What do American *Democrats stand for*?

[Derec]

But the Democrats and especially the liberals in the party don't seem to be interested in economics.

I think the opposition to pipelines is a good example of this.
Obama initially supported an "all of the above" approach to energy. That meant, yes climate change is real, and yes, we need to get away from fossil fuels in the long run, but at the same time we will need oil for the foreseeable future and it's a good thing to produce it domestically and get it from Canada rather than to rely on KSA, Iran or Venezuela.
But the big environment pushed against these programs. Building pipelines creates jobs, and DAPL in particular makes Bakken more competitive, creating jobs there as well. But Obama administration caved to those who can afford to abandon their jobs for months at the time to camp out in North Dakota.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Clinton's tried to implement universal health care, came up a little short...

... mainly because they tried to spin it as (and it basically was) a Medicare expansion that everyone would want to opt out of anyway. And then at the first sign of pushback from conservatives the DNC spent the next year and a half apologizing to America for even bothering to bring it up.

It is, if nothing else, a message-control issue: Democrats don't think liberals are active enough to vote for them, so they run away from liberal policies to avoid alienating centrists and conservatives. Problem is, centrists want to hear clear options and conservatives never vote for them anyway, so when you run on a campaign that seeks to be ambiguous about what its core principals even ARE, even the independents don't think you have anything meaningful to offer.

I'm sorry but democrats want to win.

Then they need to offer those who MIGHT vote for them something more coherent than "The other guys are terrible." If people think you're actually going to DO something for them, they'll invest some time and energy to support you. If you don't offer them anything at all except "I can't help you, I can only try and mostly fail to stop the other guys from harming you" they're probably going to just ignore you.

If Democrats really want to win elections they have to give people reasons to WANT to vote for them. What are they actually offering on that score?

The only way that we can take the country back from Trump is to win the most votes. And that means targeting voters that will vote and act flacky on election day.

Therein lies the problem: alot more people will go out of their way to vote FOR something than will go out to vote AGAINST something. If you're assuming that hatred for Trump is the best the Democrats can offer, then you're assuming that enough people in this country will say "I don't like or care about the democrats or their platform, but anything's better than trump so..." That is a GREAT way to lose an election.

Give people something to vote FOR, and they'll make sure their voices are heard. People are looking for solutions, not saviors.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Republicans have so thoroughly brainwashed their supporters that they have convinced them people like Obama and the Clintons are communists.

Which, again, begs the question: What fucking sense does it make to try and avoid being pegged as a "liberal" to people who think OBAMA of all people is a Communist? If you're going to get accused of that anyway, you might as well run an ACTUAL socialist on the ticket and try to get the college vote riled up.

 

[ksen]

I'm sorry but democrats want to win.

Apparently they don't actually want to win since they are continuing to act the same way that caused them to lose around 1,000 elected positions nationwide over the last 8 or so years.

 

[untermensche]

...But the Democrats and especially the liberals in the party don't seem to be interested in economics.

When the Republicans say "economics" it simply means lower taxes on the rich.

It means nothing else.

They have no other "economic" plans.

Massive spending in research and development by the government keeps the US economy afloat. Most of this spending is in the Defense Department. Yes, defending from economic collapse.

The myth of the so-called "free market" is a cruel joke the rich play on us all.

And they have many dim witted lackeys that sing their tune.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The Republicans have so thoroughly brainwashed their supporters that they have convinced them people like Obama and the Clintons are communists.

Which, again, begs the question: What fucking sense does it make to try and avoid being pegged as a "liberal" to people who think OBAMA of all people is a Communist? If you're going to get accused of that anyway, you might as well run an ACTUAL socialist on the ticket and try to get the college vote riled up.

Exactly.

Same here with Labour.

The rightwing propaganda machine has hit upon an annoyingly effective trick : No matter how moderate the guy on the "left" is, call him looney leftie, Comrade Blair/Brown/Obama, Marxist etc. Enough ordinary voters who don't really know or care about ideology, but instinctively fear extremes, buy it.

The right is exploiting status quo bias to implement radical change. The left has been walking into that trap for 30 years and is now being lead off a cliff.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm sorry but democrats want to win.

Apparently they don't actually want to win since they are continuing to act the same way that caused them to lose around 1,000 elected positions nationwide over the last 8 or so years.

