Sanders’ White House run.

...

yesssss

sounds good to me

I support it for sure because I think it's the right thing to do, but it won't be easy to get everyone to buy in, and I don't just mean the donor class. From Vox:

And even if average wages do rise, that’s not a guarantee that your wages in particular will rise. This is a particular problem for union workers whose pay and benefits are set in collective bargaining agreements, which in turn is a huge political problem since it’s difficult to imagine ambitious new social welfare legislation being enacted without union support.

I suspect that as someone who works for the state my costs would actually increase because I'm already paying very little for premiums and my deductible isn't too terrible (though it's gone up quite a bit in recent years). Personally I'm willing to take that hit provided it's not too drastic, in order to ensure all Americans have coverage. But I don't know how many of my fellow state employees would agree. And really that goes for anyone currently working at any job where the benefits were a significant enticement in their hiring. I know there are a lot of people in the private sector whose coverage blows mine out of the water.

Thing are going awful for the Dems. They can't even win on ocial issues!!

Iowa Democrats pulled off an impressive and important victory in a Southeast Iowa special election this evening, boosting the party’s hopes that 2018 could be a bounce-back year. Democratic veterinarian Phil Miller of Fairfield comfortably defeated Republican farmer Travis Harris of Davis County, 4,021 to 3,324 (about 55% to 45%), thanks largely to a massive victory in his hometown of Jefferson County. That means Democrats will hold on to a key rural swing district that Donald Trump won in November by 22 points.

Miller will fill out the remainder of Curt Hanson’s term in the Iowa House for District 82, which includes Jefferson, Davis and Van Buren counties. Hanson passed away in mid-June, who himself won the seat in a 2009 special election. He was one of the few Democrats to still represent a rural district in the Iowa Legislature, and today’s special election was seen as an important test for whether local Democratic candidates could still win in Trump-leaning areas of the state.

social issues even!

buncha risible libs and centrist dems mocking Nina Turner today over the Buzzfeed piece mentioned here

http://observer.com/2017/08/bernie-sanders-nina-turner-our-revolution/