Why We Need a New Democratic Party

[guillaumeb]

The old Democratic Party has become a giant fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests.
It has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs.
The election of 2016 has repudiated the old Democratic Party.......

The Democratic Party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes...........

We need a New Democratic Party that will help Americans resist what is about to occur, and rebuild our future.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/14/why-we-need-new-democratic-party


This postmortem analysis is not, in my view, an indictment of any particular candidate as much as an indictment of a particular mindset. What is written here applies equally well to Presidents Clinton and Obama. There was no real "booming economy" in the Clinton years, there was simply a vast increase in financial speculation. And similarly, there was no real recovery in the Obama years, just more outsourcing and a slight increase in mainly service sector, non-living wage jobs.

My view.

[zipplewrath]

1. And Mine

You, me, and apparently Robert Reich all see something similar that spans a couple of decades.

http://robertreich.org/post/153351951800

[guillaumeb]

2. Thank you for the link. You should make it a separate post.

And from that article:

So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism.
If it is to be relevant to the future, the Democratic party must be capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump’s Republican party – turning millions of people into an activist army to peacefully resist what is about to happen by providing them with daily explanations of what is occurring in Trump’s administration, along with tasks that individuals and groups can do to stop or mitigate their harmful effects.

What is said by Reich can also be said about US unions. Part of the reason for the decline of unions, apart from a legal system that is designed to weaken them, is that many unions are too focused on job issues and not focused enough on member education and member empowerment.
The DNC sees voters as donors and as voters to be directed, not as assets with ideas.

[MicaelS]

9. Union decline has occurred because

The older workers have sold out the new hires in exchange for keeping THEIR benefits. Why should a younger person / new hire join a union only to get fucked over?

[guillaumeb]

15. I disagree. Startign in the Reagan Presidency, pension rules were changed to allow companies

to eliminate and defund pensions. Plus the PATCO affair showed employers that attacking unions was fine with Reagan. US labor laws were never that strong, by design, but anti-union attacks were ignored by the Reagan Justice Department.

And two tier agreements are a bad idea, but a bad idea forced on weak unions by greedy managers and in some cases arbitration.

[MicaelS]

24. You're right.

For all the reasons you mentioned. I forgot about them.

[marylandblue]

127. PATCO also showed how the union spirit was already gone

Every airline union in America should have gone on strike in sympathy with PATCO. Imagine the public uproar if nobody could fly until PATCO came back to work. Instead those unions just focused on their OWN jobs and left PATCO hanging high and dry.

[guillaumeb]

128. True, and that failing is on the "business unionists" who felt that not striking would

somehow insulate them from the class warfare that the GOP unleashed.

[kenfrequed]

56. uhm...

No.

It is mainly the fault of union busting and manufacturing exportation. Blaming other union workers is sort of what management does when they want to divide and conquer unions.

Many, many workers would love to have a union but they have become wildly difficult to organize.

[skylucy]

107. You are so right. And after Trump fills the NLRB with his cronies it is going to get so much worse.

[JCanete]

3. I agree and am all for it. Uphill battle though. nt

[guillaumeb]

4. Absolutely. And it will take an informed and involved electorate.

And DU plays an important part, as does the progressive media, in informing the electorate.

[JCanete]

5. it will be an uphill battle, even here. nt

[CrispyQ]

6. They'd better regroup & get their shit together fast or we won't have a country left to save.

Pence/McConnell/Ryan will act bold & fast the next two years. For all the chortling around here about how it was the end of the republican party, the dems look to be in much worse shape.

[guillaumeb]

16. The GOP appears to stand for a specific platform.

I say appears because we all know what supply side economics does to the economy, but the GOP claims to have a plan to make America great again. People want to believe in something.

[treestar]

7. We won the popular vote with this party

The EC is archaic and the only reasons for the "loss." Orangutang only got an "EC victory" and none other.

Another reason it is a bad thing. It encourages someone in Orangutang's position to work harder for the white people of those three states than for the rest of us. Well, in his case, it will be a disaster for them but in the normal workings, you'd know what I mean.

[MicaelS]

10. My parents complained abou the EC

Back in the 1960s and it is still here. It is a relic, but the Right won't let it be discarded.

[treestar]

11. anything un-democratic that has features

they can manipulate favors them. Like the complicated Senate rules, too. And they know it is the only way they can "win."

We have to pay attention to state legislatures and get rid of their gerrymandering too!

[guillaumeb]

17. Yes the EC is archaic, but so is the "two Senators per state" formula.

Each state has equal power in the Senate. This is a gift to the small former slave states and the lightly populated western states.

[treestar]

67. True the original smaller colonies

were worried about being overwhelmed by the big ones - Massachusetts, Virginia. But in modern life that does not seem to be a concern. I'm from a small state and we have two Senators just like NY does. It's an undemocratic institution. Aggravated by the filibuster.

[guillaumeb]

69. And absent a Constitutional Convention, or passing an Amendment that the smaller states would

automatically reject, the Democratic Party must devote more energy to persuading the 41% of non-voters that the Democratic Party offers a real alternative to rebuild the US.

[treestar]

71. I don't see that today's small states would

automatically refuse it.

[guillaumeb]

74. What would be the positive side of taking away power from the smaller states?

They represent the GOP base in Congress. To agree that Senators should be apportioned by population would make California, New York, Illinois, and Florida far more powerful.

[Exilednight]

65. It takes a constitutional amendment which will never happen.

[treestar]

68. Maybe they said that about women voting

there are other ideas, like this interstate pact to attempt to make sure the PV winner wins it.

[Exilednight]

72. it's impossible to change it.

What are the criteria for a constitutional amendment?

[treestar]

73. have there not been other amendments?

If it's impossible, how was it amended so many times?

[Exilednight]

76. it hasn't been amended that much. This country is nearly 250 years old.

Take out the first ten amendments which were ratified by a country approximately 1/50th of our current size and it's been amended 17 times.

You'd have just as much luck tossing the second amenent as you would changing the EC.

[customerserviceguy]

106. Agreed

Thirteen states can quash any proposed amendment. The Constitution was deliberately made difficult to amend.

The EC isn't going away, and the presidential election needs to be permanently viewed not as one election, but as fifty of them.

[el_bryanto]

8. We'll have to see. It's possible the party will split. People are still pretty raw about the

election so you have to account for that; but there certainly seems to be continuing bad blood between those who supported Bernie Sanders or were sympathetic to his views and those who supported Hillary Clinton or who were sympathetic to her views.

Bryant

[guillaumeb]

18. Plus Trump has not taken office yet.

We will see how the GOP accommodates itself to Trump, and if Trump gets on board with the entire GOP wish list.

[baldguy]

12. Get rid of the party that has won 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections

With the 7th one being questionable, too.

The people calling loudest for the destruction the Democratic Party are using RW lies and propaganda, and never supported the Party to begin with.

Get rid of the Democratic Party? I don't think so.

[NCTraveler]

14. Well stated. nt.

[guillaumeb]

19. Not get rid of, but reform.

In my view, the Democrats can either be another corporate party like the GOP, or it can become a populist party and offer a real alternative.

