The December 6, 2016 Thread
So here is President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet so far. Bolded names are actual nominees. Italic names are people rumored or speculated to be in contention.
• State: Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sen. Bob Corker, Mitt Romney, David Petraeus, Rex Tillerson, Jon Hunstman, Adm. James Stavridis.
• Treasury: Steve Mnuchin
• Defense: James Mattis
• Attorney General: Sen. Jeff Sessions
• CIA Director: Rep. Mike Pompeo
• Health and Human Services: Rep. Tom Price
• Housing and Urban Development: Ben Carson
• Education: Betsy DeVos
• Commerce: Wilbur Ross
• Transportation: Elaine Chao
• UN Ambassador: Gov. Nikki Haley
• Homeland Security: Michael McCaul, David Clarke, John Kelly
• Interior: Sarah Palin, Gov. Mary Fallin
• Agriculture: Rick Perry
• Veteran’s Affairs: Sarah Palin, Scott Brown
• Energy: Gary Cohn, Joe Manchin
• Director of National Intelligence: Rudy Giuliani
• Office of Management and Budget: Gary Cohn
• Labor: Andrew Puzder
• U.S. Trade Representative: Rep. Charles Boustany
• Council of Economic Advisers: ?
• Environmental Protection Agency: Kathleen White, Scott Pruitt, Jeff Holmstead
And there is also his White House staff:
• Chief of Staff: Reince Priebus
• National Security Adviser: Michael Flynn
• Chief Political Strategist: Steve Bannon
Stan Collender: “The Trump administration is seriously thinking about not submitting a budget to Congress next year.”
“Although the Congressional Budget Act requires the president to submit the fiscal 2018 budget to Congress between January 2 and February 6, Trump could easily say that it was the responsibility of the outgoing Obama administration to comply with the law before the new president was sworn in on January 20.”
“But while the new president not sending a budget to Congress might not be illegal, it would clearly be unprecedented.”
New poll: 56% of Trump voters say that if a news outlet reports he lied, they'd believe him over media https://t.co/2csvu3wX56
— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) December 5, 2016
Well, that leaves 44% who are reachable. And we already know many are regretting their choice.
“The problem for the Democratic Party is not that its policies aren’t progressive or populist enough,” writes Fareed Zakaria in a Washington Post op-ed. “They are already progressive and are substantially more populist than the Republican Party’s on almost every dimension. And yet, over the past decade, Republicans have swept through statehouses, governors’ mansions, Congress and now the White House. Democrats need to understand not just the Trump victory but that broader wave…Hillary Clinton’s campaign, for instance, should have been centered around one simple theme: that she grew up in a town outside Chicago and lived in Arkansas for two decades. The subliminal message to working-class whites would have been “I know you. I am you.” It was the theme of her husband’s speech introducing her at the Democratic convention, and Bill Clinton’s success has a lot to do with the fact that, brilliant as he is, he can always remind those voters that he knows them. Once reassured, they are then open to his policy ideas.”
Dear @realDonaldTrump
Will you impose a 35% tariff on the Ivanka Trump Collection?
She's manufacturing clothes abroad, importing to US pic.twitter.com/7szmDPLZMZ
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 5, 2016
Zack Beaucamp on what the Nazis (formerly known as the Alt Right) want from their fellow comrade Donald Trump:
The alt-right’s priority, first and foremost, is preserving America’s status as a white-majority nation. To that end, they want Trump to follow through on the most extreme immigration ideas he’s discussed — such as deporting millions of undocumented immigrants and banning Muslim immigration. These steps, they think, will slow what they call the “dispossession” of America’s whites.
But the alt-right wants Trump to go even further. They want him to slash rates of legal immigration and defund groups that advocate for immigrants, like La Raza. Ultimately, they want Trump to push the boundaries of acceptable opinion to the point where the nakedest of naked racism becomes permissible in mainstream public discourse.
Under President Trump, those goals are plausible, even if unlikely. That means we need to understand the ideology of the alt-right — and the things its members will be working to enshrine in federal law.
The long view of why Pat McCrory lost, and what it means for progressives in Trump's America: https://t.co/sX72gfHCUO
— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) December 5, 2016
Markos Moulitsas is my spirit animal. He says oppose everything:
When a government is legitimately elected, you oppose it. You are the loyal opposition. When a government is illegitimately elected, you resist it. Today, we are the resistance. And that means standing in the way of everything that illegitimate government does. [T]he Democrats’ position on any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court [should be] OBSTRUCT, until either of these happens:
1) We have a president elected by at least a plurality of the American people,
2) Republicans win a filibuster-proof majority in 2018, or
3) Republicans eliminate the filibuster.Unless those apply, Democrats should stand in the way of everything Trump does, and especially his Supreme Court pick. As Republicans have taught us over the past few years, with hundreds of President Barack Obama’s judicial picks languishing unconfirmed, there is no penalty for such obstruction. So now, it’s our turn.
