Tom Perez is the new DNC Chair

[alexw]

2018 is a lost cause for the DNC on the national level. Because the senators that are up in 2018 were voted in with Obama's re-election in 2012, there's way more democratic seats up than republican seats. There are 50 republican locks http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/. That said, I doubt the RNC gains a fillibuster proof majority, so ultimately there's really not much to be lost or gained for the DNC.

The prospect that they get enough turnout to flip the house given the Republican gerrymander is hard to fathom as well. Democrats just don't vote in midterms in general.

I can tell them how to win because nobody will ever listen to me anyway.:

The real prize is the state congresses in 2020 for the gerrymander. They should use all their money to build the individual state parties and get back in touch with the issues the nation is facing as a whole. Give the state parties leeway to experiment with ideas to tackle the individual issues of their state. This gives them an opportunity to find themselves as a party, find a platform that works in a post Brexit/2016 world, and recapture the gerrymander. Not to mention just having the state house control is a valuable asset in terms of constitutional amendments and the like, which the Left obviously covets.

The RNC is going to be distracted with the national stage, and the GOP establishment and Trump will have their hands full with each other. That fact is their opening. If they buy into their own propaganda of Trump being a threat to the Republic, and distract themselves from the real war, they're sure to lose. The powers that be should know Trump is ideologically in no way beyond the pale in terms of American political thought.

I think democrats won't do too badly in the senate, Trump's insanity will see to that. As for the house there's a wild card in play - the SCOTUS case against partisan gerrymandering.

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/wi...t-happens-next

If the swing justice (Kennedy) votes against Wisconsin (which seems likely given his prior case statements on partisan gerrymandering), then all the gerrymandering done by republicans will be undone. Under that scenario with Trump as an unpopular republican president democrats could easily take the house.

[Wells]

Ouch, I feel sorry for you democrats. I really hoped for someone better suited than someone who've been part of the whole Clintonian crash.

So you thought the DNC should have gotten someone from outside the DNC?

[Skroe]

Skroe, Clinton's administration was explicit denial of left wing policy. That's the origins of Democratic Third Way politics.

The origin of the Democratic Third way was the one-terming of Jimmy Carter, the success of the Reagan era, the enormous failure of Walter Mondale in 1984, then Dukakkis in 1988. Aside from Carter, Democrats were largely in the wilderness post-1968 (the 1968 DNC being an inflection point). Remember: it was 1968 that sent a lot of Democrats, particularly National Security Democrats (Neoconservatives) and Centrist Democrats (Free traders), into the Republican fold. Reagan Democrats were an end-stage of this process.

The options were adopt the Third Way or continue to lose. Bill Clinton emerged from that consensus.

[Astalnar]

Real shame, was hoping they would be progressive enough to elect a muslim, but I guess DNC is not ready to make a real step toward diversity.

[Wyrt]

Jesus FUCKING christ democrats... get it together. Have you learned NOTHING from Trump? You need a centrist-left person at the DNC helm who isn't going to dive into identity politics head fucking first. Now we're going to have Trump for eight fucking years guaranteed.

Um, he is in the center. So was Clinton and Obama.

It doesn't matter in the US anymore. The far right refuses to negotiate or compromise with people anywhere to the left of them.

[Wells]

The origin of the Democratic Third way was the one-terming of Jimmy Carter, the success of the Reagan era, the enormous failure of Walter Mondale in 1984, then Dukakkis in 1988. Aside from Carter, Democrats were largely in the wilderness post-1968 (the 1968 DNC being an inflection point). Remember: it was 1968 that sent a lot of Democrats, particularly National Security Democrats (Neoconservatives) and Centrist Democrats (Free traders), into the Republican fold. Reagan Democrats were an end-stage of this process.

The options were adopt the Third Way or continue to lose. Bill Clinton emerged from that consensus.

Oh misread your original post as claiming Third Way was leftist.

[alexw]

Macroeconomics is usually formulated in terms of looking for a global optimum. The Trump epiphany is that he doesn't necessarily give a damn what happens to the rest of the world's economies. He's going to play it America first. I suppose you can disagree with this on philosophical grounds, or that this is somehow detrimental to America's interests long term.

What I think is indisputable is that the American worker has taken the fallout of free trade on the chin. Both the Bernie wing of the DNC and Trump agrees on this point. It's self apparent to anyone who saw the Rust Belt in the early 90s compared to now.

You're welcome to propose an alternative solution, but if the DNC does not, the Rust belt will be red in 2020 too. At LEAST speak to the extant problems instead of just telling the American worker that macroeconomics is too complicated for his pretty little head to understand, and that he's fucked.

Lol, what????? Macro-economics is country specific. Its true it looks at nation-nation interactions but does so from a country specific point of view. And I disagree with "America First" becomes its moronic and stupid. It won't work and has no chance of working for multiple reasons. Hell its not even possible for America to not run a trade deficit as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency, and that's before we even consider the internal effects.

As for free trade killing the rust belt that's false. Automation is the cause not free trade.

https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-...5-95d1533d9a62

The US did indeed lose about 5.6m manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. But according to a study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, 85 per cent of these jobs losses are actually attributable to technological change — largely automation — rather than international trade.

