RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenbaum writes: "If Democrats put the right candidate forward, they can, in one political moment, reclaim the presidency and begin the process of healing the nation - and its parties. But for that to happen, Democrats needs to come to terms with the split that's happening in their own big tent."

Michael Bloomberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: Christophe Ena/Mark Lennihan/AP)
Michael Bloomberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: Christophe Ena/Mark Lennihan/AP)


Democrats Need to Choose: Are They the Party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the Party of Michael Bloomberg?

By Daniella Greenbaum, Business Insider

08 July 18


The Democratic Party needs to look inward: is it the party of Michael Bloomberg or the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Democrats need to decide what kind of candidate they are going to support in 2020. There is a division in the party, and strategists should work to ensure it does not erupt and result in a second term of President Donald Trump.

he Republican Party had a big tent. Then, in 2016, its fringe elements elected Donald Trump, leaving moderates politically homeless and Democrats both politically and emotionally disturbed.

If Democrats put the right candidate forward, they can, in one political moment, reclaim the presidency and begin the process of healing the nation — and its parties. But for that to happen, Democrats needs to come to terms with the split that's happening in their own big tent.

The news this week highlighted two very different kind of Democrats. Earlier in the week came the familiar rumors and rumblings that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning to run for president in 2020. (Bloomberg is a political independent at the moment, but reports have suggested he would run this time as a Democrat.)

We've heard this before. But the question of whether the 76-year-old will actually run this time around is far less important than the question of what the Democrats would do if he — or someone like him — does.

The answer to that question, of course, is that there is no "the Democrats" right now. There is the party's left fringe, and then its more centrist counterpart. On Tuesday, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dethroned Rep. Joseph Crowley, a powerful Democrat who had been a 10-term incumbent.

Ocasio-Cortez self-identifies as a "democratic socialist" and espouses many views that differentiate her from other members of the Democratic Party. Some of those differing views are plainly contrary to those traditionally held by Democrats. Others are simply more extreme, fringe variations on the usual themes.

Some of her ideas are familiar ones: She advocates for gun control and criminal justice reform. But she also has called for Medicare for all and a federal jobs guarantee, without advocating a concrete way of paying for these extreme measures. Her solution to these sorts of issues: Tax Wall Street.

That kind of rich-oppressor versus poor-oppressed framework might work in New York's 14th Congressional district, but it is sure to fail on a national level.

In states like South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where Hillary Clinton significantly outperformed Bernie Sanders in the primaries, a more centrist approach, like that of Bloomberg's, would still garner much more support.

There's an added benefit to supporting a candidacy like Bloomberg's: There would be cross-aisle support. A national candidate who runs on the same platform on which Ocasio-Cortez and New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon are running will not garner meaningful Republican support, even in the age of Trump. But a Bloomberg type could attract all those Republicans and former Republicans who, as a result of Trump's ascension, have found themselves politically homeless.

This election cycle will prove to be a season of choosing for the Democratic Party. There will be consequences either way. But when it comes to retaking the presidency, Democrats should focus on presenting a candidate who can appeal to people beyond the left-most fringe of their progressive wing.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+53 # Emmanuel Goldstein 2018-07-08 10:01
A moderate Dem like Bloomberg might draw some traditional Republican voters, he would lose at least that many progressive millennials -- who, as in 2016, would simply sit out the election.
 
 
+18 # John Cosmo 2018-07-08 18:20
Yes, a moderate Dem like Bloomberg is too much like Hilary Clinton and doomed to lose. After all, we were told that by positioning herself as a moderate, Hilary was going to attract a lot of Republican voters. How did that work out?
 
 
+6 # longingfortruth 2018-07-08 20:24
Only a Trump troll would suggest sitting out the election. Democrats MUST retake Congress this November to have some checks and balances and oversight investigations. We have a right to know what's going on in those Black Site detention facilities for children separated from their asylum seeking parents. We have a right to know how much of the taxpayers' money has been spent on Jefferson Session's private prisons and who is profiting from them.
Any Republican who hasn't taken the Trump Kool Aid has already left the GOP. We don't need Bloomberg. All we need to be is NOT TRUMP and a maximum turnout machine. Ocasio-Cortez was still knocking on doors until the polls closed.
 
 
+9 # Benign Observer 2018-07-09 08:14
It is NOT ENOUGH to be Not-Trump. That's what they tried last time and it didn't work.

Isn't that the definition of insanity?
 
 
+1 # Benign Observer 2018-07-09 08:16
And would you PLEASE stop calling anyone you disagree with a Trump troll?

Your ideas have been disproved numerous times. Why do you persist? Oh that's right .. paycheck.
 
 
-4 # JCM 2018-07-09 16:22
Because your ideas have been disprove. See last election!
 
 
+2 # Benign Observer 2018-07-10 23:39
Look at the NYT piece on MI voters. They talked to four black barbers who'd voted for Obama twice; in the 2016 election two stayed home, one wrote in his own name and one wrote in Bernie Sanders.

Let's say you convince everyone here at RSN to vote for ANY Democrat, the cause near and dear to your heart.

What are you going to do about those barbers?

It's NOT ENOUGH to be Not-Trump. Progressives are trying to tell you, as we tried to tell you in 2016, that this WILL NOT WORK.

It's not just us who won't vote for corporat Democrats. Millions will just stay home because you STILL aren't giving them anything to vote FOR.