2 predictions: pluralist social democracy is the future of liberalism; and the WWC is never going to like it https://t.co/6MNYQ2tDHU pic.twitter.com/jfBAIuUv9u
— Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) December 5, 2016
In his salon.com post, “Want to win the working-class vote? Try progressive economic policies, Democrats,” Sean McElwee notes “Clinton’s campaign erred by not running more ads criticizing Trump’s predatory behavior toward workers and touting the Obama administration’s auto-industry bailout. (Research suggests that in battleground states only 6 percent of Clinton’s campaign ads mentioned “jobs,” while 43 percent of Trump’s did.)…At this point, the key limitation to progressive economic policies isn’t message but mobilization. There are numerous opportunities to run progressive candidates in races and states that Democrats have ignored. As the data suggest, economic progressivism is popular. Now let’s get the people who benefit from it mobilized. Let’s get candidates who can run on those platforms and win…”
The Republican message to Trump and his family: steal whatever you want, we have your back https://t.co/3zfeLlJqyF pic.twitter.com/llGvKOKNKV
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) December 5, 2016
Jeet Heer says the Dems need a new leader of the opposition NOW.
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have taken the lead in denouncing Trump since his stunning election. Sanders has been particularly valuable in calling Trump’s bluff on economic populism; on Thursday, he criticized Trump’s vaunted saving of jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana as a fraud, tweeting: “Carrier gets millions in tax breaks. Indiana loses thousands of jobs. United Technologies took Trump hostage and won.” In a similar vein, Warren denounced the pick of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury secretary by calling him “the Forrest Gump of the financial crisis,” who “managed to participate in all the worst practices on Wall Street.” She went on: “He spent two decades at Goldman Sachs, helping the bank peddle the same kind of mortgage products that blew up the economy and sucked down billions in taxpayer-bailout money before he moved on to run a bank that was infamous for aggressively foreclosing on families.”
Warren and Sanders are both terrific counter-punchers. But in the current context, they feel like voices in the wilderness. Sanders in particular still has an uneasy relationship with the Democratic Party. He’s returned to Congress as an independent, not a Democrat. And much of his post-election commentary has been about how the party needs to fundamentally change to speak to working-class voters. Sanders is making a valuable contribution as a critic of the party, but that precludes him from being the voice of the party.
Warren, on the other hand, is perfectly suited to be leader of the opposition to Trump.
Emotional Biden Won’t Rule Out 2020 Run: https://t.co/hRETUwOySh @nielslesniewski @bridgetbhc (photo: @billclarkphotos ) pic.twitter.com/A3k1tTEXkU
— Roll Call (@rollcall) December 6, 2016
A Republican member of the Electoral College wrote in the New York Times that he will not be casting his vote for Donald Trump. Said Christopher Suprun: “The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience.”
Kevin Drum says the repeal of Obamacare is dead:
[There are] quite a few elements of Obamacare that can’t be repealed via reconciliation, but I think Democrats should focus on one: pre-existing conditions. This is the provision of Obamacare that bans insurers from turning down customers or charging them extra for coverage, no matter what kind of pre-existing conditions they have. I tell the whole story here, but there are several reasons this is the best provision to focus on:
It’s an easy thing to understand.
It’s very popular.
Republicans say they favor keeping it.
Donald Trump says he favors keeping it.
It’s not a minor regulation. It is absolutely essential to any health care plan.
It’s fairly easy to explain why repealing Obamacare but leaving in place the pre-existing conditions ban2 would destroy the individual insurance market and leave tens of millions of people with no way to buy insurance.The last point is the most important. Take me. I’m currently being kept alive by about $100,000 worth of prescriptions drugs each year. If I can go to any insurer and demand that they cover me for $10,000, that’s a certain loss of $90,000. If millions of people like me do this, insurance companies will lose billions. In the employer market, which covers people who work for large companies, this is workable because insurers have lots and lots of healthy, profitable people at each company to make up these losses. In the individual market—after you’ve repealed the individual mandate and the subsidies—they don’t. They will bear huge losses and they know it.
What this means is not just that Obamacare would collapse. It means the entire individual market would collapse. Every insurance company in America would simply stop selling individual policies. It would be political suicide to make this happen, and this means that Democrats have tremendous leverage if they’re willing to use it. It all depends on how well they play their hand.
“Maine has changed how it will choose most officeholders, becoming the first state in the country to adopt ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting,” the New York Times reports. “Ranked-choice voting allows voters to list candidates in order of preference so that if in the first round no one wins a majority, officials can recount the ballots immediately until someone does.”