And why should I bother to try to explain? The deplorables who voted Trump don't care. All they want is scapegoats to blame, something easily provided by people who don't look, sound, or think like them. No they've blown whatever sympathy I had.

[Endus]

I really don't understand why some of you think the Democratic Party's ideals are "dead" and they have to wildly change everything.

They won the popular vote. By, like, a lot. A great deal of the reason they lost had nothing to do with policy, it had to do with Clinton, and the conspiracy theory nonsense that's surrounded her ever since Republicans started slandering the Clintons back in the early '90s.

Just as a for-instance, all those people who felt the Democrats weren't making any effort to appeal to "middle America" or deal with the loss of manufacturing jobs? That's willful ignorance. Not only was it addressed by the Democrats, it's clearly included in the DNC's party platform; https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

So those who voted against Clinton because of that reason, they were voting out of ignorance, not because they were well-informed. They bought into the irrational propaganda against Clinton. They would have voted against Santa Claus if he was on the ticket, because they didn't give two shits about the facts.

Plus, as much as I'm one who wants American politics to push further left, you need to make an effort to bring in the moderates. And the moderates, in the USA, are center-right, for the most part. Pushing further left isn't likely to garner increased support. And if you're a left-winger who spitefully refused to vote because they DIDN'T push far enough left (Bernie or Bust folks, I'm looking at you), well, you have the thanks of the Trump presidency for giving them the win.

[Delana]

I think democrats won't do too badly in the senate, Trump's insanity will see to that. As for the house there's a wild card in play - the SCOTUS case against partisan gerrymandering.

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/wi...t-happens-next

If the swing justice (Kennedy) votes against Wisconsin (which seems likely given his prior case statements on partisan gerrymandering), then all the gerrymandering done by republicans will be undone. Under that scenario with Trump as an unpopular republican president democrats could easily take the house.

Was unaware of the gerrymandering case. I for one would be happy to see it succeed, despite the political hit my side would take.

I do hope they draw the districts in a sensible way though. I'm struggling to come up with any idea that's objectively sensible. It's trickier than it seems.

[alexw]

Maybe so, we shall definitely see.

Yup, we will see. I'm actually looking forward to it in a morbid fascination sort of way. Like a slow-motion car crash where you know how its going to end but can't bear to look away.

[NED funded]

Lol, what????? Macro-economics is country specific. Its true it looks at nation-nation interactions but does so from a country specific point of view. And I disagree with "America First" becomes its moronic and stupid. It won't work and has no chance of working for multiple reasons. Hell its not even possible for America to not run a trade deficit as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency, and that's before we even consider the internal effects.

As for free trade killing the rust belt that's false. Automation is the cause not free trade.



And why should I bother to try to explain? The deplorables who voted Trump don't care. All they want is scapegoats to blame, something easily provided by people who don't look, sound, or think like them. No they've blown whatever sympathy I had.

This is misleading as misleading goes. Automation has different effects than trade, yes it's true that workers in automation loose their jobs and the majority of the times go to lower positions, but that lower position is local, this is substantially different than the effects of trade, where the local economy just flat out dies.

[alexw]

Was unaware of the gerrymandering case. I for one would be happy to see it succeed, despite the political hit my side would take.

I do hope they draw the districts in a sensible way though. I'm struggling to come up with any idea that's objectively sensible. It's trickier than it seems.

Yeah gerrymandering is absolutely horrible. I don't care which party does it, it just is. If it ended it would force the parties more toward the center as they'd have to fight more over swing voters, which would be a good thing. As for the solution most states that have ended the use of this practice have ended up using some sort of non-partisan or balanced committee (e.g. 3 rep, 3 dem, 3 Ind) to draw the districts. There is usually a little bias in one direction or the other but not much and waayyyy better than what currently happens.

[Stacyrect]

Yup, we will see. I'm actually looking forward to it in a morbid fascination sort of way. Like a slow-motion car crash where you know how its going to end but can't bear to look away.

Out of curiosity, what would you do if your predictions don't come true?

[Slybak]

Lol, what????? Macro-economics is country specific. Its true it looks at nation-nation interactions but does so from a country specific point of view.

As for free trade killing the rust belt that's false. Automation is cause not free trade.

Free trade has had a non-negligible impact, but what people tend to miss is that this is mostly due to exchange rates and not labor costs. For instance, you'll see some companies based in Western Europe "nearshoring" jobs in Eastern Europe, where labor is cheaper but everything is still denominated in Euros, but the big savings is moving to countries like India because of the EUR/INR exchange rate.

[Skroe]

I really don't understand why some of you think the Democratic Party's ideals are "dead" and they have to wildly change everything.

They won the popular vote. By, like, a lot. A great deal of the reason they lost had nothing to do with policy, it had to do with Clinton, and the conspiracy theory nonsense that's surrounded her ever since Republicans started slandering the Clintons back in the early '90s.

I'll call a spade a spade. They know this, broadly. They're being dishonest. What they're doing is being opportunistic. They see the opportunity to pull the party to the left, so either they control it (in terms of politicans) or it reflects their values (in terms of liberal voters) more rigidly.