When people see that their vote doesn't matter, they stop voting. Because whichever party they vote for (only two allowed!) there is still war. Whichever one they vote for, they still don't make a living wage. Whichever one they vote for they're still just one catastrophe away from bankruptcy.

Progressives are not your biggest problem. It's apathy. So why are you NOT pressuring the party to appeal to the core voters they've abandoned?

You got your wishes: you cheated Sanders, you put HRC in place - and you lost to Donald fricking Trump.

After 40 years of neoliberal policy and ten years of historically bad politicking .. why on earth would we trust your advice? You're what got us HERE!
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2018-07-11 06:13
Are you kidding? Progressives were right about almost everything in the last election!

We told you it was a change election. We said Hillary could lose. We said the DNC was cheating. We said Hillary would hurt the downticket. I could go on and on.

Those predictions were based on polls and statistics, like what we're telling you now. Approval of the Democrats is going down, they are going to have fewer wins than hoped for in 2018 and there's a chance they'll get Trump re-elected in 2020 -- because you haven't learned a thing.

You care more about staying in power than helping citizens or protecting our country or planet, as Bernie said, watching the Titanic go down as long as you're in first class.

And for more than a year you told us we were deluded and traitorous and misogynistic.

Then after the election, when almost everything we warned you about came true, instead of reforming the party you blamed everything on us. Talk about chutzpah!

THAT is why I'm not backing down from you party operatives as you try to rewrite history and avoid reform of the party.

Well here's some news for you: if you won't help us you will get swept away. The US needs the Democrats, not a bunch of corrupt corporate collusionists.
 
 
+11 # dquandle 2018-07-08 21:07
Moderate Dem?

He imprisoned 1500 people in filthy conditions for a week to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional rights, forcing the city to pay out millions in fines and recompense, when all of them were found to be arrested illegally, while giving NYC to his billionaire buddies, wrecking neighborhoods by the score, and destroying housing and infrastructure to feed his corporate real estate delusions, while having his and Giuliugly's jointly held NYPD army, engage in wholesale civilian murder while beating the shit out of the rest.

A Halloween apple chock full of strychnine and razor blades is more " moderate" than Bloomberg.
 
 
+5 # JCM 2018-07-09 08:43
Sitting out the election is not in the best interest of our country. We must unite our purpose to remove rump and the republicans.
To change the Democratic Party, we must support progressive ideas continually as best we can. We must support progressive candidates during the primaries as much as possible. We must vote for the winner of the Democratic primaries. Not voting or voting third party will not unseat the republicans but will give them an advantage to win. We should criticize the Dems when they go wrong, but not fail to criticize the republicans so not to create the impression that the two parties are the same. There are blue dogs that I would like to get rid of but are still better than any republican. Again, we must unite our purpose to remove rump and the republicans.
 
 
+58 # tedhuman7 2018-07-08 10:04
NO offense to this contributor , But I think she is mistaken if she thinks that reader supported news is the type of site where people congregate to support NEO LIBERAL economic policies PUSHED by the DSCC, the DNC and people like Michael Bloomberg. I should have know when I saw that she writes for business insider. What a crock!! I am sure that businesses were thriving , very well thank you, during the 1950's in America , when we had OVER 37 % Union memberships among our workforce, when wages were MUCH higher as compared to today and when we had programs universally supported by the American people , that today are being picked apart by republicans , aided by stinking corporate Democrats . We will NEVER dominate again , while we propose anodyne policies which are sugar coated Neo liberal crap along w the candidates who push for them ( such as in 2016 general election) The future for Democratic victories and for a flourishing of American lives, IS in Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, Paid family leave, a REAL progressive federal taxation , free Public university for families that NEED it , a SANE military budget which frees up 100s of billions of $ for these necessary programs and the departments fully staffed to administer them. Yes this is the wave of the future and to continue to go down the dark path which this authors seems to suggest , is destined for continued Democratic minority status and the nightmare that being so , portends for out trumpian future .
 
 
+4 # JCM 2018-07-08 20:14
"will not garner meaningful Republican support". Really, when was the last time the Dems garnered any republican support?
tedhuman7: Good comment
 
 
+6 # Ken Halt 2018-07-08 22:23
Great post, thank you!
 
 
+48 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 10:21
I. It didn't have to be this way.

Particularly after the last election the party leaders should have acknowledged that half the primary votes went to Bernie Sanders. Not 20%.

HALF.

The establishment (including the media)'s rejection of Sanders, his agenda and progressive candidates doesn't make sense if one assumes they want to win. Who snubs and abuses half their base? Republicans just lie to theirs, while JCM and RMF would have us grateful our party stabs us to our face.

"Even if all 57 are true we need to vote for any D"

We should have hashed this out 18 months ago -- and it's not us dodging the debate. Remember HRC's "We should all vote together and 'unify later'"?

We should call the DP the Kick the Can party because they never want to DO anything. They want to wait for some perfect moment to speak, to consider, to act -- but they have it bassackwards.

Unify .. and the activism will flow. You'll have donations and knuckles rapping on doors.

The 'unity lip service' commission didn't get rid of superdelegates, didn't open the primaries, didn't address campaign finance or election integrity.

People like RMF and JCM don't see the forest for the trees. They see any criticism of the party as unacceptable. But they have lost 1000+ seats! You can't ignore that.

Neither side has ALL the answers. That's why we should have talked.

Progressives don't require a battle but we're not backing down. We DESERVE to be included.
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2018-07-08 12:52
Quoting librarian1984 2018-07-08 10:21:
We should call the DP the Kick the Can party because they never want to DO anything.