“In Maine, this type of voting will apply to races for Congress, governor and the State Legislature, but not to municipal offices or president. It is to go into effect starting with the primary races in June 2018. Ranked-choice voting had been under consideration for some time in Maine, where independents often mount strong third-party bids. The winner in nine of the state’s past 11 elections for governor won with less than a majority. The goal is to keep that from happening again.”
DD your spirit animal Kos says “…Democrats should stand in the way of everything Trump does. ” OK , but you know some won’t. And when we go after the turncoats, will you join us or will you sneer and call us purists?
it all depends on what you mean by “go after”
If it means sitting back and writing snarky blog comments, and arguing about strategy, then I’ll be the first to call you a purist. But if “go after” means getting off our asses and doing something, then, no. I will not regard you as a purist.
“If it means sitting back and writing snarky blog comments… ” said the founder of the snarky blog.
Action begins with rhetoric. There aren’t a lot of strong silent types among the politically engaged.
It is a new age, and one that calls for a new outlook. We all need to get active and if our words outnumber our actions we deserve to be scorned and ridiculed.
Words inspire actions, as we constantly remind the right.
Free speech is the primary political act in the US. Should we only value those who have the flexibility or the means to just pop up whenever and wherever our activist urges send us? Perhaps we should restrict political acts to property owners only?
Meanwhile, jason330 is deflecting from the original question about turncoats and trying somehow to make the question about “me” instead. We can’t indulge in these distractions when dealing with Democratic turncoats.
It is a question about “US” instead. Are we bar flies that hang around and enjoy the appearance of an active life or are we living out our values?
My choice is made. You need to make yours and if your choice is to merely hang around in debating society tireless rehashing your past debates than I am done with you.
There is no more purist vs pragmatist. There is only do or do not do.
Fareed Zakaria: “The subliminal message to working-class whites would have been “I know you. I am you.”
Yeah, she shoulda put on a black dress and pearls and declared she wasn’t a witch, too.
“There is no more purist vs pragmatist. There is only do or do not do.”
Did you tell DelDem that? If we survive until 2020, won’t we all be purist assholes if we don’t support Old Joe Biden for President?
I’m afraid the Democrats of 2016 — who knows what they’ll be called in the future — will go through the rest of time denying the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton, whatever else she might be, was a poor candidate. And they will forever blame those of us who noticed that for mentioning it, as if nobody else would ever have realized it otherwise.
The so-called “purists” — not actually purists, just people tired of pretending that Republicans Lite were Democrats — are not the ones who have something to apologize for.
The “non-purists” who told us to shut up do. And I do not expect they will ever acknowledge that because, down deep, there’s no real difference between those people and Republicans (not Trumpkins, Republicans) except the team name on their uniforms.
No, I don’t mean they want the same things. I mean they have the same blind spots about their own flaws, and they believe in force rather than persuasion — because, if you’ll recall, they did not try to persuade us about Hillary. They bullied us.
All true. You can continue to nurse your hurt feelings or move forward. I’ve chosen to move forward and get past this stuff because we agree on a shit load of stuff and I think we’ll need each other to fight Trump. I’m simply not interested in pure vs pragmatic anymore.
The argument is important because it determines whether the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for resistance. If people are going to insist on defending a poor candidate and take no responsibility for their choice, I tend to doubt it.
Also, my feelings aren’t hurt. This isn’t about hurt feelings. It’s about determining the proper path forward. It’s about getting people who had no objection to what the Clintons stood for failing to understand who and what they were supporting, and why it is not worth supporting.
No, I don’t mean identity politics. I mean neoliberal economics. No, manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back — but we could have done more to keep them from leaving in the first place.
If the party takes corporate money, those donors call the shots. Barack Obama raised $600 million from small donors in 2008. Bernie Sanders raised all his money from small donors. We continue to accept corporate underwriting at the risk of putting them in control. Do you want the entire national Democratic Party to go the way of Delaware’s — become the “centrist” moderate Republicans? That’s the path it was on, and some people still don’t understand that that road goes nowhere we want to be.
The argument is only important because you still need to work out your misogynist BS.
Hillary Clinton was the best candidate who could win on offer. No one could beat her resume, even if you include everyone who was running. No one bullied you into voting for her — you were always free to vote for whoever you thought would be better. No one forced her on anyone, but I get that this is the only way to justify the shoulda woulda couldas here.
there’s no real difference between those people and Republicans (not Trumpkins, Republicans) except the team name on their uniforms.
If you really believe this, then you will be useless to the “resistance”. Because you can’t get the basic job of just knowing who your team is done.
Oh, I know who my team is. You have told me who yours is, and it isn’t mine. You are a bully, whether you realize it or not.
