Big Crowd of Democrats For 2020

I disagree. The noisiest Democrats just now are liberals (progressives). But the reins are still firmly in the hands of the Clinton bunch. So far we have not taken over anything. Meanwhile, our most progressive leaders can't seem to make up their minds to leave the party. Even Sanders has been very cautious. Looks like stalemate so far. Possible paralysis come election time.

You may be right, but it appears to me that much of the old Clinton bunch disappeared during the last campaign, after Bernie took over the heart of the party. Certainly, apart from unquestioning support for unions, I see little of the old Clinton politics in the current Party organization. The new DNC leader, Perez was an Obama appointee, and the very obviously rehearsed deal in which Ellison was immediately appointed as sub DNC chair suggests the far left is firmly in charge. Wasserman Schultz and Brasile are now out.

It's a desperation measure to keep liberals from rocking the boat. I don't believe a thing has changed.

Interesting assessment, but there has been no (evident to me) reassessment of policy and platform by the Democrat leadership, and both Schumer and Pelosi have amply demonstrated they are following the new left line. It appears to me to be the party of Obama now, not Clinton - an unusual outcome following such significant electorial setbacks.

The months ahead will be interesting. If Trump can achieve some real economic progress ( a prospect that looks attainable) ther Democrats may be in for a long period in the dark.

See, your assessment of Obama differs from mine. I see him and Clinton as twins. Both liberal in a few social arenas, but ultimately appendages of the big money machine. Not liberal in the eyes of true liberals.

If the Republicans get the working people to believe they are being helped by this administration, Trump will likely survive attempts at impeachment and even get reelected. Much of it is in perception, as opposed to reality, when it comes to voting anyway.

This is why I wonder if the "Big Resist" is really the smartest game for the Dems to be playing right now.

EDIT: Don't know if you noticed THIS excerpt when I posted it earlier today — possible negative economic effects of the deportations. If the economy sours Trump will accuse the bureaucracy of cooking up fake numbers to make him look bad.

I didn't see it then, but I already knew that if they deport as many of these people as they want to, the economic situation will suffer for us. I don't think they know how much these people help make the country function.

This is why I wonder if the "Big Resist" is really the smartest game for the Dems to be playing right now.


I believe our representatives should do their job. If something is good for us, it should be voted for, regardless of who is pushing it. We should reserve the resistance for important political issues.

Well the economy hasn't yet soured (indeed cosumer and business optimism are rising) and it is not at all evident that the modest enforcement of existing immigratioin law that Trump promises will ever have any adverse effect on the economy.

I believe there is significant likely benefit in store for the economy just based on the regulatory reform Trump has already initiated. Few people have enough direct exposure to the wave of regulatory chickenshit that has infested economic life to have a real feeling for the chilling effect it has on business investment.

With respect to the promised infrastructure rebuilding, it will be very interesting to see whether it will also entail the long overdue reform of a NEPA (EPA & state permitting process) that has come to grossly extend the cost and time required for the mere planning and permitting of any infrestructure project.

I'm wondering if businesses aren't hiring and being optimistic in anticipation of promised tax cuts. Four years is a long time to hire people if you really don't want to. After tax cuts take effect we will see how it is going.

http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/

In a show of party unity, Perez immediately tapped Ellison as deputy chair, and everybody in the hall screamed and cried. It was high drama, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as people think or are complaining about. Those who supported Perez, or just opposed Ellison -- and vice versa -- have two different Democratic Parties in mind: one of the them can't win elections outside of safe districts and metropolitan areas, and the other can't quit the losing team.

But count on the one Democratic Party to stumble on, dysfunctions intact and disconnected from a progressive caucus that keeps threatening to leave but, like a battered spouse, won't. Talk of a third-party movement is just that; until the Sanders/Ellison faction suck it up and vote their hopes and not their fears, it won't ever be anything more than social media blather and fodder for Vox sentences.

Last I saw, socialism wasn't particularly popular in the USA. Since Eugene V. Debs anyway. Yes, Sanders did really well against Clinton, but not well enough. How many of those votes were from "anyone but Hillary" people and college kids who wanted relief from their college loans? No one likes or trusts government anymore and government has a big role in establishing socialist standards and organizing a socialist economy. I just don't see the "progressive caucus" going anywhere — inside the DP or outside. I don't see the DP itself going anywhere. We'll elect regional Democrats in races where the Republican has been disgraced in some way but it won't be because of a dynamic Democratic Party. Oh, by the way, I consider myself a "socialist" but, quoting Carl Andre. "It's not just my star that's falling; a whole constellation is on the wane."