- if dems stand for nothing? please tell us why repukes had to pass huge tax cuts for bmillionaires and corporations WITH NO DEM VOTES IN CONGRESS?

albeit there are some remarkable differences between us "greater progressives" in contrast to other "lesser progressives" in and around congress, revulsion at tax cuts for bmillionaires and corporations IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

pelosi is a talking head, dems must do better! - but if you are trying to develop a "greater progressives" contrast to "lesser progressives" around opposition to working people, you have at argue better than "Democrats' refusal to stand for ANYTHING", sorry!

the dem problem is not that they are not progressive

the dem problem is not that they "refuse to stand for ANYTHING"

the dem problem is that they try to serve 2 masters - working folks and corporations

AND, FOR WORKERS, AFTER CAPITAL TAKES MAX CUT OF THE SPENDING POT, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY LEFT TO GO AROUND!

THE TRICK IS TO STOP TAKING BRIBES, AND NEVERTHELESS WIN ELECTIONS! - NEAT TRICK IF PROGRESSIVES CAN PULL IT OFF!

if a time comes when voters stop brainwashing each other by tv and radio, do we want to be around for that?

the evident solution is an amendment that scrubs private bucks from election ads!
 
 
+7 # PaineRad 2018-07-08 17:57
If Dems are trying to serve working folks to any meaningful degree, they have totally failed.
 
 
-2 # JCM 2018-07-09 16:33
You think that 8 years of total republican opposition had anything to do with it. Obama enrolled millions more people into healthcare and as flawed as it was it gave people no more pre-existing conditions, can’t be forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills, kept your children in your policy until 26 and many more. Also made the clean air act, higher mileage standards for cars, renewable energy grants, LGBT rights, and a lot more. I think that might have served working folk to a meaningful degree. Even with all the opposition.
 
 
+3 # SusanT136 2018-07-11 09:08
Obama did not "make the Clean Air Act", that was passed in 1970. Obama didn't need any support from Congress to do the right thing and prosecute the torturers of the war(s) and the criminals on Wall Street. Yet he said to "look forward, not back". Well the same criminals are doing it all over again. When there is no consequence to behaving badly, it happens over and over again, especially when there is big money to be made. The ACA was progress, but remember early on Obama promised the insurance companies there would be no public option. That screwed us as far as any real competition and price controls go.
 
 
+1 # JCM 2018-07-08 21:34
librarian1984: You are such a liar. More of your republican projection. All of my posts are trying to explain that splintering the Dems votes would only empower the republicans and give them a better chance to win. Your agenda is the republicans dream, split the vote, republicans win. You are the one and your good buddies are the ones stabbing our country in the face by deceiving people of your real intent. Anyone who is telling people to not vote or vote for a third party is not working in the best interests of this country. Helping the republicans is like saying you want more pollution, more financial theft. You want the EPA to be destroyed. The state department crushed, more tariffs, tear down our allies, build up putin. Hate immigrants, remove millions of people from healthcare, try to wipe out the Safety Net. Bring back pre-existing conditions. For profit universities that rip off students (Like Trump University), think that dictators are great while demeaning our friends. And not believing in Climate Change. The way to advance the Dems is to support progressives as much as you can, vote for them in the primaries but if they don't make it to the election you have to vote for the winner of that primary. See my next reply.
 
 
+3 # JCM 2018-07-08 21:36
There are some who would lie about some people’s position on the Democratic Party and what we can do. Mine is Simply:
To change the Democratic Party, we must support progressive ideas continually as best we can.
We must support progressive candidates during the primaries as much as possible.
We must vote for the winner of the Democratic primaries.
Not voting or voting third party will not unseat the republicans but will give them an advantage to win.
We should criticize the Dems when they go wrong, but not fail to criticize the republicans so not to create the impression that the two parties are the same.
There are blue dogs that I would like to get rid of but are still better than any republican.
We must unite our purpose to remove rump and the republicans.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-09 15:00
JCM: "If you can't convince people - Lie."
 
 
+25 # punditalia 2018-07-08 10:23
To combat the rapidly expanding neo-feudalism, running a mature Republican oligarch to unseat the reigning adolescent fascist oligarch would seem a curious strategy.
 
 
+51 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 11:04
Ii. Politics; or, Do Democrats WANT to Win?

Brazenly attacking half your voters seems like a dumb idea because it is. Politics is about addition. Not, as Schumer or Pelosi would have it, winning the mythical moderate Republican or doing the same thing that's lost a thousand seats.

JCM/RMF deem any criticism of the party traitorous. But show us ONE unadulterated success in ten years. Name ONE meaningful victory. Please don't lecture US on your political savvy. The evidence is all around US and neck deep.

Bernie filled multiple stadia a day. Ocasio-Cortez had millennials registering to vote in record numbers FOR A MIDTERM.

You have to call out the motives of leaders who turn their back on MILLIONS of new voters so they can maintain their cushy status quo. Our 'leaders' use pretzel-logic to deny overwhelming evidence not only that the base wants to move left -- but that moving left is an effective strategy that appeals to Independent voters.

Polling shows strong support for progressive policies. After decades of neoliberal austerity people demand economic justice. It's why they voted for Obama. It's why they flipped to Trump. They're looking for help .. but the DP isn't offering any.

Politics is not just about numbers. It's about MOVING numbers. We COULD reinspire flippers and nonvoters and Independents -- but not with a 'Better Deal'.