“Hillary Clinton was the best candidate who could win on offer.”
And lots of people thought neither candidate was worth leaving the couch for. As I said, your ego won’t let you acknowledge how wrong you were, and so you dismiss criticism. I’m not going to check the archives, but to my recollection you have never once admitted you were wrong, and I’ve read this blog since its inception. That’s your problem, Cassandra, nobody else’s.
Not necessarily you personally, but plenty of others here (DD, pandora) worked the bully pulpit perpetually, which is why you have so many pissed-off readers. Or are you going to pretend that criticisms of your side should only apply when they apply to you personally?
Stick to what you know. Winning elections isn’t it. Getting close and then patting yourself on the back for the effort seems to be the extent of your electoral abilities.
“I get that this is the only way to justify the shoulda woulda couldas here.”
I should point out that I don’t like you when you’re acting like an asshole, as above. I’m not trying to justify anything. I was not a Bernie supporter, but a supporter of his agenda.
The error was made long ago, when the Democrats allowed the Clintons to clear the field for a poor candidate, both in 2008 and 2016. In 2008 we were saved by Obama, who nevertheless continued the neo-lib project, to Democrats’ long-term detriment.
You can’t seem to get past the politics-as-personality stage. She wasn’t a good candidate, and I’ll go further and say that the two pitiful campaigns she ran showed she wouldn’t be a good leader, either.
If you were “on my team,” you’d acknowledge it.
By the way, I think Joe Biden is a steaming pile of horseshit, much worse than Hillary, though he might have won the election (I’m not so sure of that). Does that fit in with the misogyny theory?
Try some self-directed critical thinking, and consider something you apparently never have before: You might be wrong.
My favorite part of this was your complaint that I wasn’t respecting you — as if disagreeing with you and pointing out your errors is disrespect.
You, on the other hand, disrespect every person who disagrees by blaming it on some “ism” or other. Your position is basically that once those isms are defeated, Utopia! It’s absurdly unrealistic and equivalent to what James Baker said about violence in the city: He couldn’t fix it because Society.
I acknowledge both my racism and misogyny, which I work to overcome. You, on the other hand, dismissively throw those charges around while failing to address the actual issues anyone might raise.
You need a severe reality check, sister. Your shit stinks the same as mine and everyone else’s.
The misogyny is insisting on Hillary Clinton needing to be perfect. And in continuing to need her as your litmus test.
I thought she was a perfectly fine candidate. Lots of people did. She still has more votes than the winner, you know. Better than Bernie, really and better than each of the GOP candidates. She was no where near as bad as John Kerry, but deciding that she needed to be as charming as either her husband or Obama is more of the misogyny. A key slice of Dem voters who did not show up because she was not promising ice cream is a much bigger problem than the “she’s a poor candidate” bullshit.
I should point out that I don’t like you when you’re acting like an asshole, as above.
And I should point out that you’ve never been able to intimidate me into any behavior changes just because you want to point out when you don’t like me. Your persona is routinely an asshole here and yet you think I am somehow supposed to care about this?
I’m not going to be on the team of anyone who isn’t able to make a clear-eyed assessment of the field. And as long as you are wrapped in Clinton Conspiracy Theories and the Neo-Liberalism boogeyman, you are decidedly not in the clear-eyed camp.
And here is some advice for you:
Try some self-directed critical thinking, and consider something you apparently never have before: You might be wrong.
the hillary wing cozied up to corporate power, which in turn left it free to practice identity politics. it’s not working. the winning democratic coalition will have to focus on economic equality and fight the corporate power, bernie-like. that’s the pragmatic approach against trumpism. doesn’t mean you leave the identity politics out, but dems will now need to accept incrementalism on that front or face big set-backs.
Where is Hillary now? She has disappeared and abandoned her supporters. I guess she and Bill have their millions from Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street to retreat to.
Obama and the Clintons have been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Hillary and her “I’m With Her” campaign had one job and all the money she needed to do it.
And she blew it.
She never should have run.
The results speak loudly. I don’t get the compulsion some have here to keep repeating themselves ad nauseum.
Further – will the Democratic Party make the same mistakes time and again? Yes. For as long as I’ve been paying attention and finger-pointing, bellyaching and complaining like you lot, they’ve been making the same mistakes. Guess what? The finger-pointing, bellyaching and complaining isn’t working. On to something new.
If it is talk, it is bullshit. It is useless to me.
If it is work, I will join you.
If I am commenting or posting here it is because I am between action items.
the hillary wing cozied up to corporate power, which in turn left it free to practice identity politics.
Awesome. Someone else not paying attention. Even though the worst form of identity politics is what won it for Trump.