[baldguy]

58. Saying that we need a "new" Democratic Party implies there's something wrong with the old one.

The Democratic Party already offers a real alternative to the corporate GOP. When you say they don't, you're repeating RW bullshit propaganda.

Please don't spread RW bullshit propaganda.

[guillaumeb]

66. Explain to me how a "Democratic" Senator like Joe Lieberman or Max Baucus or Joe Manchin

represents a real alternative to the GOP.

Politicians who depend on corporate money, politicians who are constantly fundraising, are tied to the same system that controls the GOP.

I am not saying that the Democratic Party is the same as the GOP, but if 41% of registered voters do not bother to vote, the Democratic Party should find out why this 41% sees no reason to vote.

Rich people vote. So it is probable that this 41% represents working people. People that are needed to counter GOP gerrymandering and election fraud.

[WhiteTara]

27. Thanks baldguy! Of course we have to

continue to expand our message and work hard to elect our candidates...too bad most people only concentrates on the presidential since the local is where the whole thing starts. I read an interesting tidbit that while the states are dominated by repukes, the locals are run by dems, so there is a big disconnect in politics.

[yeoman6987]

41. Nobody wants to get rid of it

But we hardly have anything. 6 states that are completely democratic. That's it. 2018 must begin now. We can't let repugs get 60 senate seats.

[baldguy]

59. See post #58.

[yeoman6987]

60. Good point. You are right!

[JCanete]

53. 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections? Why am I not following that math?

[baldguy]

61. '92 Clinton, '96 Clinton, '00 Gore (stolen), '08 Obama, '12 Obama, '16 Clinton.

Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

And Kerry would have won in '04 if FL and OH hadn't had 100s of thousands of voters purged & votes suppressed.

[Exilednight]

70. it's only four out of the last seven. it only counts if you're sworn in.

Gore, Kerry and Hillary never mad it to inauguration day.

And please do not come back with the "win the popular vote". We DO NOT elect out presidents through the popular vote. It doesn't matter what any of our feelings are about the EC, it's not going anywhere.

[baldguy]

77. If you don't think the popular vote means anything,

Then what sort of democracy do you thing we're supposed to have?

Trump wants you to ignore the will of the 64.2 million Americans that voted for Clinton.

[Exilednight]

78. we have a representative democracy, that's the kind of democracy we have.

The popular vote doesn't matter. It's very rare that any president wins the majority of voters, usually it's just a plurality of voters.

Should Trump care? Yes.

Will Trump care? Probably not.

Do I care? Yes, but I also agree that we ran a candidate that wasn't the best candidate to beat Trump in the EC.

According to the outcome of the election, I was correct.

[baldguy]

88. Part of this democracy includes Primaries. The best candidate won the Democratic primaries.

And the people calling loudest for the destruction the Democratic Party are using RW lies and propaganda (as you are), and never supported the Party to begin with.

Forgive me if I refuse to shed tears for people who don't want the majority of votes from all Americans, just the majority of *the right kind* of votes: from the arrogantly ignorant, the unreasonably afraid, the wannabe killers, the religious hypocrites, the phony patriots. All of whom never supported Democrats & never will.

[Exilednight]

94. What right-wing lies and propaganda am I using? And please quote me when you make such accusations.

I work for the DNC, the Clinton Global Initiative and have worked for the DNCC and few Democratic Senators.

Here's the irony of all this. If Hillary had lost the popular vote, and won the electoral college - I GUARANTEE you would not be crying about the popular vote.

[baldguy]

95. The idea that Clinton wasn't the best candidate is based on the RW lie

that she's corrupt & untruthful, which was supported by the lie that she did something illegal with her emails.

The whole idea is bullshit.

The Electoral College is a relic left over from a time when women were thought to be too stupid to vote, when slavery of African Americans was the law & when they were considered to be 2/3 of a person. It should have been gotten rid of long ago. But, just like voter suppression & gerrymandering, since it allows the minority party which has lost 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections to still maintain power we'll never be able to dispose of it properly.

[Exilednight]

98. In other words, you just make accusations and then change the subject.

And people wonder what is wrong with this party.

"Best candidate" is a subjective term. It is my firm belief that Hillary was not the "best candidate" that the Democratic Party fielded. She just happened to have a bit of good luck and the fact that DWS was freezing out Sanders.

The "best candidate" for this election cycle was someone not seen as a political insider. The "best candidate" was someone who could shape themselves as an agent of change, NOT someone who wanted to return us to the "good ole days" of Bill Clinton. The "best candidate" was someone who could actually read an electoral college map and find a path to victory.

There is no way to get rid of the electoral college in this political climate. There is no way to get a constitutional amendment to do so when the party that is benefiting controls the House, Senate and most of the state governments.

I'll ask this question, but I know you will not answer it: If Hillary had won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote, would you still want to abolish the electoral college?

[baldguy]

101. That is the subject. You want to destroy a Democratic Party that has been inordinately successful

Because the GOP says mean things & lies about our candidate. Here's a clue: THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO SAY MEAN THINGS & LIES ABOUT OUR CANDIDATE! Reasonable people understand this, and giving the GOP all due consideration, cast it aside. And, more often than not they'll take pride in drawing the GOP's hatred.

The GOP have been lying about the Clintons for 30 yrs. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DID THAT? Because the Clintons have proven to be the best at countering the RW message.

And BTW: your rhetorical question that you know I will not answer? I already answered it. Karl Rove would be proud of you.

[musicblind]

125. You keep going around GUARANTEEING that people would not be crying about the popular vote.

Even after I showed you a screenshot of us decrying the Electoral College 8 years ago?

Your claim that the vast majority are just hypocrites has been disproven.

[Exilednight]

133. I didn't see any screenshot, and the rest of this message is incoherent rambling.

[musicblind]

134. In the very first thread where we spoke, I sent you a link and a screenshot.

It was the thread where you told people you didn't want to hear them talk about the Electoral College because you knew they wouldn't feel that way if Clinton hadn't lost the way she did. You called them hypocrites.

I pointed out that I have been calling for the end of the Electoral College since 2007/2008.

I included this screenshot in that original post to you:

[img][/img]

In that original message, on another thread, where we first discussed this topic, I also included a link to a conversation from back in the days of DU2 where DU was pretty much in agreement that we should get rid of the Electoral College and, therefore, not the hypocrites you want them to be.

If that is incoherent to you, it is because you want it to be. Or, at best, you do not remember our original conversation.

[Exilednight]

135. i am calling people hypocrites if they

can justify arguing that Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote, but they would be tripping over themselves justifying the electoral college if roles were reversed and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC.

I've seen many on here crying foul over the EC results when the primary was being run they were the same people who argued "rules are rules and Bernie knew the rules going in" when Bernie won the popular vote in some states but didn't win the majority of electorates from that state.

People want it both ways, but only when it benefits them.

Again I ask, where is my right-wing talking points, and if you're making such an accusation then quote me.

[NCTraveler]

13. I love the party platform.

I do notice a clear trend of pushback against one of the most progressive platforms in decades, and those pushing are dishonestly acting as if they are doing so from the left.