How should they act? We don't even know who will run in the future. I very much doubt that Sanders or Clinton will run again in 2020. I will vote for the person who has the best chance of beating Trump.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hillary is a policy wonk. That should be a good thing. And I've heard people ask/say, "What was her message?" And it's not unreasonable to ask that because Trump's surreal behavior during the debates completely took the focus off what had always been the most impactful way for a candidate to get their message out. This time around though, Hillary would be talking, but the rest of the world was saying to each other, "Did you hear what that crazy motherfucker just said? Look! what's he doing now? Why's he walking around on the stage behind her?!?!?" Then it would be his turn to bloviate about some more crazy bullshit.

I don't like to admit it, but I the only thing I remember Hillary saying during any of the debates was when she called him a puppet. And the only reason I remember that was Trump's hilarious/stupid/frustrated 4 year-old's response: "No puppet, no puppet... you're the puppet!"

In retrospect, we needed a candidate with tremendous comedic wit, but John Stewart wasn't running.

As to going back to the left, I think that's the ticket. Universal healthcare and a promise to college students that they'll get some debt relief. Then go on the attack against Republicans. Attack works. People cry about negativity, but at the same time, they love it.

Quick dork note: FDR did win a 4th term as POTUS but died shortly taking the oath of office that fourth time.

I agree. We need a very charismatic person who's great with the media. I'm favoring Marc Cuban right now. People aren't inspired by a policy wonk. Both HRC and Sanders were too boring. HRC got far more popular votes than Sanders. I'm not against going more left, but it has to be with the right candidate. To me, the most important issue by far is the environment. We only have one planet. We need to put the scientists back to work in the government.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Bernie Sanders has recently announced that he will not seek election as president in 2020. Biden and Elizabeth Warren will all be in their 70's. I don't see a new wave of progressives yet stepping up on the national political stage. The DCCC is up to their old tricks, short changing the few progressives running for the few races going on now.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bernie Sanders has recently announced that he will not seek election as president in 2020. Biden and Elizabeth Warren will all be in their 70's. I don't see a new wave of progressives yet stepping up on the national political stage. The DCCC is up to their old tricks, short changing the few progressives running for the few races going on now.

Could you give an example of who is being short changed? Do you mean they are not supporting with campaign money? I also don't see a new wave of dems coming up. But it's still early....

 

[funinspace]

But the Democrats and especially the liberals in the party don't seem to be interested in economics.

I think the opposition to pipelines is a good example of this.
Obama initially supported an "all of the above" approach to energy. That meant, yes climate change is real, and yes, we need to get away from fossil fuels in the long run, but at the same time we will need oil for the foreseeable future and it's a good thing to produce it domestically and get it from Canada rather than to rely on KSA, Iran or Venezuela.
But the big environment pushed against these programs. Building pipelines creates jobs, and DAPL in particular makes Bakken more competitive, creating jobs there as well. But Obama administration caved to those who can afford to abandon their jobs for months at the time to camp out in North Dakota.

I think you do have a point, even if I'm not really a fan of encouraging the use of even more shale. I have other preferences, but they are even more DOA in our political climate. The Dums could have taken on the abuse of the H-1B and H-2B visa programs by insisting they actually pay higher than prevailing wages to those rocket scientists or cooks, waiters, and housekeepers they claim they can't find. Ironically, the H-1B visa program may finally see some reforms under Don the Con. The Dums could have added a COLA mechanism the last minimum wage increase, but seem to prefer to keep the topic around as useful bully club every so often.

More Don the Con in private action with H-2B visas:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/30...gn-workers-to-staff-private-resort-in-florida

Donald Trump will hire foreign workers to staff the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., this winter — as he did last year.

According to the Palm Beach Post, Trump won approval from the U.S. Labor Department in October to hire 64 foreign workers through the H-2B visa program, which allows eligible U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals to fill temporary jobs.
Trump hired 69 workers through the same program last year.

 

[SimpleDon]

But the Democrats and especially the liberals in the party don't seem to be interested in economics.

I think the opposition to pipelines is a good example of this.
Obama initially supported an "all of the above" approach to energy. That meant, yes climate change is real, and yes, we need to get away from fossil fuels in the long run, but at the same time we will need oil for the foreseeable future and it's a good thing to produce it domestically and get it from Canada rather than to rely on KSA, Iran or Venezuela.
But the big environment pushed against these programs. Building pipelines creates jobs, and DAPL in particular makes Bakken more competitive, creating jobs there as well. But Obama administration caved to those who can afford to abandon their jobs for months at the time to camp out in North Dakota.

Opposing pipelines indeed doesn't make any sense. Pipelines are the safest, most economical way to transport oil. The few problems that we have had recently with gasoline pipelines have been with pipelines built during the second world war out of generally poor quality steel, mainly construction accidents while replacing them.