Not even a little shocking:
Member of Trump’s Labor Department Transition Team Specializes in Recruiting Cheap H-2B Labor
The Clinton campaign’s breathless announcement (with pinkie-finger extended as they raised the “champagne glass” filled with elitist pride) in September (after three weeks of ignoring meaningful policy pronouncements or announcements) that the campaign raised an all-time record of $130 million in the month of August would certainly resonate with those common folks attracted by her “grew up outside of Chicago and lived in Arkansas for two decades” meme. Yeah that’s totally relatable to voters suffering from the economically disastrous ACA (easily made 100x better with the promise of providing a “public option” in her first term) or the failure to publicly announce/request that President Obama not consider imposing TPP until she assumes office with a stated intent to review that mess, or any kind of promise to review the need for constraints on the banking industry or corporate welfare programs. Instead her, her campaign and the ignoramuses of the DNC decided that any “grassroots” population, working-class, or needy family would rather here how efficient and effective they are in raising an obscene/record amount of money. Bernie didn’t lose this election, the working people didn’t lose this election, the ”purists” and the liberals didn’t lose this election and Trump didn’t win this election. The Clintons, their advisors and the DNC all conspired to throw away the easiest victory imaginable. As I heard Corey Booker say yesterday at a conference “we cannot allow a finite disappointment undermine our infinite hope” So get off your self-pitying “blame-train” and do something to repair this party of ours or just shut up
Representative John Kowalko
Look what “working class people” bought:
“Heads up homeowners: Mortgage interest deduction on Trump’s chopping block
i don’t think it’s so hard to understand. the neo-liberal democrats had two things: corporate support and an identity politics that led to a very progressive culture — gay marriage, obsession with gender fluidity, college students refusing to listen to any opposition, etc. — and to a popular/media culture in which a large segment insisted on 100 percent compliance right now with the progressive agenda. the corporate/wall street people didn’t stand in the way of that because the democrats supported them on economics, while the hillary wing was uncompromising on the identity front. so that wing lost because it ignored progressive economics in return for the other stuff. the other stuff, while worthy, was not enough and annoying to a lot of voters who had other concerns.
So… In short, they were not voting for Trump but against Lena Dunham. Got it.
Now on to the next thing. Progressive AND progressive culture. Not Progressive economics OR progressive culture.
lena dunham was a symptom. exactly. they voted against her even if they didn’t know who she was. and, yes, progressive culture did cost the democrats the election, since there was no progressive economics to go along with it. i think lena dunham is funny and self-deprecating (something some progressives might consider). but a lot of voters didn’t/wouldn’t. they might have gone democratic anyway if the economics had been addressed and the identity/culture stuff wasn’t stuffed down their throats. the trump voters we might have gotten are not exactly sophisticated.
Nope. Sorry. Until they see their error, the neoliberal Democrats are worse than useless. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you expect me to shut up again and fall in line behind people who led us over the cliff, forget it. Not gonna happen. And until they see the wrong turn they took, I’m not letting them drive — or at least, I’m not getting in the car.
Cassandra’s love for Hillary is identity politics at its worst. Hillary is a highly competent manager and well-qualified for the job — but so are thousands of people. I voted for her; my dislike for her politics has nothing to do with her gender. But the notion that it was time for a woman president, etc., is not about issues, it’s about identity, and 53% of white women rejected it.
They didn’t vote against Lena Dunham. They voted against Lena Dunham telling everyone else what’s OK to think and what’s not.
“Try some self-directed critical thinking, and consider something you apparently never have before: You might be wrong.”
I’ve admitted as much. You never have. Is a mirror that hard to install?
BTW, nobody insisted on perfection from Ms. Clinton. Competence. We insisted on competence in campaigning. She has, twice now, failed to deliver the goods.
Even if she had won, Democrats hold very few states because they stand for the status quo, which isn’t working in most states. This is bigger than Hillary Clinton.
ex-anonymous has settled this question with his last two comments.
Now I’m really not commenting anymore on it, but I’m sure there will always he a thread that someone can turn to this tired and useless topic. When that happens have fun with it.
not undefined. that was just me. i was only going to add this, re: having the identity/cultural stuffed down their throat: when was the last time you saw an oscar/grammy/emmy story on your favorite cultural website that didn’t worry more about the ethnicity or sexual orientation of the candidates than the quality of the work?
and one more time (sorry jason). my previous comment said it was from undefined, until it didn’t.
What the fuck is it with you guys? You are obsessed. It is unhealthy. Nobody can drop anything. Do you think you have more in common with Trump than you have with me because i happen to think Black lives matter? Holy Shit. Get over yourself.
Until the tired and useless argument is settled, we’re in no position to counter anything Trump does.
The good thing about this election was that it was going to destroy one of the parties. I expected it to be the REpublicans, with the Democrats self-destructing in 2020. All we’ve done is reverse the order — Republicans will be fighting each other tooth and nail (it’s already begun) and Democrats have nothing to say about it.