[guillaumeb]

20. I though Clinton's platform was as progressive as Sanders'.

Part of the problem is obviously gerrymandering and voter purging. But part of the problem is voter enthusiasm.

And part of the problem is that the corporate media has demonized both Clintons for many years.

[NCTraveler]

33. "I though Clinton's platform was as progressive as Sanders'."

Some areas of her platform were more progressive than Sanders, other areas not so.

"But part of the problem is voter enthusiasm."

I don't buy that at all. People were clearly enthusiastic about Clinton. Do you think Trump supporters were enthusiastic about Trump?

"And part of the problem is that the corporate media has demonized both Clintons for many years."

Many decades. Corporate media and elected Republicans. Billions spent against her. What would one expect, their greatest fear is a strong progressive.

[guillaumeb]

45. If the enthusiasm was there, the lower vote count among black voters might be

explained by deliberate suppression and voting roll purging. But no one will talk about that even though the evidence is out there.

[NCTraveler]

47. There is no single reason as to the lower vote count among black voters.

There are numerous reasons. That is also not a stand alone metric that can be used to determine overall voter enthusiasm.

[guillaumeb]

48. Agreed. My point was not to single out black voters.

The fact that 41% of registered voters did not vote is troubling though, and the Democrats must find a way to motivate these voters. Gerrymandering assures the GOP of many seats even I elections with minimal turnout.

[NCTraveler]

49. Agree. Few know gerrymandering like Floridians.

We have not done well at fighting back.

My overly general take. We focus too much energy on the big ticket. We need to focus more energy one local elections. It's one of the reasons I really want the head of the DNC to be extremely competent and a full time position.

[vi5]

30. The problem was, our candidates do not articulate it well enough....

Obama did. And it's why he won 2 terms and why he even won a lot of working class whites and all those states that HRC did not.

He distilled the message into an easy mission statement, whether you view that statement as being "Yes we can" or "Hope and Change". Whatever you wanted to read into those words, there was something there for everyone and none of it contradicted anything in the Democratic platform.

And I'm sorry, but Hillary or her team or whoever, were horrible at that. "I'm with her"? "Go to my website"? Sure the policies were there, but without an easily digestible way to campaign on that stuff and sell the American people on it, it means nothing.

The other mistake was in her response to the Bernie surge which rather than to counter with her own specifics, she decided to go with variants of "No. It's not going to happen. We're not going to be able to do that." There were so many other better ways to have handled that.

Until we start recruiting more charismatic candidates who can articulate our platform in a more concise manner, we will keep losing where and when it counts (ie. more than just the popular vote.

[NCTraveler]

34. Might want to check up on what you are using as Clintons campaign slogan.

Very few have had the charisma as Obama. A truly brilliant campaigner. We didn't have anyone like that running on our side this time. Not even close.

"none of it contradicted anything in the Democratic platform."

Which Clinton slogan are you saying contradicted the Democratic Platform?

"rather than to counter with her own specifics, she decided to go with variants of "No. It's not going to happen. We're not going to be able to do that.""

Her retorts were much deeper than that. That is such a myopic view on your part it isn't even really worth addressing. Kink of like the slogan you went with.

"Until we start recruiting more charismatic candidates who can articulate our platform in a more concise manner"

No one this election cycle was able to articulate our platform like Clinton. She is clearly the only one who knew the platform from front to back. Might not have had the charisma, but none of our candidates did.

[vi5]

37. Well than what was her slogan?

You are proving my point. I'm a high information, political junkie, and hardcore Democratic voter in every election, every year from dogcatcher to president since 1986 and I couldn't tell you if the campaign had an actual slogan. And if the "I'm with Her" thing was something that was just from her hardcore supporters then the campaign didn't do enough to counterbalance that cult of personality style approach with a more global and universal one, and that did her no favors.

I didn't say she contradicted anything in the platform, I'm saying that quick, pithy, and inspiring slogans don't have to contradict anything in the platform and don't have to pin any candidate down to one or the other policy position.

And again...."Her retorts were much deeper than that." Well good for her. And you know what going with those "deep responses" about pragmatic realities rather concise, hopeful and easily digested inspiration and slogans got her and us? President Trump.

And again, if the response to someone saying that the campaign lacked charisma and style and relied too much on substance is to explain how much depth her campaign had then that proves my point exactly. Bitching about how the electorate votes for style over substance may be cathartic but it does nothing to change that, if it's even possible at all to do so.

What is it the pragmatists said all throughout the Obama years? You have to work with the congress you have not the one you want? Well you have to run a campaign trying to win the electorate we have not the one we wish we had.

[NCTraveler]

38. "Well than what was her slogan?"

" I'm a high information, political junkie, and hardcore Democratic voter in every election, every year from dogcatcher to president since 1986 and I couldn't tell you if the campaign had an actual slogan."

No, you are not. Here leading slogan is actually being discussed and it in the topic line of an OP in GDP right now. How you don't know is beyond me. Actually, after you used the one referencing gender it is not beyond me. It's pretty transparent.

"I didn't say she contradicted anything in the platform"

You absolutely alluded to it. Otherwise, you comment had no point. As it stands, it has a point, just a flawed and incorrect point.

"I'm saying that quick, pithy, and inspiring slogans don't have to contradict anything in the platform and don't have to pin any candidate down to one or the other policy position."

You directly did it again right here.

"...."Her retorts were much deeper than that." Well good for her."

Glad you came up off your original position.

[vi5]

39. You know what...

..never mind. I was wrong. The Clinton's can't fail, they can only be failed by those that did not clap loudly enough.

The fact is that we fucking lost the election with the campaign that Clinton and her team ran. If you want to spend the next 8 years whining and complaining about how unjust it is that a majority of voters in a majority of states weren't as in awe of our candidate as you were then feel free. I've got better things to do, like figuring out how to rebuild a broken, lost political party that is now in a minority of every body of government from the top down after 8 years of fixating all their attention and energy on one person. I'll focus my efforts on people who might actually want to listen and accept reality rather than trying to squint through a broken prism that only shows them how the rest of the country failed them.

[NCTraveler]

44. "The Clinton's can't fail"

They absolutely can fail. Have done so many times. I don't see where anyone has called them infallible as you suggest.

"The fact is that we fucking lost the election with the campaign that Clinton and her team ran."

Correct. Didn't know that was in doubt. I sure never questioned that.

"If you want to spend the next 8 years whining and complaining about how unjust it is that a majority of voters in a majority of states weren't as in awe of our candidate as you were then feel free."

Why promote such a personal assumption that can't be based off anything I said. You comment here wasn't general. It specifically addressed me. Very strange assumption that can't be taken from my own words.

"I've got better things to do, like figuring out how to rebuild a broken, lost political party that is now in a minority of every body of government from the top down after 8 years of fixating all their attention and energy on one person."

Warren, Biden, Franken, Merkley, etc... They have all been built up over the last eight years. Not sure how you are so politically savvy yet only see and promote one incorrect slogan and rail against one person as you are doing here. I pay enough attention to know bunk when I see it.

"I'll focus my efforts on people who might actually want to listen and accept reality rather than trying to squint through a broken prism that only shows them how the rest of the country failed them."