With the agenda that fills stadia.

Progressives are not a problem. We are the solution.
 
 
+2 # dquandle 2018-07-08 21:12
"Do Democrats WANT to Win?"

No.
 
 
-4 # JCM 2018-07-08 21:38
librarian1984: "JCM/RMF deem any criticism of the party traitorous." Just like a republican, if you can't convince people honestly - Lie.
 
 
-1 # RMF 2018-07-09 13:37
librarian:

You say that I have claimed that "criticism of the [Dem] party [is]traitorous."

That is false -- I have never claimed or avowed any such pronouncement. You will not find it in any of my posts because I have never said such. I THEREFORE CHALLENGE YOU TO POST ANY OF MY COMMENTS wherein you think I claimed the Dem Party was above criticism or reproach -- you won't be able to do so because I have never claimed such.

In contrast I believe it's clear that a political party is an extension of political process, and as such the formation of a party's platform is based on public debate, a process informed by criticism of competing ideas.

What I have said, however, is that refusing to vote for Dem Party candidates (e.g., Hillary etc.) is self-defeating in that it hands the reins of power to the GOP.

For example, if I lived in WV I would be voting for Joe Manchin, no matter how much I disagree with him on some issues. But, and this is the kicker, in WV Joe Manchin is, PARAPHRASING BERNIE HERE, better than the GOP competition even on a Joe Manchin bad day.

The penultimate paragraph is what I have consistently argued here on RSN, although many seem to disagree, even though my argument on the need to vote wisely has been endorsed by Bernie.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2018-07-09 21:35
RMF: We're talking to trolls. longingfortruth said it, "At this point in the Trump presidency anyone encouraging you not to vote or to vote for a third party is on someone's payroll" Wonder who's paying them?
 
 
+1 # Benign Observer 2018-07-10 05:52
What you're describing is what we've been doing for forty years -- and how has that worked out?

You relentlessly push for strategies that have brought us to historic lows in the party's power.

Why are you supporting losing strategies and people who are losers? And why are you doing it with such a sneering attitude, like we're too stupid to see what how brilliant establishment strategy is -- when the party is in the toilet?

How could we do any worse than what you've done? And we could at least hold our heads up, knowing we fought for something worthwhile - a more just and equitable society - instead of LOSING at the same time we compromise every value Perez keeps spouting off about.

Here's an idea for you, genius: maybe it's time to try something new, something actually moral and popular. What a concept, eh?

It's hard to admit when we make a mistake but it's worthwhile because then you change the stupid behavior. You should reconsider what you're doing, who and what you're defending.

Think about it, won't you?
 
 
-3 # RMF 2018-07-10 12:41
BO asks:

"How could we do any worse than what you've done?"

Ans -- Here are just a few:

> We didn't withdraw from the Paris Accord.

> We didn't start a trade war with the EU/Canada, some of our largest trading partners.

> We didn't form a political movement in part based on ethnic cleansing.

> We didn't support right wing/undemocrat ic political movements in the EU.

> We didn't openly attack NATO, our most important military ally, one that has been supporting us militarily in efforts to tamp down international terrorism.

> We didn't openly attack the UN as not being worth the cost, as the Trump/GOP administration has done.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-10 15:51
Wow, that's a pretty low bar on a narrow field and, point of fact, Democrats have done at least three of those things.

Here's three questions for you:

What should be the repurcussions of the Steny Hoyer tape?

Why should we support, not the DP, as you've tried to palm off here, but THIS Congress and THIS leadership, neoliberals who work against what the base wants, when they've brought the party to these historic lows? (Most of us are, or were, Democrats. It's neoliberalism we're against.)

Why shouldn't we support the most popular politician in America who's fighting for us every day while our feckless leaders cower in a corner with their Better Deal'?
 
 
-2 # RMF 2018-07-11 11:34
librarian

You never miss an opportunity to bash the Dems, no matter how nebulous, no matter how trivial.

On Hoyer -- Political parties always exert influence -- that is what they are organized to do. Moreover, that is what they are supposed to do as a political party carrying out a political/organ izing mission. To fail to do so would be a gross breach of the dual duties of loyalty (to the mission and party members) and care (by negligently ignoring official responsibilitie s.)
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-11 12:07
Except it's against the rules and exactly what they said they wouldn't do. Other than that...

They're corrupt because blah blah. Translation: you're okay with cheating, lying and stealing. And maybe you'd have an argument if they WON. But they don't. They lose and lose some more.

So your big genius plan is to advocate corruption for people who loser.

But we're the illogical ones?

And then you skip the other two. So shady.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-11 13:43
And you never miss an opportunity to harass progressives. Hypocrite.
 
 
+34 # Sweetgum 2018-07-08 11:14
Did it ever occur to anybody else that the reason the dems have been so ineffective in resisting the Republican agenda for so long now is because they have been doing what has been known as "throwing the fight"? Could it just be that because they have been bought out by big corporate interests, they are not resisting because they have been paid not to?
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 14:21
It's an idea that seems counterintuitiv e, but once you light on it, it explains a lot.
 
 
+30 # Lolanne 2018-07-08 11:21
The Dems have had a split personality for a long time and they need to decide who they are. Are they going to return to their roots and represent the people or just continue serving their corporate masters? I'm afraid we already know the answer to that. The sad fact is that Dems like me across the country have nobody to vote for in 2020 if the party runs only an "establishment" candidate. If they continue to lock Progressives out, they will surely split the vote in 2020 (due to progressive write-ins) and once again, will give the WH to the monster currently in residence. I will NEVER consider voting for a rep after the nightmare we're living through under the slimeball in there now, but if the Dems continue to lock Progressives out they are signing their own death warrant for 2020. The best we can hope for is a Blue Tide in Nov so at least the Congress could stop some of the appalling actions that have been taking place thus far.
 
