If Clinton wins…?
…will that mean that she has been acquitted in the court of popular opinion, and Republicans will call off their Jihad against her? And having called off their Jihad,
…will that mean she will be free to “govern toward the center” and continue the consensus seeking/New Democrats/DLC/Third Way course charted by Bill Clinton and attempted by Obama?
Those rhetorical questions are easy to answer. Will the GOP get sane? No. Contending with a clearly insane GOP, will Clinton be the consensus seeker of John Carney’s wet dreams? No.
I’m optimistic that the crucible of this election has battle hardened Clinton and that she will seek to find the allies that Democrats should always be seeking. Liberals, peaceniks, hippies, civil rights, environmental, and social justice activists. She’ll need every Dem vote to fight the Jihad, and she will need to collect some additional Dem votes in 2018. So I don’t see a replay of the “Oh well, we’ll lose the midterms” strategy that Obama employed. I see something much more robust and unapologetically Democratic.
Delaware Dem has his “pie in the sky” electoral college dreams. This is my “day after” dream.
“Will the GOP get sane? No”
Or, will they get more insane? Probably yes. And just like Trump, their now-overt insanity will be their downfall.
Unfortunately, GOP insanity means Randian wackjobs like Paul Ryan will now portrayed as the mythical sane Republicans and will be seen as reasonable partners for Democratic compromise. Remember Hillary has vowed to “get things done.”
Oh Paul Ryan is done. I think he follows the Original Orange Man out the door and in to the lucrative world of “consulting”.
Doesn’t matter. If Ryan is gone, the media will prop up other Randian wackjobs as the moderate Republicans for Democrats to compromise with and “get things done.”
Puck I don’t think she can embrace Randian wackjobs without depressing mid-term turnout among Sanders/Warren Dems. I’m hopeful, but then again I thought Jack Markell would be a liberal.
I see something much more robust and unapologetically Democratic.
Maybe. Much of this robust and unapologetically Democratic has to get passed by a GOP House. Which I don’t see happening. Even if Ds take the Senate, they will be in a defensive crouch.
Of course, I am told here that getting stuff done is overrated, so I am imagining that you guys are going to be pretty chill with a legislative status quo as long as the speeches are more robust and unapologetically Democratic.
You have a short memory Jason. Remember how Warren/Sanders Democrats were received on this very site when they called Obama out in 2010? Even this year, Democrats agree liberals/progressives are ” the stupidest and weakest members of the political triumvirate.”
Hillary’s appointments will reveal how much she wants to include progressive points of view in her agenda.
If all you care about is getting stuff done, Republicans are happy to oblige and won’t be an obstacle. In fact they have plenty of ideas they want to get done.
Cassandra, Yes. I am going to be SUPER chill with a legislative status quo as long as the speeches are more robust and unapologetically Democratic. Absolutely. If she goes down swinging and gives Dems something to vote FOR in the mid-terms, I am all about the status quo. Getting stuff done, when you mortgage your core values and sell out key constituencies, is wildly overrated. Why don’t Dems get that?
Puck, Yes. Hillary’s appointments will reveal how much she wants to include progressive points of view in her agenda. And I see her first picks being not like Obama’s pick (Rahm Emanuel) at all.
Democrats agree liberals/progressives are ” the stupidest and weakest members of the political triumvirate.”
They are when they want to discuss the merits of Hillary’s email “scandal” and her “vulnerabilities” the week before an election.
Realistically I don’t even expect to see an actual progressive in the cabinet. I’d be happy just to not appoint any Republicans to the cabinet like Obama and Bill Clinton did. And not any alumni of Goldman Sachs and its ilk.
What Pandora said checks out.
Why don’t Dems get that?
Because the Government still has to run. There is still a yearly budget, there are still functions to run. There are judges to pick and get confirmed. Heck, she ran on trying to make some changes to key policies like Obamacare or free college. There will be plenty of bullshit bubbling up from the House and Senate and she just gonna do *speeches*?
So is that a serious proposal? That she let the Congress do whatever the fuck they want so that whatever it is you define as “Dems” get resounding speeches?
If Dems have the White House and Senate then yes, the Republican House can do whatever the fuck it wants and rip itself to shreds trying. There is value in being an immovable rock against the GOP agenda. Not all Dems feel the urgency to give Republicans what they want in order to “get stuff done.” Motion is not necessarily progress.
right on, cassandra.
There is value in being an immovable rock against the GOP agenda. Not all Dems feel the urgency to give Republicans what they want in order to “get stuff done.”
And those Dems who don’t feel the urgency usually aren’t the ones with skin in the game.
And I love how those who screamed the loudest about Obama not “getting things done” are the ones who suddenly – amazingly – are content with soaring rhetoric. What changed?
ya know who i miss? FBH.
Hillary needs to avoid the Obama mistake of pre-compromising. If you plan to compromise with Republicans and expect to end up near the center, you’d better start out pretty far left. Otherwise you end up on the right and have to backtrack in your second term like Obama, if you are fortunate to have a second term. For example, if you want a $12 minimum wage, ask for $15 plus indexing. But if you ask for $12, expect $9.