That is awesome and an effort we will be taking part in together.

[vi5]

50. I believe we've probably both done a bit of mis-reading here....

My only point in response to your post about the party platform was about the proper and simple articulation of that policy platform which is something we've always struggled with and what made me a Clinton skeptic from the beginning.

Perhaps I read too much into your response as you being a tunnel vision Hillary booster who feels our side made no mistakes at all, which it doesn't seem you are. I apologize for that incorrect assessment. But I can assure you that I never meant even for a second that Hillary contradicted the platform. My only point with using the term "contradiction" was that too much of our post-mortem has been focused on us having to take an either/or approach to the policy platform between social and economic issues and it doesn't have to be that way. We can be all things to all people and as a party we want to. We just need to find the best way to articulate that and it's where I personally feel that we failed badly. Personally I never once doubted HRC's actual positions or thought for a second that she wouldn't govern in accordance with those. My issue with her has always been her approach and messaging falling short, and her hiring the wrong people to make big campaign decisions which I think the results bear out to at least to some degree.

I only want to be sure we don't make the same mistakes moving forward.

I apologize for any misinterpretation on my part. It's a very tense time for all of us and as you said we've got to put in this effort together and not apart. And I don't think that either "Well, the candidate I wanted would have won if only we nominated him instead!!!!" or "Well none of this was Hillary's fault!!!!!" approaches serves any us well.

[NCTraveler]

51. "I believe we've probably both done a bit of mis-reading here...."

Please stop speaking for me. You have done so in every reply.

[vi5]

52. O.K. never mind, I was right the first time.

Good riddance. Exhibits A, B, and C as to why we lost and will continue to lose.

[JI7]

91. Obama didn't win based on Issues .

[vi5]

99. I agree....

That was kind of my point. He was charismatic and he presented an overall image of possibility and hope that people could read into what they wanted. It's essentially what Trump did as well but from the exact opposite perspective. It's what Reagan did and what Clinton did. Big picture messages that don't require people to read too much into it beyond what they want to see. We can complain all we want about how uninformed and superficial the electorate is but while we are doing that, we are getting trounced.

[JI7]

115. no, Trump demonized minorities and that's how he got support. no comparison to obama clinton

or even reagan.

the rallies and things that got the most support were things like building walls and banning muslims and other attacks on minority groups.

Trump won his supporters based on those issues.

[vi5]

122. Hence the "from the opposite perspective"

He provided his idiot supporters with easily digestible narratives that they ate up like the packs of rabid animals that they are.

The point is not what the message is, it's that the message needs to be simple and clear. Our side can do simple and clear when they want to, they just too often choose not too because our "simple and clear" message scares the powers that be and the corporate donors.

[MineralMan]

21. We Need a UNIFIED Democratic Party.

Not a new one. Had we been unified, we'd have won those swing states we lost. Instead, some Democrats made the horrible decision to vote for a third party candidate or not to vote for President at all.

That sucks. And it's going to suck for four years, at least. Our candidate won the popular vote by a good margin. We lost some key states by a just tens of thousands of votes. We should not have lost those states, but we did.

I blame part splitting for it. I blame the contentious arguments against our nominee from within the party for the loss.

We don't need a new party. We need a unified party.

2016 ended up being 2000 Redux. Screw that happening again.

[guillaumeb]

22. I cannot speak for Reich, but I think his "new" means unified with a new/stronger message.

I blame a lack of voter enthusiasm, evidenced by the 41% who did not vote, and voter suppression in key states. But I also feel the Democratic Party needs a more coherent message to appeal to the working families that are the bottom 90%.

[MineralMan]

23. What does a "more coherent message" mean?

We had one this year. We had Bernie campaigning for Hillary. We had Hillary's plan. Nobody paid attention to all of that.

People stayed home, skipped voting for President or voted for third party candidates. Why? Because they wanted something that isn't going to happen. We are not unified in a way that satisfies people who insist on perfection. That is why we lost in 2000 and why we lost in 2016. In both elections, the loser of the popular vote moved into the White House.

In 2000, it was the fault of one third-party candidate, who sacrificed a win by a Democrat by stealing votes for a lost cause. The same think happened this year. We had two opponents in the 2016 race. The Republican Party and the Perfectionist Party. The same think happened in 2000.

When will we learn, for pity's sake?

Hillary Clinton was not a perfect candidate. I've never seen a perfect candidate in my entire voting life. We never have a perfect candidate, because there are no universal criteria for such perfection.

We lost by losing states we should never have lost. We lost because we failed to support the imperfect candidate we had on our side. The Republicans won, despite the worst candidate for President ever. We screwed ourselves. It is that simple.

Hell! I'm 71 years old. This could have been my last election. I don't know. I'm pissed, though. We screwed the pooch and, in so doing, screwed ourselves. When will we learn?

[guillaumeb]

42. Be optimistic and hope to have many more chances to vote.

As to your question, the short answer is I do not know. If I knew how to motivate the unmotivated I would not hesitate to share that insight. I have talked with people who make the arguments that:
all politicians are the same, or
my one vote does not count, or
they all lie, or
nothing will really change...

and on and on, but education is something we need to do more of. I cannot answer for any of the non-voters. I have voted in every election since 1972.

I agree about the perfect candidate fallacy, but it persists. I supported Sanders in the primaries, but I supported him while knowing I did not agree with him on every issue. And I voted for Clinton, a far superior candidate to Trump, even though I disagreed with her on some issues. SO I agree with your insight about the Perfectionist Party factor.

But one thing many Sanders supporters talked about was the need to focus on creating a sustainable economy for all workers, and the current trade deals do not accomplish that goal.

[otohara]

26. Like Using Bumper Stickers & Wrist Bands to Resist?

Sorry Bob but I still have my "not me" wrist band and it did nothing to prevent 8 years of Bush.

[think]

25. The DNC's failure to remain impartial played no part? When top members of the Democratic party

are forced to resign it isn't a nothing burger.

The DNC FAILED to remain impartial and actively worked against Sanders. Many DEMOCRATS who supported Sanders will never come back because of that.

Saying Bernie wasn't a Democrat to justify what the DNC did is not acceptable. The DNC violated the party's own rules of impartiality. Sure Hillary supporters loved the DNC using it's clout to help Hillary. Democratic Sanders supporters however felt betrayed by their party and rightly so. Even after the emails proved the claims of Sanders supporters many Democrats refused to admit what transpired.

At least some like Harry Reid fessed up after it was too late:

Harry Reid On Bernie And The DNC: ‘Everybody Knew That This Was Not A Fair Deal’

PHILADELPHIA ― Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the outgoing Democratic National Committee chair, didn’t treat Sen. Bernie Sanders fairly during the primaries and should have resigned sooner.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-bernie-sanders-dnc_us_5799259fe4b02d5d5ed42db6

Somehow I doubt that some will ever allow themselves to understand the reality of how damaging the DNC's impartiality actually was.....

[otohara]

29. What About Caucuses

Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

over one million registered Democrats in my state where Hillary won the GE. But on 3/3/16 one million registered Democrats were either....