But watch how quickly the Democrats up for re-election in 2018 start humming Trump’s tune.
That’s the party you want us to coalesce behind? Forget it. At least Republicans make their ugly agenda plain. Democrats still hide behind their minority avatars. How can you question their economics when they’re so compassionate?
Supposedly we’re beyond arguing about the personalities. You cannot get beyond arguing about priorities.
Oh, and the proof that she’s a poor candidate? She lost. Twice.
If anybody comes here to simply push people’s buttons and troll one or two people because they get off on it, they will be banned. Liberals and conservatives alike. Trolling is trolling.
Add something to the conversation. Have an original thought, or you will be gone. No handwringing and no apologies.
And THAT is REALLY my last comment on this topic.
I’m obsessed because the point woman on this blog keeps insisting nothing went wrong, other than white people are racists and 53% of white women are misogynist.
This is not droppable. It’s about where the party goes from here. I’m quite capable of fighting a two-front war. Sorry you’re not, but I’ll shut up about this the moment I hear Cassandra acknowledge that it’s possible to win elections despite the inherent racism and misogyny of America.
Go ahead and ban me. Quite the majority party you’re putting together there.
I’m obsessed because the point woman on this blog keeps insisting nothing went wrong, other than white people are racists and 53% of white women are misogynist.
This is a misrepresentation of my argument. Of course. Because as you note here, the only way we get past this is for all of us to join you in your Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Not happening, buttercup.
And if this is the substance of your “resistance”, then you might as well just wait this round out at the Cracker Barrel.
so that wing lost because it ignored progressive economics in return for the other stuff.
What is so freakin’ funny about this is how all of you were crowing about Hillary “stealing” Bernie’s economic message. And how she kept going left to counter Bernie, which was ohsocool. And the most progressive platform in history, let’s not forget that. She never even had to pivot on that stuff and now — in hindsight that is largely about stewing in your juices — it is all about neo-liberalism.
Jesus. Get your acts together boys.
BTW, that “original thought” requirement? Does that go for the posters who say nothing beyond what I’ve read from 10,000 commenters on Daily Kos?
There’s a cartoon up today at DK in which Jen Sorensen, whom I usually really like, posits, “What if social justice movement tried not to offend anyone”?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/6/1607772/-Cartoon-If-social-justice-movements-tried-not-to-offend-anyone
This entirely misses the point. Elections are not social justice movements, they are exercises in marketing. We lost because we treated a presidential election like a social justice movement, in which anyone with a conscience should have voted against the child-monster. Yes, they should have, yet they didn’t. I can’t believe I have to keep pointing this out, but it didn’t work. Do you really think we should simply run on “Stronger Together” again?
I’m serious here — what’s the party’s next move? Because from what I’ve seen, the Hillary folks have nothing. They propose no changes at all. We still have Republican-in-all-but-name Steny Hoyer in the House leadership, to go along with the other septuagenarians in charge. We’re about to install a Muslim as DNC chair — that ought to placate the white racists/anti-Muslim voters, eh?
This is the state of the party post-Clintons. But yeah, you’re right, it’s not worth talking about. I guess you want to make sure we learn nothing from this.
Why is it Clinton Derangement Syndrome to note the wreckage of the Democratic Party and point out that the Clintons have been at the wheel of the party for 25 years except for the Obama Interregnum?
Time to come clean: How are Democrats going to win the next election in such a racist, misogynist country?
How is my statement a misrepresentation of your views? You have consistently said the other side offered “free ice cream,” as if Democrats have never promised anything they couldn’t deliver — say, an America with social justice in our lifetimes. It’s a project we’ve barely begun after 400 years, but you seem to be saying we can’t move forward until the work is completed — and that election campaigns must be about that work.
Please explain how and when that will win an election in a white-majority country. Also please explain how pointing out the horrible misogyny of Trump resulted in 53% of white women voting against Hillary.
Double bind. Anonymous is trolling, and he’s correct. Personally I’m embarrassed. Good news is this is helping me reckon psychologicaliy with the outcome. We totally deserved this. I get it now. I’m still resolved to resist, in spite of you.
I am not trolling. This is the most important issue we face. Resistance comes easy, and I’m totally in favor of it. Navigating the course from here is hard, and I’m determined to work on it despite people who can’t face the fact that their idea of the best candidate is not universal. And we can’t work on it until we face it.
Virtually every person of color I have heard talk about this election has written it off as racism. It’s a bogus argument. The same 60 million racists always vote Republican. The election turned on 1) voter suppression and 2) about a quarter-million white voters who stayed home. The first was racism. The second was a failure to motivate people who actually have every reason to vote for you.