Interesting take on events among Democrats, Edgar. I've been more inclined to see the Perez/Elison combo as evidence of a cynical deal, but I'm ready to concede that I may be insensitive to differences among them. Perez' speech was certainly a call for cooperation, if not complete unity.

You may well be right.

I think the progressives are poised to leave as you say, but we're hoping for a national person for organization. There are several local groups who meet and organize protests of local congressional offices, inform voters of current issues we'd like action on. Waiting on Bernie, but I don't think he'll sponser a fracturing of the Democrat party.

I hope he'll notice that the 30%\30%\30% ratio of Ds, Rs, & Is has swung pretty drastically. America is primed for a strong third party.

Sanders said today the election process did not impress him.

The term socialism is less important these days. What people seem to want is results rather than labels. I think that is why their vote swings so widely. They are looking for what they have not been getting.

The chimerical campaign of Ross Perot illustrates how hungry the voters are for change. He made a few televised speeches and was instantly in contention with the two major candidates. If he'd had a clue what to do next he might have gotten elected.

(oops lost the link. But it's on Google News at this time)
On Sunday morning, the day after establishment pick Tom Perez was elected by party insiders to the position of DNC Chair, Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper. During the course of the interview, something happened that will have those Democrats who are up for reelection in 2018, shaking: In a roundabout way, Sanders said he would not be providing the DNC with his email list, and would instead use it to help progressives running in Democratic primaries.

Sanders has long said he wants to transform the Democratic Party which has always been a game of paying dues and insider politics—and that position threatens the current leadership. If the events of the weekend prove anything, it has started a war. The establishment sent its message to Sanders, and Sanders fired back.

Many have long wondered how Sanders would keep his revolution alive after the election. Now it is becoming clear. It is to be his people powered weapon in a war on the Democratic leadership, with the ultimate purpose of presenting a genuine alternative to the Republican Party and Trump’s brand of corporate populism.

Establishment Democrats have no path to victory against the current administration because they do not have the tools. Trumpism cannot be defeated by corporate-friendly Republican lite.

Not only did 2016 prove the establishment had lost touch with the American people—after all, it had paved the way for a candidate all polling indicated was the weaker choice while touting as an endpoint the grossly incomplete legacy of the presidency of Barack Obama—it shook their donors’ confidence as well. Their candidate lost to Donald J. Trump, and the party suffered massive losses down ballot.

And yet, the leadership—like a corporation which has just had to do a massive recall—has been downplaying the problem and doubling down.

For progressives, this damage control has been taken as unwillingness on behalf of the party to “learn its lesson.” Frustrated, many have been flirting with the idea of changing their registrations. Some already have feeling that the only option left open to them is causing loss after loss.

However, this latest declaration from Sanders should make these voters reconsider. He’s raising an army because wars are often long, and filled with devastating losses. However, for the battles that are lost—this time an election where the voters are exclusively party insiders—there are battles won. Just last month, ‘Berniecrats’ swept California’s Democratic assembly district delegate elections, giving them effective control over the largest state Democratic Party in the country.

The left is finally waking up to its ability to affect change as millennials organize. Establishment Democrats like Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of Hillary Clinton’s most vocal allies during the primary, are starting to feel the pressure as they plan their reelection campaigns, and Republicans are refusing to do town halls thanks to protester interruptions. Every day there seems to be a protest.

This latest move by Sanders is a promise upheld to his supporters, and a warning to Washington elites: The revolution continues. Get on board or get voted out.

Well this is further confirmation of your thesis here. (You aren't making it easy for me are you !) It appears Bernie's sucess has gone to his head and he thinks he can keep it going. I expect it can last long enough at least to keep his movement (either within or outside the Democrat Party, as you suggest) distinct and identifiable.

The other mystery is that of Trump's "favorability poll" results. Just what do they mean? Anecdotal indications of widespread popular support for him grow, even as these poll results decline. It is worth recalling that the pre-election polls did not indicate a Trump victory, either in the Republican Primary or the general election: he won both nevertheless. Clearly an important segment of the population is either underground or at least unreported by the press. What's not so clear is how these things evolve over time.