Chair of the House Democratic Caucus defeated in primaries by Socialist

[mark46]

Your understanding of politics is much different than mine. The choice of 2016 candidate had nothing to do with health care policy. Sanders was judged to have little or no chance to win, and the judgment was that he would be a poor draw at the top of the Democratic ticket, since he wasn't even a Democrat.

That will fixed next time; also here will be no super delegates voting on the first ballot.

If the Democrats try to choose candidates that meet national policy goals, they will fail yet again, as they did when Obama was leading the party. As Tip us to teach, all politics in local. Most "progressives" don't understand that. They also don't understand what it takes to win a presidential election.

However, the progressive wing of the party does tend to control the choice of candidates after losses to the Republicans. This has given us candidates like McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and even Kerry. when the party understands the Boston-Austin axis of the party, it has won with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill and Clinton. It took a mess-up in ballot printing to beat Gore (as well as the Catholic and evangelical churches preaching from the pulpits that voting for him was sinful). Clinton would have won in 2008, but the country was so tired of Bush's wars that Obama was elected. And, of course, Obama was right of center compared with the progressive wing who was furious with him over his deportation policies, his
drone policies, his support of the intelligence communities and his acceptance of Romneycare.

But the candidates issue is where this is at. The DNC already showed favoritism against a candidate (Bernie) who is the champion of medicare for all. The current DNC chair Perez has also been reluctant to go for medicare for all, though he said if he were king for a day he would consider it. Ellison, the challenger for the position, is a leading proponent.

The candidate in the OP worked with the Bernie campaign, and also runs on a socialist ticket. This is partly a rejection of the establishment leadership of the DNC.

And the DNC continues to influence candidate selection in New York.

Perez, DNC chairman, said back in March:

“What we do at the DNC is we don’t get involved in heavily contested primaries, and the DCCC does,” Perez said in March on CNN.

But then he endorsed Cuomo in the NY governor primary.

DNC chairman Perez endorses Cuomo and roils liberal activists


The more progressive wing wants to run new, less established, less corporate candidates, on the basis of grass roots momentum. In order to do this part of their rhetoric is that not all Democrats are the same. Not all are slow to endorse progressive ideas, such as Perez, Pelosi, etc.
And they want to make sure that progressives running will not be worked against by the national structure.

 

[tall73]

Your understanding of politics is much different than mine. The choice of 2016 candidate had nothing to do with health care policy. Sanders was judged to have little or no chance to win, and the judgment was that he would be a poor draw at the top of the Democratic ticket, since he wasn't even a Democrat.

I am not indicating that the choice was made on the basis of health care policy. I am saying that the fact that the party was largely seen to be influencing the outcome caused a backlash. And clearly the party higher ups were not acting only on the basis of which candidate was best, because they had a financial arrangement with the Clinton campaign due to their indebtedness from early on.

That will fixed next time; also here will be no super delegates voting on the first ballot.

Some of the mechanics may be fixed next time, but I don't think those who favor more progressive candidates will be as willing to trust leadership going forward. The candidate in the OP played on that in her message, as well as common support among the voters for policies such as healthcare, etc.

If the Democrats try to choose candidates that meet national policy goals, they will fail yet again, as they did when Obama was leading the party. As Tip us to teach, all politics in local. Most "progressives" don't understand that. They also don't understand what it takes to win a presidential election.

Apparently it takes more than someone with high negatives and a long history of accepting money from various interests, such as Clinton.

However, the progressive wing of the party does tend to control the choice of candidates after losses to the Republicans. This has given us candidates like McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and even Kerry. when the party understands the Boston-Austin axis of the party, it has won with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill and Clinton. It took a mess-up in ballot printing to beat Gore (as well as the Catholic and evangelical churches preaching from the pulpits that voting for him was sinful). Clinton would have won in 2008, but the country was so tired of Bush's wars that Obama was elected. And, of course, Obama was right of center compared with the progressive wing who was furious with him over his deportation policies, his
drone policies, his support of the intelligence communities and his acceptance of Romneycare.

So you think that the party will run on nationalized health care in 2020 or so. But you don't want progressives running the show. How do you think this will come about then? The establishment is not interested, in this or a number of other progressive issues.

 

[tall73]

As Tip us to teach, all politics in local. Most "progressives" don't understand that. They also don't understand what it takes to win a presidential election.

I thought we were talking in this thread about how this progressive did know politics were local, and won on that basis?

So you expect those who support progressive policies to listen to you say they can't win, and expect them to give up on the notion of a candidate who reflects the issues they care about, but still go along with the party?

This is why many progressives are considering leaving the Democratic party. If the Democrat party thinks the ideas of progressives are useless they may as well start their own movement that values their ideas.

They can at least fail as well as Clinton, and perhaps spend less doing it.