 
+31 # Sweetgum 2018-07-08 11:21
Puh-leez. This commentary is just more of the same old crap that the bought-off old guard Democrats want us to believe so they will stay in power. If this nonsense about centrist Democrats appealing to a larger portion of the electoric were true, we wouldn't be were we are at today, they would have won the last election. The so-called centrist Democrats have betrayed and abandoned the vast majority of of the people that they supposedly are representing, and everyone knows it
 
 
+35 # bobmiller101 2018-07-08 11:39
If being a "Centrist" is the way to go, then Hillary should have won. The party MUST CHANGE to support working people and the shrinking middle class. Wall St and BIG BANKS have too much influence.
 
 
+20 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 11:59
III. What do we believe?

Aside from history and politics the more basic issue is: Are we still the party of FDR and unions, workers and families? Or are we the party of Upper-whatever- Side limousine liberals who titter when they see black people?

It's at the heart of this schism, isn't it? Politicians chasing donor cash versus a base that wants populist change. How inconvenient we get to vote. An old story and ours well documented.

In biology an elemental debate is: chicken or egg, in politics: corrupt or inept?

There's no question politicians of both parties are serving their donors rather than constituents, and their donors are psychopaths with limitless greed and no moral compass.

The GOP bamboozles their people by blaming clever fill-in-the-min ority traitorous Ds, while our Kick-the-Can leaders cynically wait for demographics to deliver victory without understanding their eternal inaction fuels voter apathy and crooked elections.

So there's your answer: corrupt AND inept.

Both are huge obstacles that distract US from a question even more fundamental than policy: what ARE our values? For all Perez and Pelosi talk about it I've yet to hear them say exactly what those values are, let alone seen them in action.

Personally I believe the pols have no core beliefs while the base are union-loving FDR Democrats, tree hugging economic populists who want peace.

Or, as the establishment and msm label us: naive Putin puppets.
 
 
+5 # dquandle 2018-07-08 20:57
"For all Perez and Pelosi talk about it I've yet to hear them say exactly what those values are, let alone seen them in action."

Their "values" consist of murdering people for profit. We've seen these values in action for the past 70 years or more.
 
 
0 # tedrey 2018-07-09 12:06
Give them their due; they're pretty consistent with supporting social issues a lot of people care about, as long as it doesn't effect their own purses or positions.
 
 
+31 # tedrey 2018-07-08 12:04
A. No Republican voter will be attracted by a "Bloomberg type." They've got planty of those in their own party. Scrap that!

B. If you haven't noticed the different impact that "Democratic Socialist" and "Medicare for all" have today compared to two years ago, you have no business writing political analysis.

C. The money also comes from the (1) unaudited, (2)pork-padded, (3)war-fomentin g military. Use it at home and we'll get (4) birda with one stone.

Progressives, independents, Democrats who remember what their party used to stand for,
and Republicans who can recognize what Trump really stands for . . . let's unite and go for it under any label!
 
 
+5 # dquandle 2018-07-08 21:17
Sure they will. He's "law and order", imprisoning 1500 people to prevent them from exercising their constitutional rights, and ramping up NYPD/ Giuliugly's Gestapo policing and wholesale murder. What could be more appealing to Repubs and "Democrats. And besides, he's a f$&k of a lot richer than Trump, which is always a good sign.
 
 
+15 # goodsensecynic 2018-07-08 12:44
As matters stand, it appears that the Democrats need to decide whether they are Democrats at all, or "moderate" Republicans with a decided tendency toward "liberal interventionism " (e.g., enabling the military coup in Honduras and destroying Libya).

Nothing in the campaigns of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cynthia Nixon or others of the putative "left" amounts to anything more than an update on FDR or a modest extension of LBJ's aborted notion of the "Great Society."

Still, without having the courage to stand up for principles that are now at least 50 years old, it is quite likely that a moribund Democratic Party will allow a clinically insane GOP to win again ... and the next stride down the Trump path to kakistocracy is going to be much nastier than the baby steps he's been taking.
 
 
+15 # Rcomm 2018-07-08 13:02
I have been a democrat for more than 50 years and, considering what has been happening over the past 18 months, I am ashamed to admit it.
The party is not the one I registered for in 1963 and I doubt it will ever be so again.
 
 
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-09 04:39
Rcomm -- but the demand for reform in the Demo party has never been stronger. There are many like you and me who simply won't vote for the Clinton, neo-conservativ e, neo-liberal party of the 90s, 00s, and 10s. We want a return to the party's base in working class issues and if you want to use the term, democratic socialism.

If the party does not reform, it will die out and a new one will emerge. So it is not all hopeless. Political parties do go through major changes. The moderate New England republican party is totally gone. It is now the party of southern extremists and racists.

Change is coming. Those who don't want change are flacking the Russiagate, hate Trump and have cast their lots with a gang of republicans in the CIA, FBI and DOJ. It is disgusting to see democrats supporting republicans like Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, and the rest. But this is what they are. They'll go with republicans before they will reform the Demo party. That's why they must be pushed out of the party.
 