(a) working at 7PM
(b) cooking dinner for their family/getting the kids ready for bed.
(c) my auntie and all the ladies in her assisted living home wanted desperately to vote for Hillary to no avail. Many assisted living homes in one state.
(d) the list goes on and on.

Why did Sanders profess over and over he'd never run as a Democrat and then did?
Why does Sanders only criticize the party he caucuses with?

127,000 people participated in blue Colorado and Sanders team had no problem with low, low, turnout caucus states did he?

[emulatorloo]

81. I recommend you read Eichenwald's post mortem before you get too caught up in "Evil DNC" narratives

THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

We def need to change and move forward, we need to be as accurate and truth-based as we can as we do so.

[think]

85. I'm not claiming anything other than what has been proven. The DNC was blatantly bias

in their actions to make sure it favored Hillary. None of that should be in dispute by now.

The DNC violated it's own rules and denied it was doing so. Call that what you like it's wrong.

And Donna Brazile also was part of that mess. She needs to resign as well. What a disgrace the DNC has been in this election....

CNN Parts Ways With Donna Brazile, a Hillary Clinton Supporter

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUMOCT. 31, 2016

CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Ms. Brazile, a veteran political analyst for the network, was already on leave from CNN since becoming interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. On Monday, CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on Oct. 14.

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement....

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donna-brazile-wikileaks-cnn.html

[emulatorloo]

86. Did you read Eichenwald's article? It won't take very long.

Nothing has been "proven". (Negative spin by bloggers is not "proof&quot

Thanks for the NYT article about Donna Brazile.

[think]

87. He fails to mention that this time the DNC was not allowing outside debates.

This is a major step away from the over 20 debates we had in 2007-2008.

Funny he would just forget to mention that important FACT.

In past years, the DNC allowed candidates to participate in unsanctioned debates, where the sponsoring group, not the DNC, sets the rules. There have been several unsanctioned debates in both the Democratic and Republican primaries in every election since 2004.

“I've invested a lot in the Democratic Party and its traditions in the primary process,” said Burling, “and I was flabbergasted to see the debate schedule when it was released on Thursday morning.”

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150809/NEWS06/150809329/1010/OBITUARIES&template=printart

[emulatorloo]

89. He didn't "fail to" or "forget to" to mention anything :

"The first big criticism this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus, while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012.

Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.

Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?"

[think]

93. The debates started very early in 2007 in April. We had THIRTEEN debates in the same time frame

as this last primary before we held our first debate in Oct of 2015.

He's deliberately distorting what took place. The extra "forums" he mentions took place LATE in the 2016 primaries.

No where does he mention that the DNC restricted outside debates this go around. Considering the first debate in 2007 was on April 26 2007 compared to the first debate starting on Tuesday Oct 28th 2015 this time this is a very important piece of information he chose to omit.

Again. We had over THIRTEEN debates by that time in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008


So yes. He omitted the some of most important information regarding the debates. It's obvious he's biased and unwilling to admit what really happened.

[cpwm17]

28. The Democratic Party has to earn its votes

by running and supporting strong candidates. That didn't happen this year, and it could cost us dearly. No one is entitled to our votes.

[MineralMan]

32. We are the democratic party.

We voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. We selected Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. There is no party except for those who participate in primary elections and general elections.

So, you're saying that Democrats chose the wrong nominee? Did you participate?

[MineralMan]

36. I see. So you did not vote. How sad for you...

What a shame...

[cpwm17]

40. What's sad is nominating the worst candidate in Democratic Party history.

My first election was in 1980 against Ronald Reagan, since Reagan didn't seem to care too much about peace - among many other problems with Reagan. I hated that guy.

Hillary's foreign policy is no better the Reagan's - war, war, and more war. It's easy for many Americans to look the other way since they aren't the ones that are having their lives destroyed. Scary foreigners are expendable.

Those that aren't smart enough to care about all the many lives that are destroyed by all these wars, do care about their own lives. So keep this in mind: politicians that don't care about obliterating all of those scary foreigners also don't care about you.

[MineralMan]

43. Just one last note: If you didn't vote, I have no further interest

in conversing with you. What would the point be, after all? Seeya.

[JimBeard]

64. Well put Mineral Man

[baldguy]

75. And you're one reason why we're looking at the dawn of Trumpist Dumbfuckistan.

You bought into the fascist RW propaganda & swallowed it whole.

[musicblind]

126. If you did not vote for Hillary Clinton

then you are no better than a Republican.

Or worse... because, unlike most Republicans, you knew better, but were selfish.

Just know, any tragedy brought about by Trump is directly on you and your head. You can try and justify and bargain all you want, but it is on your head, and that is a fact. Claiming the party should have nominated someone else, claiming that you're so pure the candidate should have to 'earn' your vote over Trump, claiming any number of fallacies does not absolve you. Just as all the desperate attempts to rationalize Nader votes never absolved the Nader voters who are now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. It is never forgotten and will always be remembered that the Bush administration atrocities are on the heads of the 2000 Nader voters. Just as it is never forgotten and will always be remembered that the Concentration camps and Japanese Internment camps are the heads of those who knew better but stood by as Hitler and the U.S. government enacted those atrocities, it will never be forgotten that you knew better, but stood by and allowed an American demise for the purposes of personal vengeance disguised as self-righteous purity.

[emulatorloo]

84. You and your ego put Trump in the White House.

Kurt Eichenwald says it way better than I can:

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.

If you voted for Trump because you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home. Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done.

[HassleCat]

31. I agree

It will be tough to wean our party off the big contributions. In fact, I suspect we will see our party split in two, with the progressive wing forming a third party. That would be rough, but we can't do much worse than we're doing right now.

[guillaumeb]

46. I hope there is no split.

The US system is designed to be a two party system.

[Demsrule86]

79. There won't be a split because third parties are nothing.

What will happen is this sort will help the GOP win elections as they did recently and cause suffering to people they don't care about because really they only care about their own selves...they don't need a 'new' party...they are made to be Republicans...

[guillaumeb]

82. Sometimes purists can lose sight of the bigger picture in their quest for

the ideal candidate.

[Demsrule86]

97. Very true.

We need to focus now on stopping Trump...his cabinet picks are both incompetent and bigotted.

[LiberalFighter]

54. Robert Reich is blind to what the Democratic Party stands for and supports.

He also fails to see the reality that the Democratic Party cannot implement what he wants when the Republican Party can effectively block those measures.

[guillaumeb]

55. I believe that Reich is saying that the Demcoratic Party must organize under

certain principles, not pass them in a GOP controlled government.

Far too many voters say that both parties are the same. While that statement is untrue, in the post Citizens United world, both parties are currently dependent on the same big money donors.

[LiberalFighter]

57. And part of that requires electing those candidates so the principles can be enacted.

Until it happens, those big money donors are needed.

[JCanete]

62. You are right, you can't do anything without getting elected. The question though,

and you must know it, is whether or not candidates who take big donors money are too hamstrung to actually enact those principles anyway. And you can't call anybody else out for taking big money when you do it yourself. It makes some of the issues we could be taking the republicans to task for a wash.