“Because the Government still has to run. There is still a yearly budget, there are still functions to run. There are judges to pick and get confirmed.”
Here we see Democrats slipping into the roll of hostage as casually as one would slip into a warm bubble bath.
She should start with claiming a mandate no matter the margin of victory.
Followed by immigration reform (which I believe neither party is serious about compromising on), fix f-d up trade deals/companies leaving the country and healthcare reform that is going to stop skyrocketing insurance costs.
If Ds don’t win the house or senate, what she does the first day becomes totally moot as we will have four more years of total R obstruction. But even how Clinton handles obstruction will be fun to watch as I believe she is more combative and has bigger balls than Obama when it comes to getting shit done.
Soaring rhetoric and values are the father and mother to progress. This is not a chicken and egg mystery. The Democratic Party needs values and directions clearly and (yes) eloquently delivered. That lays the groundwork for progress.
Cassandra’s system doesn’t work on its face. It never has. Did Dr. MLK say that we need to go along to get along? Hell no. He said, ” I have a dream.”
the president still has to be pushed. Honestly what do you expect her to do with a GOP house? This was my hang up with Sander’s candidacy. if the GOP says “NO”, what then? hammer them relentlessly for 2 years and give everyone campaign fatigue? We know Americans don’t respond to facts or reality, we know the House is gerrymandered to hell. Other than court appointments before the 2018 slaughter of the senate, and making sure Obama’s presidency isn’t erased entirely, I really dont see what will be accomplished.
That is unless 2018 is a good mid term year for Dems.
“getting shit done.”
There’s that phrase again.
Remember when Obama floated Social Security cuts and the Catfood Commission corporate tax
reformcuts? I was never more happy than when that shit didn’t get done. And I have the Republicans to thank for that.“if the GOP says “NO”, what then? hammer them relentlessly for 2 years and give everyone campaign fatigue?”
Why not? Why do Democrats always have to rescue Republicans from their own failures?
“I’m glad to be here in Cleveland Ohio where your Congressman just voted against our big infrastructure bill to put people back to work. We need to do something about that.”
“I’m glad to be here in Michigan where your Senator voted against bill that would make us leaders in the clean energy future and create jobs just because his Party leaders told him to vote that way.”
Play some offense for once.
And to wrap this back to the original point of the post… I don’t see what options Clinton will have other than to go on the offensive.
There are no “moderate” Republicans left to appeal to. It is going to be a golden age New Deal style Dem presidency or nothing.
Did Dr. MLK say that we need to go along to get along? Hell no. He said, ” I have a dream.”
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?
You need to take all of your white boy privilege and step the FUCK off.
You should read the whole thing. It is about pushing for Justice so that we could all get along.
That dream — while not completely fulfilled (in spite of folks like you using this to pretend otherwise) was purchased at a price. MLK and hundreds of others were beaten up, jailed, ostracized, targeted by law enforcement endured incredible danger so that dream could be articulated. MLK was NOT just about pretty speeches — there was organizing, there were demonstrations, marches and all kinds of work that preceded this. His audience was NOT a group of over-privileged people who can’t get past the idea that just showing up with their privilege is not getting them the perfect government, the perfect candidates, the perfect progressive candidates.
IF MLK was just about the pretty speeches, I’d be posting on the Jim Crow side of this blog. And You’d be just fine with that. Because — you know — pretty speeches.
Exactly, the POTUS has the mic, she can call out obstructionists by name and ask the state’s people to pressure the senator or house member. She can say I want to take America forward and bring back living wage jobs but I need your help. She can shame the CEO maggots who take jobs to the Asia for child labor. Trump did it and it got him a lot of of support from people who should never pull a republican lever. A good sales job with some arm twisting can get things done. I think so anyway.
The phrase “white privilege” seems to be losing its once-useful meaning and turning into an offensive slur around here, used as an all-purpose rebuttal.
I’ve been thinking of renouncing my white male status
I had considered not using Dr. King as an example there. Robert Kennedy or Gandhi would have worked as well, but I think the Letter from the Birmingham Jail is instructive on the issue of waiting for conditions to improve or moving forward.
It’s like “racist”, puck.
You dont get to be the one to decide when you’re being it. It’s for those who feel punched down at. Sometimes, dude, you display this level white male fragility typically reserved for GOP wind bags. Every mention about how terrible while men are isnt directed at all of us, nor should we require affirmation that we are specially excluded from the criticism. If you know you arent guilty, you have nothing to worry about… but for real… also, Dr MLK is not “ours”. “we” don’t get to invoke him to prove a point.
It is instructive on the need for action even though people want you to wait for justice. It is instructive on getting the WORK done. It is NOT instructive on waiting for the pretty speeches and letting all the rest of it go until it is all perfect for you.
There are people in this country who need the Public Option. They need reduced costs for higher education. They need Social Security to be fixed. If one of those gets done at the expense of higher taxes on the rich, then so bit it. One thing got done and we go back and get something else next. This process speeds up, of course, if the left could figure out how to run an accountability game. Still. There are alot of us who know for certain that not everything gets done or gets done the way we want it. But taking a hill or two is still preferable to waiting for someone who will win the entire war without our having the spill our single malt scotches.
also, Dr MLK is not “ours”. “we” don’t get to invoke him to prove a point.
