The Democratic "Split" Dilemma

[yellowwoodII]

I've lurked on those threads that debate about whether Bernie Sanders is a good or bad influence. I agree that he's too old to run in this next Presidential election. And, yes, I voted for Hillary.

But I like what Bernie says. I want to hear a younger Democratic leader talk about the things that he talks about.

This morning he came up on my FB thread. This is what it says, "John Bolton really has chutzpah. First Bolton urges George W. Bush to invade Iraq and now he is moving our country closer to conflict with Iran. We are on a very dangerous path."

I want to hear more Democratic Party leaders address issues like this. These are dire times. We need to be unified.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I don't mind Bernie when he's talking about issues or attacking Republicans

I just don't like him publicly attacking Democrats or trying to force the party to remake itself in his image, because I don't think it's useful/helpful, especially since he's not an actual member of the party. That just rankles me.

[octoberlib]

2. There is no dilemma. Vote.

[KPN]

3. Excellent opinion piece on this very subject:

Yes, Democrats Need To Run Left — On Economics
Robert Kuttner, Columnist

Have you noticed the irritating spate of articles in the mainstream press expressing alarm that the Democratic Party may be moving too far to the left? This has become a trope among commentators. The lead piece in Sunday’s New York Times, for instance, was headlined, “Democrats Brace As Storm Brews to Their Left.” Right from the top, the progressive energy that is bringing new people into politics and challenging Republican incumbents is condemned as some kind of threat to “Democrats.”

Burns also reports, eyebrow raised, that in Maryland, “Democrats passed over several respected local officials to select Ben Jealous, a former NAACP president and an ally of Mr. [Bernie] Sanders who backs single-payer health care, as their nominee for governor.”
Dear God, not single-payer! And respected by whom? Reading Burns’ overheated prose, you can almost see the barricades in the streets.

The trouble with this kind of story, sloppy and all too familiar, is that it conflates two kinds of left. After 40 years of declining economic prospects for ordinary Americans and two years of fake populism by Trump, the Democrats need nothing so much as candidates who are progressive on pocketbook issues. These are the kind of candidates who can win back seats in Trump country. There may be lots of moderate Democrats in Michigan. But moderate on what? Surely not moderate on losing their jobs and their homes.

asking whether Democrats are running too far to the left in general is precisely the wrong question. The right question is how they blend economic issues ― where they need to run to the left almost everywhere ― with social issues like immigration rights, gun rights and abortion rights that can be divisive in the more socially conservative parts of the country.

More here:
[link:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-kuttner-democrats-midterms_us_5b54fdbee4b0de86f48e4926|

[radius777]

18. Populism benefits whites at the expense

of everyone else, whether it comes from the populist-left or populist-right.

Kutner seems willing to discard immigrants, PoC, women - all for the purpose of not offending culturally conservative white working class - who should be challenged instead of coddled for their retrograde views.

He disses Hillary's (and Booker and Gillebrand's) focus on 'identity politics' and center-left economic views that Democrats have always had - it takes a balance between business, gov't, and other institutions to create a strong middle class.

Hillary (the first female presidential nominee) got 3 million more votes than Trump and wins easily if not for Comey, even with Russian meddling in the election.

The true base of the modern day Dem party is diversity and metro areas - where most Dem votes come from - and Clinton/Obama 'cosmopolitan liberalism' works better for such voters than populism/economic nationalism - which at its heart is all about cutting off non-white countries from the global economy and about preventing non-white immigration... all to give the white working class an inflated sense of their own worth that they don't deserve to have.

[KPN]

19. Well, you have your biases, I have mine. I'm firmly on the side of a return to putting

middle class, working and poor Americans ahead of corporations, Wall Street and the upper crust when it comes to policy affecting the economy. If you want to label that populism, and then add a layer of prejudice to it, go ahead. I don't care and I don't agree. The notion that the Democratic Party can't be a champion of both economic and social justice/equality at the same time is total nonsense; it's a strawman argument that holds no water whatsoever. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the Democratic Party can't be the party for fair and just treatment of all people regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. When you divide, all you do is divide.

"Cosmopolitan liberalism" (what's that, a euphemism for neo-liberalism?) works better for the base? How so?

Cutting off non-white countries from the global economy and preventing non-white immigration? More nonsense. You are making stuff up based on your own biases.

We can be a better party. We should be. And will be if we don't undermine ourselves.

[dreamland]

4. Bernie is not a contender.

He is too old. He's rankle a lot of people in the democratic party. He will divide the party once again if he considers another run. I hope he just stays where he's at and working quietly on his causes. It seems dRump has destroyed the GOP and the DNC. We cannot seem to rally around any one candidate at the moment because too many dreamers are still hoping for another Bernie run and as a result, dRump will win in 2020 again because there is no one who opposes him in the GOP. In fact, the less we hear of Bernie, the better for the DEMs to start on unifying themselves.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

5. Bernie again...another day.

Democrats can annunciate words too. There is no split. We get a split by talking about a split everyday. This is a D board. Not real sure why the bernie love day in and day out here.

[Phoenix61]

8. My feelings exactly

I'm so over him saying what Dems need to do while refusing to join the party. He is an old, white, male career politician. Maybe he should take his own advice, sit down, shut up, and let the young folks speak for themselves. They seem to be doing just fine on their own.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. I have two words for Bernie:

Knitting

[NCTraveler]

6. Give me a name of who you want to hear speak like this.

"I want to hear more Democratic Party leaders address issues like this."

Lets start there.

[yellowwoodII]

10. I Wish that I Could Give You a Name.

I think that it is up to the party to encourage viable candidates. It's evident that many of us Democrats would support such a person. Most of us aren't in a position to know about potential candidates unless they are presented to us. Where are they?

[NCTraveler]

11. Major change on your part.

You directly referenced party leaders. Give a name of a leader or two you want to hear speak like this. Schumer? Pelosi?

Let me remind you of your statement.

"I want to hear more Democratic Party leaders address issues like this."

I think it is fair to ask for a name or two. That will not happen because I will then provide comment after comment where they "address issues like this."

[Squinch]

7. BERNIE IS NOT A FACTOR IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. HIS RE-ELECTION IS GUARANTEED.

MEANWHILE, A COUP DETAT IS BEING STAGED AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS BEING DISMANTLED WHILE WE ARGUE ABOUT BERNIE.

Watch this, and cut this shit out:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Johonny]

12. The whole Bernie Vs. Hillary thing was fueled by the Russians

they used wedge issues to divide and conquer.

It's over, and liberals should never, ever be fooled again by fake party drama.

[peggysue2]

13. There is no dilemma or division

You're either for protecting our country, a Constitutional Republic. Or not.

There's no gray area, no in-between, no hemming or hawing. It's a simple choice: do you wish to continue with democratic governance or do you favor the Trumpist's brand of Strong Man politics?

Rule of the Autocrat vs The Rule of Law.

If we lose the country to the Trumpsters it won't matter what any favorite says or does. This is a National Security election and our opponents are playing for keeps.

Everything else is noise meant to knock us off our game and to our knees.

Want to be on the right side of history? Vote for every/any Dem on the ballot

This is not rocket science. We vote, we win. We stay home to mull over the details, we lose. Everything.

[yellowwoodII]

14. I Agree

I agree that I will vote for the Democratic candidate. Okay? Any guesses on who might be the candidate?

[FSogol]

17. We have some midterms to win first, GOTV. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Is there a point to this thread?

Sanders is NOT a Democrat. He is a political freeloader who wheedled a free ride on OUR primary machine.

Let's start there, mmmkay?

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Ugh.