The largest number of jobs created by the pipeline are the construction jobs. Once the pipeline is operational it actually costs jobs of course, since the alternative method of transporting the oil is by rail, a more labor intensive method than the pipeline.

I think that the opposition from liberals to the pipelines has little to do with their concerns for the spirits of Indian ancestors. They are protesting the use of fossil fuels in general and oil from the oil sands specifically. This demonstrates a profound lack of understanding economics on two points. First that preventing the pipeline is attempting to impose an artificial constraint between the supply of the oil and the demand for it. It does nothing to reduce either the supply or the demand for the oil.

This is an all too common fallacy. Look at building a wall to reduce illegal immigration or fighting a war on drugs by relying only on trying to prevent the smuggling of the drugs and making the sales and consumption illegal. Neither work very well because they don't deal with the supply of and the demand for cheap labor and recreational drugs.

The second thing that the protests against the pipeline demonstrates about their lack of understanding of economics is that once the tremendous investment is made to recover the oil from the oil sands it acquires a life of its own. That no matter what constraints are put in its way that oil is going to be recovered, refined and burned. That the initial investment is most of the cost of recovering the oil and that in order to protect their investment they have to sell their oil.

I hope that you didn't have any problems from the violent storms that we had yesterday. We lost power for about seven hours and had a few branches come down, but otherwise came through it alright.

 

[SimpleDon]

...But the Democrats and especially the liberals in the party don't seem to be interested in economics.

When the Republicans say "economics" it simply means lower taxes on the rich.

It means nothing else.

They have no other "economic" plans.

Massive spending in research and development by the government keeps the US economy afloat. Most of this spending is in the Defense Department. Yes, defending from economic collapse.

The myth of the so-called "free market" is a cruel joke the rich play on us all.

And they have many dim witted lackeys that sing their tune.

This is all correct. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats can't craft a winning set of messaging in opposition to the Republican idea of economics, which is lower wages and higher profits. Instead they have more or less accepted the Republican economics, which since it is the only thing that the establishment Republicans are interested in means that you have lost the battle before you have even fired a shot, excuse my war reference.

Let's try to help them:

1. The economy will only improve for all when the wages of the middle class go up.
2. Working for a living has been depreciated in favor of profits, it is time to change this.
3. The causes of our huge budget deficits are the tax cuts for the rich, not spending, not Social Security, not Medicare.
4. Those who gain the most from our economy should have to pay the most in taxes.
5. Health care is no longer a luxury reserved only for those who can afford to pay for it.
6. The main problem with health care today is the high cost of it, two to three times the costs in other countries.
7. This is the greatest accomplishment of the ACA, besides expanding coverage to millions, constraining the costs of medical care.
8. The marketplace can't do everything efficiently, this why we have government, government run well means that the economy runs well.
9. The Republicans have proven time and again that they can't run the government well, that they believe that fiscal responsibility is to reduce Social Security benefits and Medicare.

And please, please, tone down the identity politics and the support for abortion. These things bring a smile to the Republican establishment, leaving them with little more to do to cleave their potentional opposition apart, the middle class.

The best that we can do for women and minorities is to raise all of the boats of an expanding middle class by raising wages. They can't do this fighting among themselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When the Republicans say "economics" it simply means lower taxes on the rich.

It means nothing else.

They have no other "economic" plans.

Massive spending in research and development by the government keeps the US economy afloat. Most of this spending is in the Defense Department. Yes, defending from economic collapse.

The myth of the so-called "free market" is a cruel joke the rich play on us all.

And they have many dim witted lackeys that sing their tune.

This is all correct. Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats can't craft a winning set of messaging in opposition to the Republican idea of economics, which is lower wages and higher profits.

Because the Republicans are better at creating a narrative. Remember Death Panels?
Hell, the Republican AM sycophants got hundreds of thousands to protest across the nation against Obama because.... well... he was a Democrat.

30 to 40% of the nation are terribly misinformed, another 30 to 40% just don't know what is going on at all. The math is frightening!

And please, please, tone down the identity politics and the support for abortion.

You mean one of the more important thing for a woman, the access to birth control? Because that is next. Republicans were all but outlawing abortion in some states. Someone needs to stop that. And luckily, thanks to the latest SCOTUS decision, those methods have been stricken.

The best that we can do for women and minorities is to raise all of the boats of an expanding middle class by raising wages. They can't do this fighting among themselves.

Clinton oversaw the largest non-wartime economic boom, Obama oversaw the recovery of the worst economy in nearly 100 years, yet they both lost. Why? The Republicans have convinced people the sky is white at night time. It is becoming very clear that this war with the Republicans is near an end, and we lost.