[guillaumeb]

63. True. Democrats must use the current system and (hopefully) replace it with one

that relies more on citizen input than financial inputs.

[Demsrule86]

80. I believe Robert Reich is probably another reason we lost...

And I don't care what Robert Reich thinks or says. After the stuff, he wrote about Hillary. He is dead to me. She was the only person who could stop Trump. I have no interest in your little let's destroy the Democratic party game...if you don't like it then go elsewhere...this is Democratic Underground.

[guillaumeb]

83. And I have no interest in playing this silly game where you obviously feel that you have an insight

into my "agenda".

But if your game makes you feel better please feel free to play it. My posts here stand for themselves and your attempt to mischaracterize them can be judged by any who read this post.

[Demsrule86]

96. Yeah time to move...leave the bitterness and anger behind and work to defeat the fascit that is

Trump. His cabinet is a horror show. We need to worry about saving public education and the environment... I wish us all luck in what will be the fight of our lives.

[guillaumeb]

103. Agreed. Have a nice holiday. eom

[Demsrule86]

108. cooking a big dinner made three pies, brownies and cheesecake!

Turkey and all the fixings...you have a great holiday also.

[guillaumeb]

120. My oldest daughter brought over a brownie/pumpkin/cheesecake dessert.

It was really delicious.

[emulatorloo]

90. Since when did commondreams.org give a flying fuck about the Democratic Party?

IMHO they have been only been interested in shitting on and misrepresenting Democrats for years. YMMV, of course.

[JI7]

92. yup

most of these people trashed Obama who won twice during his presidency . fuck them.

this is a fucking career for many of them.

[guillaumeb]

100. I cannot answer for the motivation of the site.

But Reich has much to say about the state of the Party.

[JHan]

102. fantastic.

More slogans, just what we need -_-

[guillaumeb]

104. And what DO we need, in your opinion?

Sometimes slogans can capture the essence of an idea, like the 1% slogan that put the focus on economic inequality. But the slogans have to be coupled with working to convince people that a solution is possible.

Trump's slogan might be just that, a slogan with no substance, but that slogan exemplified what many people are thinking.

[JHan]

105. I'll repeat what I said elsewhere..

Maybe in this thread self.. I can't keep track

We immediately need to stop tearing each other down. The progressives and centrists need to understand this, particularly the progressives. Yes I'm still bitter and angry I endured a year of crappy arguments and ideas and how those ideas overtook my party.

We need a cohesive economic vision that embraces the future. Trump's populist ideas will flop. Bannon and Trump are pushing for American Nationalism - America is pluralistic and Bannon/Trump's ideas will take us back over 50 years. We're on the brink of a technological revolution - let US be the party with the solutions and ideas to counter the effects of this. And let us be the party with sound ideas to counter climate change. Trump has no real concept of the future, he wants America to be 1952 again.

Class war is tiresome, instead of railing against the "billionaire class" let's come up with specific things that concern us.

We also need stop excusing executive overreach, and understand the limits of government.

And we should not abandon "Identity politics" , Liberals have always understood the importance of the individual in the society and how institutions affect liberty and rights of individuals while also addressing economic concerns.

[JCanete]

110. okay, you can't just say class warfare is tiresome and expect to not be challenged on that.

what does that even mean? That you aren't interested in it? That you can't beat the billionaire class, or that you really believe its okay that they own like 85 percent of everything?

Specific things that concern me is that there is enough money to end hunger and to repair and advance our infrastructure, but it is being hoarded by the upper class, and that they are using their money for one thing only, to get more of it. We need to take some of it back. We need to get it out of politics.

[JHan]

112. You're absolutely right it's worth discussion..

And I agree the way the system is set up favors crony capitalism, benefiting only a few at the expense of the many, but demonizing wall st is not the way to do it, we have to point out why companies like Mylan for example, end up monopolizing the epi pen market. Why huge companies are allowed to consolidate, becoming huge entities that end up being too large to fail.Why the labor market isn't flexible enough to adapt to shifts in the job market where jobs move from health care to hi tech manufacturing to auto-hi tech manufacturing. ... I'd prefer specific arguments targeting these issues rather than hitting at "the billionaire class" .

And yep, there is a lot of money in politics, it worries me too, but what are the realities of campaign funding this year? The Koch brothers financed Repubs in down ballot races, what are the democrats supposed to do? Stand idly by?

As for the elite, I would expect that they have some say in the running of our government. ..Now bear with me, because "elite" is a bad word, though it shouldn't be. Elites are simply people who have a level of expertise needed to run institutions. We need them, just as we need the establishment. The problem is when the elite and the establishment become arrogant and don't mitigate the bad effects of even their best ideas and policies, because no policy approach is perfect.

For instance , let's take free market advocates. I am one, BUT, I see the arrogance. The market will have its victims and instead of showing empathy and trying to mitigate the harmful effects of globalism, free market advocates will blame folks whose fortunes and future disappear because of changes beyond their control. They'll say these folks weren't strong enough or smart enough to adapt. Not only is this inhumane but it's solely responsible for the anger many feel - not just rural voters who would understandably be seduced by Trump's lies, but urbanites barely making ends meet, working 3 jobs and trying to get their certs and degrees AND juggle family life.

So I want less slogans, I want specific persuasive policy proposals. Pitchforks and anger accomplishes nothing, they only make things worse.

We need a Teddy Roosevelt type who can challenge the elites and the establishment to curb their excesses while reigning in reactionary political talk and blind ideology that could ruin us.

[JCanete]

113. okay...I'm not a free market advocate, though I acknowledge some values, but

Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (2)

even as a free market advocate, you have to admit you can greatly curb how much somebody can win and they will still play. There is no reason why the safety nets can't be way fucking better, or that people at the top should not be taxed appropriately on their earnings. There is a pie. The pie does not grow. It is directly correlated to our planet's natural resources. What we do with those resources may be more amazing or efficient, but letting people have that much is a tax on society and our future, not a motivator for innovation.

And Sanders did speak to specifics, but there is a reason to use a simple, non-convoluted message. Because it resonates. And the billionaire class, and free market advocates like yourself, may not be villains, but they have a disproportionate amount of power to influence things in their favor, and this inequality is the result. Either we address this or we continue to allow that influence to prevail over all else. I really really respectfully hate your suggestion that we should not hit at the billionaire class for this very reason.

It's also a result of either being a true believer or being disingenuous that you think there will always just be changing job markets. Most of the jobs we've been supplementing our lost jobs with have been service industry...low paying bullshit. In the face of outsourcing, as well as computers robotics and ai, you cannot seriously think that we aren't in for a huge shrinking of the labor market. Free market, which simply cannot be divorced from crony capitalism, will be paying dividends to an increasingly smaller portion of the population. It is hardly an answer that will sustain us.