 
+14 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 13:21
IV. Policy

Donor whims take precedence over citizens' needs. By all rights corporate America and the rich should've been content to lobby and litigate for their share of the pie but they astutely opted to outright BUY Congress and the media which, you have to give them props, is an elegant solution to troublesome government regulation and basic morality.

The Democrats used to be capable legislators with the usual level of corruption who tried to make people's lives better in exchange for votes. But since they got bought there's no room for any policy but donor policy and donor policy is shite.

Proposals of progressives like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders should have been in place decades ago. Every other industrialized nation has some form of universal healthcare. It doesn't have to be like Germany's or UK's. But we don't even talk about our options.

Sanders paid for every proposal though you wouldn't know it. The press misinforms even as lifespans go down and infant mortality goes up.

There is something wrong when half the people in the richest country in the world live in poverty and politicians are, even now, proposing further cuts.

But there's always $ for tax cuts and war!

And we can't afford free public college tuition? We did 50 years ago!

Corruption, greed and militarism steal public resources and are bankrupting this country. One party works to make it worse, the other gets a cut for staying silent. Both betray US.
 
 
+4 # tedrey 2018-07-08 20:55
Hey, Librarian! I'm darned sure you don't want to run for office, but how about script-writing for some of these exiting young candidates? You can lash and you can woo!
 
 
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-09 04:33
lib -- And we can't afford free public college tuition? We did 50 years ago!"


College is not the same now. When I went to college, we lived very poorly -- no heat or air conditioning, barely any food. Now many colleges are like Club Med with full staffs of exercise people, psychologists in case the kids feel bad, health centers, free condoms and birth control, entertainment, luxurious dorms, and so on. College faculty and administrators also make pretty good salaries, as opposed to 50 years ago.

I also think that college graduates can make a lot of money so they can afford to pay. Free tuition is really another gift to the white upper middle class. I'd rather see this money go to reparations for African Americans for 400 years of slavery, apartheid, and racism.

I worked my ass off in college and probably that was a good thing.
 
 
+5 # Benign Observer 2018-07-09 14:05
Respectfully disagree. At least, it's not JUST a gift to white middle class people.

It's an investment in our future instead of handing gobs of cash to the CEOs who've moved into the halls of academe or the psychopaths who decide who to bomb every day at a million dollars each.

It's an undreamed-of opportunity for the poor, who could tell their children, If you work hard you WILL be able to go to college, and that is a huge leg up, when mobility in the US is almost at a standstill.

It's an incentive for millions of kids who might think they have no hope of going to college, ever, or have to enlist in the military to get a degree.

It's a statement that we value knowledge and progress over destruction, that our priorities have changed.

We're not talking about Ivy League colleges. Let the neo-toffs have at it. It's public college, vocational schools and community colleges.

We could incentivize engineering, nursing, teaching, computer scientists, things we need.

Kids would still have to work for their books (another racket), living, etc. But give them a dream that is attainable.
 
 
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-10 05:28
Benign -- I agree with what you say. We need to open colleges for the kids of working class, immigrants, and non-whites. There's such a class system in colleges, even in state universities.

I would really like a program that helps the long standing disadvantaged, and not the white middle class. They will get college degrees and good paying jobs anyway. They take it as a birthright.

Loans for college are a racket and a scam. People are suckered into taking out a loan.

Almost no one pays the "sticker price" for college tuition, except for international students who are ripped off to subsidize citizen students. There is a lot of financial aid already, but again it is too often the privileged kids who get it.

Anyway, I think there are bigger issues than this one. A college degree is still the best thing any young person could achieve.
 
 
+12 # PABLO DIABLO 2018-07-08 13:26
NO, this is all wrong. The Democrats should run Chelsea Clinton so they can continue to rake in corporate money while losing.
 
 
+5 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-09 04:17
PD -- be careful. Don't plant any ideas. They may actually do this. After all, she's qualified. She's run one of the biggest charity organizations in the world.
 
 
+1 # Benign Observer 2018-07-09 14:12
The Washington Post ran an article last week suggesting HRC is either thinking about a 2020 run, or should.

I'm afraid she just might, maybe on a ticket with Chelsea, since Bill didn't go down too well. (That's what SHE said!)

Would the DP tell her no? We know she still has the DNC in her pocket. JCM/RMF have stepped up attacks lately -- and may just be Correct the Record operatives.

After what she's put us through for three years I hope she does. I'd like to see her in a crowded field getting 1-2% of the vote so she might finally get the point.
 
 
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-10 05:22
I saw an article somewhere else that claimed Hillary was fundraising and meeting with key people who might support her run in 2020. The media would really love a re-run of the Trump vs. Hillary race. The nation may never recover.

Presidential campaign would replace WWE on TV.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-10 11:28
OMG I would not put it past her!

I agree though, she'd sink faster than a rock. She would actually pay a price for her post-election victim tours.

Maybe this time her slogans could be 'Hillary!' or 'Waaa!'
 
 
+7 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-08 13:47
I would not support Bloomberg under any circumstances. He's just Hillary in pants. I'd vote Green again and probably Trump would win. Is this what the right of center democrats want??

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is too young and inexperienced to be a party leader. She's a millenial and represents the direction that younger democrats will move in. She's a trend indicator. The trend is not pointing to the neo-liberal Bloomberg. It is going to the left.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 14:11
V. Putting It All Together and Winning

JAM/RMF act like progressives don't want to win but that's not the case. Look at the posts from two years ago and see who was right about what was happening in the primaries and what would happen in the general election. Compare that to leaders who've lost 1000+ seats.