Of course you do. You just can’t take his words or work out of context to pretend that the politics are easy. Or use them to pretend that everything can be OK if you make the right speeches. Or to pretend that since the speech was made, race relations are just fine now.
” It is NOT instructive on waiting for the pretty speeches and letting all the rest of it go until it is all perfect for you.”
That’s a straw man version of my point.
“This process speeds up, of course, if the left could figure out how to run an accountability game.”
That’s a great point. I guess I tend to think of “mission” and accountability as being linked.
“But taking a hill or two is still preferable to waiting for someone who will win the entire war without our having the spill our single malt scotches.”
LOL. How did you know I was drinking at single Malt Scotch when I typed that?
I’ve always been suspicious of the motives of white men including myself
nobody said anything racist. just things that are incorrect.
and geez, ben. grow up.
“But taking a hill or two is still preferable to waiting for someone who will win the entire war without our having the spill our single malt scotches.”
Not if we take the WRONG hill just so we can keep moving without spilling our forties.
(see how that works?)
I use “white privilege” and I’m white. I see it. I live it. I benefit from it – and so do you, puck.
“She can say I want to take America forward and bring back living wage jobs but I need your help. She can shame the CEO maggots who take jobs to the Asia for child labor. Trump did it and it got him a lot of of support from people who should never pull a republican lever.”
This is nonsense. These white voters aren’t supporting him due to economic reasons. These are the same group of people who supported Reagan (and the only quotes they really know of his are about “strapping young bucks” and “welfare queens”) and applauded his union busting. We need to stop pretending that Trump supporters are voting for economic policy that consists of “It will be awesome.”
What is the wrong hill?
nobody said anything racist. just things that are incorrect.
and geez, ben. grow up.”
I didnt say anyone said anything racist. re-read my comment, oh, grown up one.
I said checking someone on their privilege, and calling someone racist is similar is that, the person needing to check their privilege and the person being racist, don’t get to be the arbiters of whether or not they are in the wrong.
Not if we take the WRONG hill just so we can keep moving without spilling our forties.
(see how that works?)
Seriously? Because if we are working this, the people with the forties need the Social Security, more affordable healthcare, more affordable education opportunities and criminal justice reform. Your game here is to pretend that there isn’t a community of Americans who badly need their government to work while you are getting your pout on over not getting tax increases for the people you don’t approve of. You were the one who was upset that a deal was made to keep unemployment benefits flowing because rich people got to keep some of their money. Your interest has never been in improvements for an American community that needs it — just in making sure rich people know that you have some of their shit.
Letting people judge if I am creating a strawman of Jason’s original point:
Cassandra, Yes. I am going to be SUPER chill with a legislative status quo as long as the speeches are more robust and unapologetically Democratic.
This is a crazy thread. We all have the same goals, but Cassandra (being practical) discounts the efficacy of putting mission first and holding firm to some basic values.
For me, putting mission first and holding firm to basic values is the MOST practical thing any organization can do. it isn’t fanciful rhetoric. It is time-tested strategy. I see how more affordable healthcare, more affordable education opportunities and criminal justice reform could have a chance if someone (Clinton?) gets uncompromising in a drive for those things.
I see how much success the GOP has had with being intensely mission oriented. I see how much success a business like Apple computers has under Steve Jobs when it was uncompromising on certain things, and I think the Democratic Party can certainly learn a thing or to about the practicality of a clearly articulated mission from some of these examples.
Agreed, most of Trump supporters are misguided at best and most are nasty bigoted ignorant haters but certainly the rust belt zeal has a job component. Even if his bellicose pronouncements about trade deals and bringing back jobs are absurd and couldn’t bring a single job, they signal a sense of concern about the issue which is badly needed from democrats
Clinton needs to announce that she is going to build some kind of wall
So… something that probably works against Democrats having a well-articulated, motivating mission is that the Dems are a conglomeration of constituencies. Chasing the approval of a range of stakeholders doesn’t sound like the recipe for a clarion mission.
So, again, it might behoove Clinton (should she win) to set an agenda in which all Democratic constituencies can identify some motivational superordinate goals. It would refreshing to see a Democratic Party that works to attract support among key groups, rather than one that chases support among moderates.
I see how much success the GOP has had with being intensely mission oriented.
And they’ve been very tactical about it too. We can all see the line from Reagan to undermine the middle class. They certainly did not wait for the Supreme Court to dismantle Roe v Wade — they’ve been chipping at it for decades. And they’ve had plenty of wins. They were very focused on their goal, but had no issue with incremental gains. Same with undermining the middle class. That didn’t happen all at once — they worked on it piece by piece until the game was changed.
Clinton should set an aggressive agenda. But it she only gets a few pieces of it, we help her go back and get more pieces. But she can set all of the agenda she wants — if there is not a Congress pushed to cooperate, it won’t mean much. As Obama can tell you.
And if Carper or Coons are here wringing their hands over a Democratic agenda rather than helping to promote it or vote for it, you can count that in the FAIL box.
Tactics and strategy – both important. I think we’ve found some common ground.