[JHan]

114. Ok look at it this way...

"even as a free market advocate, you have to admit you can greatly curb how much somebody can win and they will still play. There is no reason why the safety nets can't be way fucking better, or that people at the top should not be taxed appropriately on their earnings. There is a pie. The pie does not grow. It is directly correlated to our planet's natural resources. What we do with those resources may be more amazing or efficient, but letting people have that much is a tax on society and our future, not a motivator for innovation. "----

I have no problem with safety nets. My argument isn't really with taxation either although we need to step back and asses things:

Bernie wanted to make taxation "fairer" by taxing the rich more heavily, however his plan would also touch the middle class. HRC also agreed with him to an extent - she understood that the middle class aren't keen on significant tax hikes. To her credit Clinton has a consistent track record and voted against tax cuts and tax loopholes during the Bush years.

To understand Sanders' goal , look no further than the Scandinavian model. Problem is, Sander's path to get America to be more like Scandinavia conflicts with how Sweden became Sweden and Norway became Norway etc.. In Sweden they value free liberalization ( which Bernie is against). Free trade is how they became prosperous. The swedes are also not too keen on regulation, part of their pensions are privatized, and they enjoy lower corporate taxes - bear in mind corporate tax affects all businesses, from small to medium to large. As Johan Norberg notes "The Social Democrats knew all along that they couldn't fund such a generous government by taking from the rich and the businesses—there are too few of them, and the economy depends on them too much. So Sweden and Denmark take in lots of revenue via highly regressive value-added taxes at a normal rate of 25 percent of sales—the only tax where the rich and poor pay exactly the same amount in kronor. On the other hand, the corporate tax is just 22 and 23.5 percent respectively, compared to the U.S. rate of 35 percent."

The Swedes did not rail against the "billionaire class" - they don't have much of one, but every Swede pays their taxes and enjoy doing so. And tax rates should be framed within the context of a larger economic vision. Sanders wanted to increase taxation but ALSO wanted to impose higher tariffs - meaning price inflation - and antagonizing our trade partners. This doesn't compute for me and it doesn't make things fairer for you or I.

2) "And Sanders did speak to specifics, but there is a reason to use a simple, non-convoluted message. Because it resonates. And the billionaire class, and free market advocates like yourself, may not be villains, but they have a disproportionate amount of power to influence things in their favor, and this inequality is the result. Either we address this or we continue to allow that influence to prevail over all else. I really really respectfully hate your suggestion that we should not hit at the billionaire class for this very reason. "

Yes , Bernie had a simple powerful condensed message, HRC was the opposite. I prefer the latter but that's just me, I always want candidates to explain to me how they're going to accomplish what they set out. You are absolutely correct that wage stagnation is the fault of the elites - but only partly so...They don't control all variables.

We're now living in an economy based on innovation, there is no escaping this.... This change began to take swing in the 80's. Jobs started to disappear, we saw the creeping steps towards globalization. To mitigate the negative impacts we see of this trend today, Bernie and Trump, and even HRC to a lesser extent, think they can turn back the hands of time to a day when things were simpler and jobs were guaranteed. But we can't. The economy IS shifting, whether you want to admit it or not. In Detroit, jobs switched from textiles, and even auto manufacturing, to health care, how can anyone keep up with that? Many health care openings in Detroit and they can't find qualified Americans to fill in those jobs so what gives?

It starts with education, apprenticeship programs, vocational and technical schools that focus on jobs needed in our economy state by state, and a push to increase our STEM graduates - some companies now have to look to employ talent from abroad because they can't find qualified talented american stem graduates . one of HRC's tech policies addresses this.

We can also push companies to do profit sharing ( again on HRC's platform). We benefit from global competition, in fact we are the world leader in hi tech manufacturing, but our businesses cannot compete and sustain high wages due to the pressure from other countries where there are lax labor standards and lower wage rates. So to buttress wages we can tie wage increase to profits instead of executives hoarding all the gains- Sanders is 100% correct about this to my mind..

We can also improve our labor laws and not only that, ancillary organizations can further help protect workers to negotiate fairer wages

Which brings me to the minimum wage. Sure Sanders wants to increase it but what will be the impact on small businesses? Instead of implementing an instant minimum wage increase, raise it gradually so employers can make their adjustments else they'll just fire workers to meet expenses and keep their businesses afloat. Tie in the minimum wage to cost of living.

And there is a public regulatory role in all this - Wage theft is a problem, and Government can demand compliance with best practice to ensure workers are protected.

no where in all this am I railing against anyone , no where have I demonized any group . These are fairly reasonable solutions and I am hardly an expert. Engaging in a class war and wanting to PUNISH a certain group, without thinking of the unintended negative consequences, gets nothing accomplished. We all have to fix this . So our political leaders have to come with effective solutions, understand the persuasive power of good ideas and not bash those who disagree, those who have a sincere difference of opinion or those who just happen to be successful.

[guillaumeb]

119. We agree on a lot:

You said:

The Swedes did not rail against the "billionaire class" - they don't have much of one, but every Swede pays their taxes and enjoy doing so. And tax rates should be framed within the context of a larger economic vision.

Much of the 1% in this country hate the idea that they should pay anything at all to support the government. They are greedy sociopaths with no sense of belonging to a community. That is why they hide their money overseas and bribe politicians to endlessly cut their own taxes.

[JCanete]

123. I'm not going to hold you hostage in this thread forever, so I'll just speak to a couple things

you advanced that I'm not following.

First, why can't a corporate tax rate rise with the size of a company? You say it affects small and large businesses alike, but I see no reason why this couldn't be done.

Second, it makes no sense to me to implement higher taxes without also implementing tariffs. Not doing so gives companies an opportunity to pick up and move overseas and then to blame higher corporate taxes, not their greed, or, more legitimately, foreign competition, on the need to do so. Tariffs address both of these issues. While these sorts of things may cause inflation, pricing is still fixed on what people will actually spend for a product. Corporations have to worry less about whether somebody else is eating their lunch, because they are paying the same tax rate as their competitors and foreign competition is restricted from undercutting the market value to untenable levels.

We have the most desirable market on the planet, still, somehow, for how much longer I don't know. That is leverage we should have used a long time ago to make working conditions across the world better, but instead we decided to fuck our workers at home and exploit workers abroad to make cheap shit, to say nothing of the irreparable damage we've done to the environment and ecosystems. If we care about our trade partners, agreements made in my opinion in poor faith to the interests of the working class, then we can make stipulations about how they pay and treat their workers if they want to send in tariff free products. Yeah, its a renegotiation, but fuck laws intended to chain us to systems that screw us.

as to the minimum wage hike, I can understand the fear of a lot of small businesses short term. Long term, I think they should be far more mindful of just how much their bigger competition gains by paying lower minimum wage. If they pay less across 4 stores or so, that's probably a fifth store they get to build right next to yours, or a shit load of advertising revenue. Oops. But thankfully you're also paying shit to your employees right, cuz now you're going to get competed out of business. By the way, I have no problem with some sort of government subsidization of actually small companies, at least on a short term basis.

I have no objection to a profit sharing model, but nudging companies to comply is not a policy. I don't remember Clinton campaigning vocally on this issue at all anyway. It might have been passed off the same way she said she 'basically' told Wall Street to cut it out. Either this is implemented as a law, or its just placating, pro-corporate rhetoric.

