Democratic (Party) Direction

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

or hollywood actor

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

xpost

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

Joint profile of freshman Dem reps Ilhan Omar and Dean Phillips, who represent adjacent districts but opposite governing philosophies:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-dean-phillips-minnesota-democratic-party-225696

What I learned is that, despite the cautionary tale offered by years of vicious Republican infighting,

In Michigan, while Tlaib’s flamboyant liberalism suits the Detroit-anchored 13th District—“We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!” she declared hours after being sworn in—it makes life considerably harder for Haley Stevens and Elissa Slotkin, a pair of moderate freshmen who won difficult races in the suburban-heavy 11th and 8th Districts, respectively.

lots of chatter about this today

NEW: @DCCC makes moves to block primary challenges against Dem incumbents.

Per new hiring standards DCCC won't contract with or recommend to House campaign any political firm that works against a sitting member. That's a stark financial deterrent

More: https://t.co/NPmXyQyef8

— Ally Mutnick (@allymutnick) March 22, 2019

This is perfect: A political party, which calls itself the Democratic Party (in the 19th C. it was even referred to as "the Democracy") leverages the power of markets and firms to stop citizens from running against sitting members of Congress. Who call themselves "Democrats." https://t.co/XZrVub9z66

— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) March 22, 2019

Democratic (Party) Direction doesn't seem to be driven by the DCCC much these days

I predict that trend will continue after this

It's certainly one way of concentrating expertise in running primary campaigns against incumbents in a few firms.

Some incumbents need to go. Due to gerrymandering, they're mostly (all?) in safe districts, where the winner of the primary wins the general. Honestly, I can see shunning firms that work against incumbents in 2018 pickups. These new reps in suburbia have little of the advantages of incumbancy, and need to save powder for the general. But urban districts? Often that's were some of the worst Dem reps have clung on.

have Pelosi and/or Schumer spoken up to defend Omar from this latest round of attacks yet?

doesn't seem like it. they definitely should

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "I haven't had the opportunity to speak with [Rep. Ilhan Omar] to see the nature of her comment and, as is my custom with my colleagues, I call them in before I call them out so I'll look forward to hearing from her." pic.twitter.com/ZJcgtXzMUG

— The Hill (@thehill) April 12, 2019

That’s pathetic but that clip isn’t post-trump’s tweet, is it? Everything else I’m seeing on Twitter is giving the impression Pelosi hasn’t made a response to the latest retweeted video

I'm guessing it's pre tweet, post Post cover.

Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won't back down to Trump's racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 13, 2019

good for him

Warren has spoken out as well.

Warrens tweet was even better because she called out anyone in dem leadership unwilling to publicly stand behind Omar

for posterity

The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion. It's disgusting. It's shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) April 13, 2019

Its unrealistic for Schumer or Biden to defend Ilhan, come on now

Pelosi. well, she got her magazine cover - though it was kind of surprising she did that I thought!

"realism" sucks

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

Don't know this site, so I don't know if ILX is suspicious of Current Affairs (educate me) but this definitely makes me more skeptical about Pete Buttigieg

this article was discussed at some length in the 2020 Dem primary thread

For all the talk we hear from Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer and the rest of Democratic leadership about the importance of party “unity,” they never seem to think it’s important to unify behind members who are progressive and/or not DCCC frontliners.

— Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure (@DanRiffle) April 13, 2019

Tlaib has had enough

They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored. To truly honor our diversity is to never silence us. https://t.co/7T1OlwS1YG

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) April 13, 2019

"They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored"

the genius of Nanc

Nancy Pelosi: "By and large whatever orientation they came to Congress with, they know we have to hold the center. We have to go down the mainstream."

60 Minutes: "You have these wings. @AOC and her group on one side..."

Pelosi: "That's like five people." pic.twitter.com/yxVQDiUxgu

— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) April 14, 2019

awful

surfin' the mainstream straight into the apocalypse

gurl, damn that's some epic shade more tea plz beyonce.gif

Jayapal for speaker ASAP por favor

democratic (party) grim resignation thread

Rise of the Hickenloopers

it is literally never necessary to look at who posts the tweets on any of these threads

that's nice

(and you know what that means in the South)

hey it's in a tweet i guess she didnt really say it

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/coming-generation-war/588670/

sorry 4 niall content

When about 40% of the resources are monopolized by the top 1%, then the remaining people fight over the scraps. Let's change the first term of that equation.

The Koch Brothers are considering spending tons of money to defend Democratic incumbents from progressive primary challengers.https://t.co/xhRcn9Wp0v

— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) June 10, 2019

i'm sure they'll throw in Stop Bernie dough if needed

more of this plz

Long-time New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel has drawn a primary challenger in his 2020 reelection bid who is supported by a key group that backed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in her upset win.

Middle school principal and former teacher Jamaal Bowman launched his progressive campaign on Tuesday to represent New York’s 16th congressional district, pitting himself against Engel, who has served 16 terms.

Bowman’s platform shows support for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, increased investment in public schools, free college and reforms to the criminal justice system, according to his video.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/449019-justice-democrats-announces-primary-challenger-for-engel

my parents live in engel's district and, uh, good luck bowman

people should run opposition even when there is no hope of winning in that election cycle.

I’m rooting for Bowman, and hopefully he’ll pull off an upset, but I have realistic expectations

"Why yes -- I *too* support neoliberalism and militarism! Corporations are our friends! Our Wise Leaders always have our best interests at heart! Family Guy is not a ripoff of The Simpsons!" https://t.co/6LqvfA2kNK

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) July 13, 2019

"see dennis perrin's other tweets" links to a morbs page somewhere in the ilx multiverse

There should be a thread for Dennis Perrin tweets. iirc

I'd ask (the Americans) if we are all on the same side

Trump wants to make AOC, Pressley, Tlaib and Omar the faces of the Democratic Party. The Democrats, whose current faces of the party are Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer and Biden, should say, thank you very much, Mr. President, for doing what we should've done ourselves.

— Jeffrey St. Clair (@JSCCounterPunch) July 19, 2019

won't argue with that one, other than that I could definitely not pick Steny Hoyer out of a lineup of miserable white congressmen

Dems commissioning and then leaking that uneducated-whites-only polling to Axios to smear the Squad was some truly despicable shit, even before Trump used the polling to bash them.

as Perrin says, bad cop-bad cop

I believe it was Mark Russell who once rhymed "anyhoo" with "Steny who?"