The racism argument is easy to buy into. There are statistics to back it up (just as there are statistics to back up the anti-neolib argument). But it’s the same as Jim Baker saying he can’t stop gun crime in Wilmington until racism and poverty are defeated. If you’re counting on demographics, all I can point out is that Trump outperformed Romney among blacks and Hispanics.
Democrats — not just Hillary, but the useless centrist Democrats we elect in Delaware, too — have got to offer something more than platitudes about a multi-ethnic society. But they refuse to challenge corporate America because 1) corporate America backs their social causes and 2) they don’t think they can get the money anywhere else.
For 25 years Democrats followed the Third Way. This is where it got them — no power, no prospects, nobody to carry the banner in 2020.
Why some people think this isn’t worth talking about befuddles me. Yes, it’s painful, but we ignored it for 25 years and this is where it got us. Not talking about it now just allows it to fester some more.
One other thing: I think Black Lives Matter is vitally important. But I didn’t hear Hillary, or any other national candidate, embracing it. Apparently we’re willing to trim the social justice message when it’s obvious it will cause controversy. All I’m suggesting is that when marketing to white people, it’s probably counter-productive to talk about empowering minorities and who goes to which rest room.
Why this is a controversial statement also puzzles me.
Oh, and Jason: If this topic is so unappealing, why has it gotten more comments than anything else for days?
I posted my opinion. Nobody had to respond to it; most of my comments pass without response. So stop pretending that I’m the only one who “can’t get over” the future of the Democratic Party.
jason, all you want to do is point out all the ways trump is bad. we can all see that. generally, your frame of reference is a little narrow. the point is to understand why we lost so we don’t do it again.
It’s trolling only because it’s abundantly clear some aren’t ready to hear what’s up. Continuing is gratuitous.
If comrades like Cassandra don’t come off this argument and locate the plot, we are what the lads in East London refer to as proper fucked.
The fact that your critisism of Clinton was called misogynist three times is certainly not promising.
Elections are not social justice movements, they are exercises in marketing.
Tell that to LBJ.
And it isn’t as though this campaign was a social justice movement. So you can stop trying to lie about that too.
If comrades like Cassandra don’t come off this argument and locate the plot,
Drinking the Kool-Aid is not my core competency.
@anonymous: the point is to understand why we lost so we don’t do it again
I don’t think so. And I think this is what people are missing in jason’s message.
There isn’t going to be another election like this last one if Trump has anything to do with it. Control of the majority of state legislatures virtually guarantees continuing gerrymandering of election districts, and certainly guarantees that Quixotic quests like eliminating the electoral college or having compacts to have electors vote the for national winner will be non-starters.
Instead, it’s time to fight voter suppression measures, which helped Trump win in key states. It’s time to fight for the right to parody this bastard or lecture the VP on Broadway. It’s time to actually secure that a next election happens …
And if you think I’m nuts, you’re not paying attention. I’m with jason.
@Steve: And exactly whom is going to fight those voter-suppression measures now that they’re in place? Even more the case then that if Democrats can’t get 40% of the white vote, we’re all fucked. Even more the case that if we depend on the decency of the white majority, we’re all fucked.
Mark Sumner of DK finally puts in print what I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to say:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/6/1607893/-Amazon-s-robot-store-is-why-Trump-won
We must start the conversation on what happens post-capitalism, which is ending whether any of us wants it to or not. People without jobs cannot buy the goods produced, no matter how cheaply.
I am looking at the future, Steve. I’m cautioning against throwing in with corporations because they are the cause of this problem and are therefore not going to be interested in finding any solution.
I agree with anti-corporatism, and with the idea that traditional industrial capitalism is done.
But I’m saying you’re fighting the last war. State contests are inherently different from presidential elections. We’re never going to have another presidential election like this one. So there’s not that much point to this endless circular firing squad post-mortem.
“Tell that to LBJ.”
I don’t believe you were alive at the time. I was. LBJ passed civil rights over the still-warm body of the dead president. At any other time in our history pragmatism among elected officials would have prevented its passage.
From the JFK library site:
“Later that fall, the comprehensive civil rights bill cleared several hurdles in Congress and won the endorsement of House and Senate Republican leaders. It was not passed, however, before November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated. The bill was left in the hands of Lyndon B. Johnson. Before becoming vice president, Johnson had served more than two decades in Congress as a congressman and senator from Texas. He used his connections with southern white congressional leaders, and with the assistance of Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department and the outpouring of emotion after the president’s assassination, the Civil Rights Act was passed as a way to honor President Kennedy.”
Your arguments would improve if you knew what you were talking about, but once your dander is up you’re hopeless.
“And it isn’t as though this campaign was a social justice movement. So you can stop trying to lie about that too.”