The part that is mindboggling to me is that the left stakes out this positions without being seemingly the least bit caring as to the actual political terrain they do battle on. The logical problem they have, which they consistently fail to address, is how does a a left candidate win, in a country that is demonstrably center-right. Instead of putting up a candidate that appeals to voters to win and implement an incremental policy agenda, they seem to want to put up a candidate that is doctrinaire liberal and implements a sweeping policy agenda.

But the thing is, unless liberals controlled all branches of government, which they did only briefly, 9 years ago, that strategy doesn't work. And even then, it has been or will be subject to roll backs whenever they fall out of power, like they are now.

Perhaps to me, this last point, is the most disgusting part about this when it happen, on the right or the left. Unless one side gets a buy in from the other side, there is nothing to prevent a complete turn over once power changes hands. And with regards to liberals, considering the enduring State-level advantages of Republicans, there is long going to be a ticking clock on their hold on the House or Senate. Compromise is the only way they can get anything done, and that simply will NOT be done by a "Tea Party of the Liberals" kind of thing.


Everyone needs an abject lesson in the nobility of accepting half a loaf. It really seems like some people want to make themselves feel better and not actually win fights that matter.

[alexw]

This is misleading as misleading goes. Automation has different effects than trade, yes it's true that workers in automation loose their jobs and the majority of the times go to lower positions, but that lower position is local, this is substantially different than the effects of trade, where the local economy just flat out dies.

That is wrong. When you automate you change who gets the income from that production. You end up going from a broad and low distribution with lots getting some and a few getting lots, to one where a few get some and a few get tremendous piles of cash. In essence you suck out consumer demand because there isn't a broad base of employment providing middle class wages. THAT is how automation kills local economies.

[NED funded]

I really don't understand why some of you think the Democratic Party's ideals are "dead" and they have to wildly change everything.

They won the popular vote. By, like, a lot. A great deal of the reason they lost had nothing to do with policy, it had to do with Clinton, and the conspiracy theory nonsense that's surrounded her ever since Republicans started slandering the Clintons back in the early '90s.

Just as a for-instance, all those people who felt the Democrats weren't making any effort to appeal to "middle America" or deal with the loss of manufacturing jobs? That's willful ignorance. Not only was it addressed by the Democrats, it's clearly included in the DNC's party platform; https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

So those who voted against Clinton because of that reason, they were voting out of ignorance, not because they were well-informed. They bought into the irrational propaganda against Clinton. They would have voted against Santa Claus if he was on the ticket, because they didn't give two shits about the facts.

Plus, as much as I'm one who wants American politics to push further left, you need to make an effort to bring in the moderates. And the moderates, in the USA, are center-right, for the most part. Pushing further left isn't likely to garner increased support. And if you're a left-winger who spitefully refused to vote because they DIDN'T push far enough left (Bernie or Bust folks, I'm looking at you), well, you have the thanks of the Trump presidency for giving them the win.

I think the problem is communication. As far as it pains me to say it, the dems have not done a good job at communicating their ideas. Most of it was anti-trump rhetoric and how much in touch they were with Bernie.

[Delana]

Lol, what????? Macro-economics is country specific. Its true it looks at nation-nation interactions but does so from a country specific point of view. And I disagree with "America First" becomes its moronic and stupid. It won't work and has no chance of working for multiple reasons. Hell its not even possible for America to not run a trade deficit as long as the dollar is the global reserve currency, and that's before we even consider the internal effects.

As for free trade killing the rust belt that's false. Automation is the cause not free trade.



And why should I bother to try to explain? The deplorables who voted Trump don't care. All they want is scapegoats to blame, something easily provided by people who don't look, sound, or think like them. No they've blown whatever sympathy I had.

I do at least appreciate the explanation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

The deplorables didn't want a scapegoat so much as they were sick of getting told how fucking privileged they were to have a median income of $25K per year like in my hometown because they happened to be white. And yeah, they think it's an inexcusable fuck you when Ford sends jobs to Mexico. They think it's laughable that they're supposed to believe that politicians that want to import cheap labor have their best interests at heart.

[alexw]

Out of curiosity, what would you do if your predictions don't come true?

Why would I do anything? Would you do something if your predictions don't come true?

[Endus]

I think the problem is communication. As far as it pains me to say it, the dems have not done a good job at communicating their ideas. Most of it was anti-trump rhetoric and how much in touch they were with Bernie.

I'd argue it's less "communication", and instead a failure to grasp how significantly the voting population has shifted, for the worse. An informed voter is going to check both parties' platforms, at the very least. It doesn't matter if the politicians are speaking to every individual point at all times, because it's in that platform.

But now, people are just largely too damn lazy to bother. They only care about soundbites. So Trump doing his stupidity-driven slogan-chanting was more effective than discussing policy.

Just makes me think of this scene from Idiocracy;



So sure, maybe the Democrats need to learn to "dumb it down" enough for the voters, maybe they need to focus on easily-chanted slogans rather than policy, but that's a condemnation of the American people.

And frankly, I think you are (or at least can be) better than that.