Regarding the supposed "identity crisis" within the Democratic Party.

[Garrett78]

Why There Is No 'Liberal Tea Party'

The lack of a “liberal Tea Party” reflects a fundamental and longstanding asymmetry between Republicans and Democrats. The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement; most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause.

Because their goals of reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change are difficult to achieve in practice, Republican officeholders are vulnerable to accusations of failing to uphold principles. They risk becoming targets of interest groups, media outlets and rival politicians who see their role as enforcing symbolic commitment to conservative orthodoxy.

The Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized as a coalition of social groups. Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy. Tensions within the party coalition have eased over time — to the benefit of Democratic leaders, who are now better able to satisfy the various demands of their members and avoid facing a mutiny from within.

Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama, but they have different ways of expressing their opposition. The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol. Politicians, media personalities and interest group leaders on the right encouraged these sentiments but channeled them into opposition to Democratic economic priorities such as the Affordable Care Act by activating broader symbolic conservative predispositions.

Republican critics accused Mr. Obama of imposing socialism and favoring runaway government; Democrats attack Mr. Trump for his mistreatment of vulnerable social groups. The most visible manifestations of Democratic mobilization since Mr. Trump’s election have been a series of protests, each focused on one issue and led by a specific element of the group coalition. Large-scale national events have highlighted the concerns of feminists, racial minorities, young people, environmentalists and unionized public employees. Democrats promote a different cause nearly every week, with each rally promoted as an opportunity to mobilize social groups for elections and a practical policy agenda.

Mr. Trump’s rise has jump-started political activity among Democrats, but this resurgent energy has seldom produced fierce internal battles. Lara Putnam and Theda Skocpol, who have studied emerging grass-roots networks of Democratic activists, report that they “hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left” but are “working shoulder-to-shoulder” rather than igniting intraparty squabbles — a pragmatic mobilization, they explained, aimed at winning general elections.

This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents. Unlike Republican debates over philosophical fidelity, Democratic primaries produce arguments about who will do a better job addressing the real-world priorities of key constituencies as well as competition to secure endorsements from party-aligned interest groups.

...more at the link.

[vi5]

1. One thing that never gets discussed....

...is that it is taken on faith that independents are centrists and moderates and that there are more of them than there are independents and non-voters who are more liberal. And that all we need to do is just be a little more moderate and move a little more towards the center (which unsurprisingly keeps shifting right) and that our electoral rewards are just around the corner.

This is such an undisputed truth among Democratic party leadership and they've convinced more than enough voters that it's true. Except those rewards and those mythical "independent moderates" and independent conservative voters never actually materialize and we continue to alienate a whole other segment of the non-voting population.

This policy means "Don't vote out moderates in red states/districts because we need them to win there...........but also don't vote out moderates in blue states/districts because........well just trust us we know better!!"

The "time to talk about moving left" (which in reality means going back to core Democratic policies) appears to be using the same clock/calendar as Republicans "time to talk about gun control". Meaning never.

Luckily we are seeing results from challenging this cowardly conventional wisdom over the past weeks and months. The fact is that it doesn't need to be one giant purge or a slash and burn approach to destroy the party. But until we start pushing back on our failed safe, middle of the road, 'don't rock the boat" approach, all we are going to get is incremental wins around the edges and change that as we've seen with the incremental and cautious approach of the Obama administration, can be wiped out with ease by a small Republican majority.

[hibbing]

2. "The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change"

Come on now, can't you just call it what it is, racism.

Peace

[Garrett78]

4. I had the same thought. Far too many in the media dance around the truth.

[Initech]

3. The Tea Party was started by and for, blithering racists.

It was their "antidote" to the Obama revolution that was taking over. We need an antidote to the racist movement that has taken over this country but we cannot do it the same way. The big difference is - the GOP has the backing of the media (and one network in particular), we don't. Getting the media on our side is going to take a lot of effort to do so.