This was written in response to the cartoon, which specifically makes the connection. You are intellectually dishonest now as well, demonstrating that you will do anything at all except acknowledge error.
That’s why you are doomed to fail, as you have amply demonstrated.
Steve: “there’s not that much point to this endless circular firing squad post-mortem.”
The hell there isn’t. The idiots who lost the election are still breathing, and still spreading their toxic vision of “liberalism.”
If they didn’t want an argument, all they have to do is not respond when someone points out that they’re losers. But they can’t do it. They were right, dammit, no matter what the scoreboard says, and they will fight forever rather than admit it.
All they have to do is say they were wrong and I’ll stop. Until then, I’m sure they’ll just ban me. Because that’s what liberals do.
And even though the GOP cooperated with the passage of that bill, who did they nominate for President in 1964? Goldwater. Who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who started collecting up Southern Dixiecrats who were operating from their own “identity politics”. Of course, the last Dem with significant Southern support was Bill Clinton (gasp!) and the logical successor to the white identity politics sparked by the CRA is Donald Trump.
I don’t care if you were alive then, but if you are confused about what point I am making you should just ask. And stop telling me what I mean. Because you *are* failing at that, like pretty much else, really.
All they have to do is say they were wrong and I’ll stop.
Not wrong. And I won’t be bullied into your grievances, either.
So that Amazon robot store? We did this already.
It started with Clinton Derangement Syndrome and the moronic critique of “identity politics” and then we get to the economic message. Same dance as here. From someone insists on “better messaging” but can’t imagine what that might look like. If the Resistance is about making HRC fans admit they are losers, you are absolutely involved in the wrong project here. You just want to beat people up and are pissed off that they refuse to be. If the Resistance is about countering the damage that Trump and his kleptocracy is going to do, you aren’t going to get there by insisting on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution with you in charge of both the re-education and the purges.
You are hugely mistaken if you think that anyone here is going to stand still for that bullshit.
Cassandra – You’ve got to be kidding. I’m going to chalk this up to some strange Andy Kaufman performance art type of thing.
We lost but you don’t want to “admit they are losers.” Frankly, I didn’t want anyone to ‘admit’ anything necessarily, but writing and acting like Clinton didn’t in point of fact lose is borderline behavior. There are rules. There’s an election. People vote. There’s a winner and we weren’t it. Do you have another word for that outcome you’d prefer us to use, like x-gendered election queer?
Your ridiculous indignation would be an absolute laugh-riot to me if a lot people weren’t counting on you to have your shit together. I’m really hoping this just a thing your doing to get your frustration out on the internet.
Cassandra_m, the undeniable fact is the Obama, the Clintons, and the Democrats selected by their team have failed politically by every measurable way. Under their political leadership, the Democrats have lost the House, lost the Senate, lost Governorships, lost State Houses, and now lost the Presidency.
After firing Howard Dean, Obama’s picks for DNC Chairs, Tim Kaine and Wasserman-Shulz were terrible. Just look at the numbers. Hillary ran an uninspiring “run-out-the-clock” campaign, failed to strategize about winning key states (same thing she did in primary against Obama), and then lost.
Those are the facts. Stop making excuses and deal with it by admitting that the politicians that you have supported so adamantly have undeniably failed the Democratic Party and set back the cause of liberal progressive politics for decades, if not forever.
And then let’s move on together with new leaders.
it’s the identity politics crew that has wanted (implicitly) the purges and the “re-education.” you don’t like it when it’s called political correctness, but whatever you call it it led us down the wrong path. yes, it is smug and annoying when you think nobody has a right to disagree with your vision of what’s right. we expect that from the other side, but liberals like to think they are rational and (i would hope) pragmatic. even now, you won’t give up a little for the chance to get a lot — an absence of trumpism by way of economic equality for all. progressives have made great strides culturally but it backfires when you think everybody must agree 100 percent all the time with your agenda.
Your ridiculous indignation would be an absolute laugh-riot to me if a lot people weren’t counting on you to have your shit together.
You are free to keep this up, but I’ll let you know when you are in this conversation, deal?
progressives have made great strides culturally but it backfires when you think everybody must agree 100 percent all the time with your agenda.
You are just trolling here. No one requires anyone to agree 100 percent of the time with whatever my agenda is.
But here you are insisting that we all bow down to the toxic identity politics that Trump and his supporters have been insisting on this entire campaign. You go fix that — and the need to have people agree 100 percent with it — and we can talk.
“you aren’t going to get there by insisting on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution with you in charge of both the re-education and the purges.”
You’re projecting again. I’m telling you why identity politics was a flop with whites. You’re insisting it wasn’t, despite the total destruction of the party.
We’ll see who’s right. Goodbye.