 

[Abraxos]

Personally, I think those on the Left are slowly but surely in some sort of awakening. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't campaign on talking about Trump 99% of the time, she campaigned on a message for Americans and provided solutions she believed will help Americans and others. This resonated with many millennials, so it's not so much that there is a trend towards socialism, but that there is a reorganising on the Left, and that people on the Left are getting tired of the Democratic establishment's message of resist and carry on with business as usual. They want change they believe is good for America and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was hitting those notes instead of Trump this and Trump that.

So the Democratic leaders such as the Nancy Pelosi's and the Chuck Schumers of the past think they can remain conservative on their stances against Trump and keep to the talking points about him and his supporters, they may get another shock to the system as they did back in November 2016.

 

[mark46]

In certain districts, progressives are in the majority or close. In other districts, a progressive WOULD NOT REPRESENT the people of the district. I understand that folks want their views supported regardless of the view of the people.

I thought we were talking in this thread about how this progressive did know politics were local, and won on that basis?

So you expect those who support progressive policies to listen to you say they can't win, and expect them to give up on the notion of a candidate who reflects the issues they care about, but still go along with the party?

This is why many progressives are considering leaving the Democratic party. If the Democrat party thinks the ideas of progressives are useless they may as well start their own movement that values their ideas.

They can at least fail as well as Clinton, and perhaps spend less doing it.

 

[mark46]

I'm a center-right Democrat; I also agree with everything that you said.

With regard to national leadership, we need a leadership that meet the needs of progressive and conservative districts. Also, they must be able to look to the future.

IMHO, 2018-2022 will provide progressives the chances they want. I have little faith that the result will be any different than when they gave us McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry and even Sanders. The Party must rebuild in every state in the next 6 years to compete locally and for the presidency in 2024. Obama's leadership lost us 1000 state and local offices. Leadership from Sanders, Warren and the rest is not likely to give us better. We need a young governor to run in 2024.

Personally, I think those on the Left are slowly but surely in some sort of awakening. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't campaign on talking about Trump 99% of the time, she campaigned on a message for Americans and provided solutions she believed will help Americans and others. This resonated with many millennials, so it's not so much that there is a trend towards socialism, but that there is a reorganising on the Left, and that people on the Left are getting tired of the Democratic establishment's message of resist and carry on with business as usual. They want change they believe is good for America and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was hitting those notes instead of Trump this and Trump that.

So the Democratic leaders such as the Nancy Pelosi's and the Chuck Schumers of the past think they can remain conservative on their stances against Trump and keep to the talking points about him and his supporters, they may get another shock to the system as they did back in November 2016.

 

[KCfromNC]

Democrats lost 1000 seats under Obama's leadership, and 50 have come back. You believing that this is a strong trend. Please post when we are back to where we were when Obama was elected.
=======
And yes, I do recognize that at least one state is moving toward the Democrats since Trump's election: Virginia.

See also : Alabama.

 

[mark46]

I disagree. Alabama is NOT moving into Democratic hands. It took several enormous errors the the ARP as well as a criminal candidate. With these mistakes, the Republicans could have lost a race in any state.

See also : Alabama.

 

[KCfromNC]

I disagree. Alabama is NOT moving into Democratic hands. It took several enormous errors the the ARP as well as a criminal candidate. With these mistakes, the Republicans could have lost a race in any state.

It may be mistakes on the R side compounded the problem, but it is certainly consistent with a pretty hard swing to the D side seen in polling around the nation.

 

[mark46]

I agree that there has definitely been a swing toward the Democratic Party since Trump's election.

It may be mistakes on the R side compounded the problem, but it is certainly consistent with a pretty hard swing to the D side seen in polling around the nation.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm a center-right Democrat; I also agree with everything that you said.

With regard to national leadership, we need a leadership that meet the needs of progressive and conservative districts. Also, they must be able to look to the future.

IMHO, 2018-2022 will provide progressives the chances they want. I have little faith that the result will be any different than when they gave us McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry and even Sanders. The Party must rebuild in every state in the next 6 years to compete locally and for the presidency in 2024. Obama's leadership lost us 1000 state and local offices. Leadership from Sanders, Warren and the rest is not likely to give us better. We need a young governor to run in 2024.

A center-right Democrat, Huh? I thought you sounded rather like William Buckley--and that's what things have come to, alas.

 

[mark46]

A center-right Democrat, Huh? I thought you sounded rather like William Buckley--and that's what things have come to, alas.

Yup. I was a Humphrey Democrat, a Bill Clinton Democrat, and yellow dog Democrat. I've never voted for a Republican, although I did fail to vote for McGovern and Dukakis.

I recall when the so-called liberals wouldn't support the champion of liberalism in the US in 1968, certainly from the time of his speech for civil rights at the 1948 convention.
I learned that cycle that the Democratic was capable of being taken over by the left, who really had no interest in winning, and no commitment to the party of Roosevelt.