Genuinely unifying and working together to defeat Trump and the GOP is the best case scenario. Win-win-win for the party, the people and the country.

But we aren't going to unite by edict or bullying. We are EQUAL partners. The Unity Reform Commission was a great idea and then the establishment ignored its recommendations and let us know Steny Hoyer will pick our candidates before any of us has a chance to vote. That's not unifying. When the energy is progressive but you empower blue dogs? That's not unifying -- and it seems like a dangerous gamble after the 2016 results.

Many progressives want a third party and the DP continually reminds us why.

It would be great to work together but it's a two-way street. We don't get there by bashing Bernie Sanders or running on fear alone. Give people something to vote FOR. That is a principle progressives know that the establishment has forgotten.

Together we are stronger and we can win. But we won't unite without representation, a principle that resounds in all revolutionary times.

DP: Be honest. Be fair. Prioritize the people. Then we will fight together and sweep the midterms.
 
 
+7 # rivervalley 2018-07-08 14:53
"That kind of rich-oppressor versus poor-oppressed framework...is sure to fail on a national level."
Which I guess in her opinion is why Bernie had no support and won no primaries? (but she only watched MSM)

Mr Bloomberg's run, if it happens, will have the same result as their last candidate - maybe, just maybe, that's what they really want - they get the neo liberal policies they like and maintain the usefull fiction that they really wanted the opposite.
I'll stick with the Dem's this year, but if they pull the same crap as last time, I'm switching to the People's Party.
 
 
+9 # Benign Observer 2018-07-08 15:37
Wow, lots of great comments!

The author calls Medicare for all 'extreme' and other ideas 'fringe' but apparently doesn't have any problem at all with a $1 trillion military budget.
 
 
+4 # JCM 2018-07-08 16:22
There are people here who have stated that they would still rather have rump than Hillary. That's like saying you want more pollution, more financial theft. You want the EPA to be destroyed. The state department crushed, more tariffs, tear down our allies, build up putin. Hate immigrants, remove millions of people from healthcare, try to wipe out the Safety Net. Bring back pre-existing conditions. For profit universities that rip off student (Like Trump University), think that dictators are great while demeaning our friends. And not believing in Climate Change. And they called me a troll. And in a way that's right, I am a troll (independent and unpaid) for Democracy that has been stolen by rump and the republicans. On the other hand, these people would rather empower those who have stolen our Democracy by telling people to punish the Dems by splitting the vote. Third party votes will not get you a better party, it will only get you more republicans. Who is paying you for their deceit? If you really cared about our Democracy then you would realize our main goal is to unseat the rump and his republicans. The way to advance the Dems is to support progressives as much as you can, vote for them in the primaries but if they don't make it to the election you have to vote for the winner of that primary. From longfortruth: "At this point in the Trump presidency anyone encouraging you not to vote or to vote for a third party is on someone's payroll." Who's paying for your deceit?
 
 
0 # Benign Observer 2018-07-10 05:36
Here's another way Clinton's loss had a silver lining - it may have defanged mini-media mogul and hired thug David Brock, the chief operative in charge of Clinton's online presence - which the people who've been here a while can attest is a pretty awful direction for the political arm of the party to have taken.

When you look back at the phenomena he was responsible for (online trolls attacking Democratic voters and progressives, raising money for shitty ads found to have contained the lowest percentage of content in campaign history, watchdog-ing coverage of Clinton) you see just how much harm he did, how much this schism is a direct result of his strategies and activities - the corruption of the press and campaigning, the vicious tone even against your potential allies.

If HRC had won all that would have been validated, further empowered and more highly funded.

Coverage of Brock and his 'novel legal theories' was largely admiring, at least in political organs.

If Clinton had won Brock would be the Democratic Party's Karl Rove, a lowlife criminal with a better haircut, HRC's David Axelrod. What a freaking nightmare.

As it is, the people who bought Hillary Clinton saw their money flushed away. They learned that there are actual limits to what money can do, what it can buy.

We have Trump to deal with - but we also have a small chance of fixing the party. If Clinton had won it we'd have a generation of further degeneration.
 
 
-1 # JCM 2018-07-08 16:27
There are some who would lie about some people’s position on the Democratic Party and what we can do. Mine is Simply:
To change the Democratic Party, we must support progressive ideas continually as best we can.
We must support progressive candidates during the primaries as much as possible.
We must vote for the winner of the Democratic primaries.
Not voting or voting third party will not unseat the republicans but will give them an advantage to win.
We should criticize the Dems when they go wrong, but not fail to criticize the republicans so not to create the impression that the two parties are the same.
There are blue dogs that I would like to get rid of but are still better than any republican.
We must unite our purpose to remove rump and the republicans
 
 
+2 # tedrey 2018-07-09 11:35
The problem here is that although all your points are necessary to win big in this year's elections, the first two are being actively and intentionally sabotaged by the DNC and Democratic incumbency. They are intentionally running stand-patters against every progressive candidate and actively attacking their campaigns. But most of us here believe only progressive wins can defeat the GOP.

You show no signs of comprehending or replying to our actual comments. Your constant insistence on distorting our position and repeating that preferring progressives means preferring Trump is insulting, and is a major reason we have decided you are either a troll or beyond the reach of rational discourse. But since you here at last show some clarity of thought I decided from charity I'd try once more. Please take it in good humor.
 