Yes, education is a big deal. How do you fund it if you don't actually have resources to do so? So much of what you expect we should do cannot be done in this system unless we directly take billionaires to task. You are advocating that we continue to let the adults mind the store rather than doing ground-up intervention that pushes for change, and you have to know that the "adults" have been minding the store for some time, and that this is the kind of legislation and poor regulation we've got. Why does it take a Presidential election for so much of Trump's shady dealings to reach the media's ears? We have no regulatory agencies worth dick in this country because they aren't there to regulate the people with money, except when it conflicts with some other rich institutions money. You can blame the Republicans, but the Democrats have not shouted these outrages from the rooftops.

Oops, I said I'd be short. I fully admit I'm no expert on business, so if anything sounds silly from a logic perspective I'm totally up for hearing your take.

[JHan]

124. I don't mind more discussions on this:

you're not holding me hostage at all

------------"Second, it makes no sense to me to implement higher taxes without also implementing tariffs. Not doing so gives companies an opportunity to pick up and move overseas and then to blame higher corporate taxes, not their greed, or, more legitimately, foreign competition, on the need to do so. Tariffs address both of these issues. While these sorts of things may cause inflation, pricing is still fixed on what people will actually spend for a product. Corporations have to worry less about whether somebody else is eating their lunch, because they are paying the same tax rate as their competitors and foreign competition is restricted from undercutting the market value to untenable levels."

1) Higher tariffs not only affect large corporations - it can kill small business, and it also results in price inflation. We need to learn from our past - Higher tariffs will have a domino effect - our trade partners won't like it and they will respond in kind, meaning we pay more for stuff, meaning we import and export less. This is a an unnecessary risk, it's unbelievable to me it's being argued in 2016 by politicians.

I don't believe in punishing large scale business with a higher tax burden. We've had high corporate taxes for a couple years now - In fact we have one of the highest in the world at 35% and what difference did it make? None, we're still suffering from wage stagnation. So why would we think increasing it even more will improve the situation - that's the very definition of insanity to my mind - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why not drop it - on this I agree with Donald Trump ( and it pains me to say that ) There's a reason why Lobbyists hobnob in washington and hold fundraisers to support congressmen and women - lobbyists hope to get tax loopholes passed, because their Masters have to resort to creative tax avoidance techniques to cope with the effects of very high corp. taxes. High corp. tax rate suppresses Business innovation , is partly responsible for corporations merging with foreign companies ( where the tax rate is lower) , and is partly responsible for business flight..

And this is not a libertarian/republican echo chamber I'm talking out of, because again I stress that I am a liberal - but even Liberal states (when compared to US) like Canada and the U.K have lower corporate tax rates!

Increases in corp tax means higher prices again ( falls on the consumer) cutting jobs ( affecting labor force) and as much as we like to think of shareholders as fat cats, many ordinary americans have investments and decreases in dividends will affect their investment funds. And therein lies the problem with vilifying an entire class of people , the "billionaires" - the result is a myopia that fails to see how punishing a class of people impacts ordinary Americans. This gets us nowhere.

----------"We have the most desirable market on the planet, still, somehow, for how much longer I don't know. That is leverage we should have used a long time ago to make working conditions across the world better, but instead we decided to fuck our workers at home and exploit workers abroad to make cheap shit, to say nothing of the irreparable damage we've done to the environment and ecosystems. If we care about our trade partners, agreements made in my opinion in poor faith to the interests of the working class, then we can make stipulations about how they pay and treat their workers if they want to send in tariff free products. Yeah, its a renegotiation, but fuck laws intended to chain us to systems that screw us. "

2) Trade has actually made conditions world wide better - Not ideal, but better. Right now jobs aren't outsourcing to China as much as it used to , and why? Because Trade lifted many out of poverty into the middle class, and now jobs are being outsourced to Vietnam. The TPP has in its provisions a requirement that Vietnam and other states in the TPP region, lift the floor on labour standards to the international level - this means that for the first time , Vietnam will be required to unionise in order to be part of the TPP. Unfortunately, the TPP has been so demonized, teething through its provisions, both the good and the bad, and having a rational discourse on it is almost impossible.

--------"as to the minimum wage hike, I can understand the fear of a lot of small businesses short term. Long term, I think they should be far more mindful of just how much their bigger competition gains by paying lower minimum wage. If they pay less across 4 stores or so, that's probably a fifth store they get to build right next to yours, or a shit load of advertising revenue. Oops. But thankfully you're also paying shit to your employees right, cuz now you're going to get competed out of business. By the way, I have no problem with some sort of government subsidization of actually small companies, at least on a short term basis. " -

3) It's not that I'm against an increase in the minimum wage. I'd love to see something like $20 an hour but for that to happen "naturally", we need an uptick in growth. If we're going to artificially raise wages we have to be careful. Fact is mega corporations can better withstand hits to their bottom line, small businesses can't - which means more small businesses close, which leaves large companies , who can rightly decide to stay OR move to wherever they can make an optimal profit. I'm just pointing out the reality of it. To deal with income inequality, we have to be realistic and come up with pragmatic solutions rather than going on the attack like a bull in a china shop.

[guillaumeb]

116. Class warfare might appear "tiresome", but failure to understand how the 1% use

differences to divide workers is failure to understand that the rich are engaging in class warfare.

[JHan]

118. read my other replies in this thread...

[guillaumeb]

121. I did. I responded before re-reading the bottom of the thread.

Thanks.

[TheKentuckian]

132. Class warfare seemingly only becomes tiresome of the lower ones push back no matter how meekly

[quantumjunkie]

109. At the very least it would force (D) party to shift Left

NDP has worked for Canada in their multi-party system.
Although their Conservative Party is equivalent to our Democratic Party...their LIberal party is considered tin the middle, while NDP is their Left party. With NDP it helps pull their Liberal party back Left.

[guillaumeb]

117. And even the Canadian Conservatives are far less "conservative" than US conservatives.

Single payer was started in Canada by a Conservative provincial government.

At this point in the US, there are two right wing parties, the Democratic center right and the GOP far right.

[realmirage]

111. EXACTLY RIGHT

[guillaumeb]

130. Glad you liked the article.

Common Dreams is a source for me.

[nolabels]

129. Or at least a Democratic Party

In just the last forty years they have changed the rules so much to favor money that it takes a war chest of multi-millions just to get a sniff at any primary vote for POTUS and hundreds of millions of dollars are needed to win a senate seat. It's a matter of anyone of good conscience wanting or trying run for office couldn't get there at any rate.

Most all candidates have to go through the meat grinder of state and party politics if they don't have the bucks up front. There by insuring all candidates are amenable to the system the well to do establishment has erected

Another avenue that Bernie ran, gaining the funds from small contributors had the establishment stacking up road blocks to knock him out anyway possible. Under the current scenario only very popular independents or billionaires will be able to take the highest office. De Facto facism is what we are living in.

The system will probably have to implode before us common folks have any consequence in it

[guillaumeb]

131. Fascism combined with oligarchy.

And agreed, it is a money system. Plus most Congressional districts are non-competitive because the incumbent nearly always prevails over a challenger. Basically a one party system at the Congressional District level so the winner is the party with the most gerrymandered districts.