The left was happy to take over the party in 1968, after they caused the defeat of Humphrey (the election was close). A New Deal Democratic won in 1980. Of course, as Reagan said, the party had long ago deserted what he stood for. The country did well in the golden years between 1980-2000 (under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton). Democrats and Republicans worked together. They drank together after work. Their families were friends. Things got done. That era ended with a budget surplus. I recall the laws that were passed as Keenly worked so well with Dole.

And then came the debacle of the 2000 election where the religious right and the Catholic Church defeated Gore from the pulpit. Gore almost pulled it out, and would have if the FL ballot had been properly counted. As Buchanan said, many folks who were counted as Buchanan voters, really intended to vote for Gore. On Bush's watch, we had the wars and the deepest recession since 1929. We haven't recovered.
=======
So, yes, I'm a Humphrey and Bill Clinton Democrat. I'm well to the right of center in the current Democratic Party. Similarly, Reagan Republicans are significantly at the left of the Republican Party.

We may see a re-allignment with the Republicans continuing to be the Buchanan/Trump party. Perhaps, that's permanent, perhaps not. There were at least a dozen Republican who could have beaten Clinton. They chose someone who almost lost, needing LOTS of help. The Tea Party that gave them the House and Senate couldn't get any of their candidates nominated. There are lots and lots of tea Party Republicans who were ready to usher in a new age for the Republican Party: Walker, Rubio, Kasich, Scott, Haley and lots, lots more (even Cruz).
==================
And YES, after all these years, I could vote for and be part of a Republican Party led by Rubio, Scott and Haley (and Kasick). I will always remember a campaign rally where the three were on the podium in SC in a last ditch effort to stop Trump. It was too late in 2016. One can only hope that the TRP won't last.

 

[mark46]

A center-right Democrat, Huh? I thought you sounded rather like William Buckley--and that's what things have come to, alas.

BTW, I really liked William Buckley.

 

[Speedwell]

BTW, I really liked William Buckley.

I thought you might. I used to be a Republican. I'm a machinist; my whole family, father, uncles and grandfather were in skilled trades. Back then, the GOP was the party of business and we knew what side our bread was buttered on and voted Republican to a man. Then the Dixiecrats evangelized the Republican party and they got religion. But they were also a party which could actually govern. Now what we have is a shambles. (Not that Republicans have to take the whole blame.)

 

[Gigimo]

It's interesting that they have to deceive in order to present themselves as this progressive, harmless political entity.

Which they're not.

 

[Gigimo]

She's going to be fun.

View attachment 232201 View attachment 232202

What the New York primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez means

The widely circulated campaign video narrated by the candidate falsely presents her as a typical young woman of the working class for whom “going into politics wasn’t in the plan.” Actually, Ocasio-Cortez was groomed for a career in Democratic Party politics. As soon as she graduated from Boston University, she was recruited to work in the office of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. Then, after a few years running a business start-up in the Bronx, she became a full-time organizer for the Sanders presidential campaign, laying the groundwork for her successful run for a congressional seat.

Her campaign sought to combine invocations of identity politics—Crowley is 56, white and male, Ocasio-Cortez is 28, Hispanic and female—with a broader appeal to a district that is largely working class but very mixed racially, and with a huge immigrant population. In her campaign video and other materials, Ocasio-Cortez invariably describes herself as “working class” and claims to defend the interests of working people against corporate influence.

But using the term “working class” is by no means the same thing as advocating a program that meets the needs of workers. In class terms, she represents a section of the petty bourgeoisie, particularly Hispanic businessmen and political operatives who have been excluded from their “fair share” by the more powerful Wall Street interests that dominate the Democratic Party. She says nothing at all about the most fundamental question facing humanity, the mounting threat of imperialist war fought with nuclear weapons.

Ocasio-Cortez is a bourgeois politician, not a socialist. She does not question the economic foundations of capitalist society—the ownership of the banks and giant corporations by a financial aristocracy. She does not suggest that the property system in America or the accumulation of unheard-of wealth by a tiny fraction of the population should be questioned, let alone ended.

Oh boy!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...actually-grew-wealthy-Westchester-County.html

 

[Albion]

Not getting into the whole thing, but the first picture there is mistaken. When pressed, she said they were "black sites" because they wanted to keep members of Congress and the like out. Might not be the best answer, but it is an answer.

She's likely to be backtracking a lot more in coming months.

 

[David Brider]

She is no more likely than Sanders to advocate assumption of ownership of the means of production by the government

Actually, socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers, not by the government.

 

[David Brider]

Here's their website: Democratic Socialists of America

It's interesting that they have to deceive in order to present themselves as this progressive, harmless political entity.

Perhaps you could demonstrate exactly how they deceive on their website? Are there, for example, any specific policy goals about which they're lying?

 

[Kentonio]

..