 
+1 # tarantilla 2018-07-08 16:53
Democrats still arguing? Choice for president was HRC or Trump. That is still the choice. Too many Democrats chose Trump and still they argue. The choice is easy. Anyone one but Trump. Just vote Democrat. HELLO
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2018-07-08 17:29
The party rank and file has already decided.
We want to be the party of Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez. What Daniella Greenbaum refers to as the "left fringe" is the majority of Democrats. If the party leaders try to foist Bloomberg on us we will go elsewhere or sit it out. The reason the party is split in the first place is the neoliberal policies of the centrists that left so many people behind over the last few decades. Beating Trump is not enough incentive to give in to corporate Dems. I wonder why this article is even here.
 
 
+8 # PaineRad 2018-07-08 18:15
The author repeats one of the biggest, badest lies continually shouted by the media. namely that anyone like Bloomberg, Clinton, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, etc. is a "centrist" or a "moderate." When one compares the policies of Democratic Party officials to those of the majority of the American people on economic and health issues, among others, None of them qualify. We the People are far to their left. Bernie Sanders is the centrist. Pramila Jayapal is a centrist. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the centrist Hillary Clinton is considerably right of center. The pair of Joes are way right of center. Michael Bloomberg is very right of center on most things except gun control (a relatively harmless position that in no way challenges the power of him and his buddies on Wall Street).

When the punditocracy talk of "moderates," they are universally talking about conservatives in either party on two different measuring sticks. We the People are in a separate universe with a single measuring stick. The pundits measuring sticks never accurately measure anything outside of The Beltway.
 
 
+3 # Benign Observer 2018-07-09 08:22
I agree with you SO MUCH. This is a lie that is repeated ad nauseum.

The Democrats are NOT centrist. US progressives are closer to centrist, but the media treats them like radicals. Most European countries have had universal health care since WW2.

These same people travel to Europe and talk about how great it is there, then come home and treat the citizens like stray dogs.
 
 
+3 # tedrey 2018-07-09 11:43
You might add that on the *European* measuring stick there are effectively NO leftists in America. In the world's eyes we are a deeply conservative nation with liberal pretensions that only recently have shown signs of reemergence.
 
 
+7 # Inspired Citizen 2018-07-08 18:51
If Our Revolution doesn't take over the Democratic Party, Revolt Against Plutocracy aims to destroy what remains of the neo-liberal Democrats. In 2020, it's going to be #ProgressiveOrB ust whether it's Bernie Sanders or a replacement contender on the left. #TulsiOrTrash the Democratic Party 2020?

This is a war on neo-liberal politicians.

For more on electoral leverage, find to read Bernie or Bust: Pioneers of Electoral Revolt.
 
 
+3 # dquandle 2018-07-08 20:49
They are the party of Bloomberg, Kissinger, Nuland, Power, Clinton Lloyd Blankswine, and Jaime Demon.. And A-bombs, drones, nerve gas, and napalm. Profit, imperialism, and mass murder at everybody's expense, except their own. They made that absolutely crystal clear decades ago. How much more in the way of deeply stupid and phenomenally criminal acts do they have to engage in, not to mention losing elections like nobody's business, before people who call themselves liberals jump the f%^k off the hell-bound "Democrat" train wreck.
 
 
+7 # corduroyz 2018-07-08 21:21
You MUST be joking. Bloomberg represents the monied interests that Pelosi backs and that failed Clinton. Ocasio-Cortez stands for so many of the principles the Democratic Party once stood for and produced. I, for one, am tired of kowtowing to the Corporate right and the belief that only money can win it for the Democrats.
 
 
+1 # Jaax88 2018-07-08 23:16
There are now three things to work for and win from the progressive position. One, win the 2020 election by removing trump with any voters available. Two, work to shift the power holders in the Demo party to more progressive faction away from the old Demo power holders or create a new progressive party (probably no since the chance of winning elections in the short term would not be very good.) Three, progressives take control of one part of Congress.
 
 
+3 # Eddie G 2018-07-09 07:53
This sounds like the same thinking that lead the dems to shoot themselves in the foot by nominating HRC in 2016.
 
 
+3 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-09 15:01
The Daily Mail is reporting --

"Is she back? Talk emerges that Hillary Clinton is plotting her 2020 comeback and prepping to take on Donald Trump a second time"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5931169/Talk-emerges-Hillary-Clinton-plotting-2020-comeback-prepping-Trump-rematch.html


She's raising money and making appearances and meeting with power brokers. She's telling them that she is the leader of the democratic party. This will energize the residue of Hillary fans right here on RSN. Their messiah is back. But for the rest of us this is a nightmare.

(PS. I don't consider the Daily Mail a reliable source. Maybe this is "fake news.")
 
 
+2 # bcmarshall 2018-07-10 10:57
I wish Hillary would sit down and shut up. She's done, and if she gets back into the race she's gonna lose again.

Get over it, Hillary. Your moment has passed. Get out of the way.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-10 11:36
So many people held their nose and voted for her, and the way she behaved afterward was so bad. I couldn't believe she didn't even come out to thank her people the night of the election. I have trouble believing she'd get much support for another round.

Who else has run three time? Nixon?

This must be fake conservative news to get people riled up. If not, one would think party power brokers would put a stop to it. Surely they're not as afraid of the Clintons as they were two years ago?

Ugh, what a nightmare.
 
 
+2 # bcmarshall 2018-07-10 10:55
Whaddya bet that the author is a Republican giving advice to Democrats?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN