No, the Democratic Party isnt divided or in disarray

[comradebillyboy]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hasn’t lost his ability to make Democrats mad, and once again, he has triggered an intraparty kerfuffle on social media. This isn’t a huge deal while Donald Trump is still the president, but it’s worth focusing on as a preview of what the Democratic Party is going to face between now and 2020.

As we head towards the next presidential cycle, many people — on the right, the left and in the media — will be saying Democrats are in the throes of an identity crisis, a struggle for their party’s soul that will tear them apart. But they aren’t, and they won’t be. The Democratic Party screws up plenty and contains its share of idiots, but when it comes to its identity, it’s doing just fine.

On Wednesday, Sanders spoke at a commemoration event in Jackson, Miss., to mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King. BuzzFeed reporter Ruby Cramer quoted Sanders as saying:

“The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure . . . People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/04/05/no-the-democratic-party-isnt-divided-or-in-disarray/?utm_term=.998c07c5077f

[4now]

1. I have never seen Democrats so united

[Hortensis]

30. Simple truth. Especially in goals. Some pols

speak of the excellent basic structure we inherited, the damange done by Republicans, and the need for repairs and always for further progress. Others insist our systems are broken and call for "revolution," but the actual goals are virtually the same as mainstream Democrats, just different language used to build a voter base.

... Democrats believe we are stronger when we have an economy that works for everyone—an economy that grows incomes for working people, creates good-paying jobs, and puts a middle-class life within reach for more Americans. Democrats believe we can spur more sustainable economic growth, which will create good-paying jobs and raise wages. And we can have more economic fairness, so the rewards are shared broadly, not just with those at the top. We need an economy that prioritizes long-term investment over short-term profit-seeking, rewards the common interest over self-interest, and promotes innovation and entrepreneurship.

We believe that today’s extreme level of income and wealth inequality—where the majority of the economic gains go to the top one percent and the richest 20 people in our country own more wealth than the bottom 150 million—makes our economy weaker, our communities poorer, and our politics poisonous.

And we know that our nation’s long struggle with race is far from over. More than half a century after Rosa Parks sat and Dr. King marched and John Lewis bled, more than half a century after César Chávez, Dolores Huerta, and Larry Itliong organized, race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind. We must face that reality and we must fix it.

We believe a good education is a basic right of all Americans, no matter what zip code they live in. We will end the school-to-prison pipeline and build a cradle-to-college pipeline instead, where every child can live up to his or her God-given potential.

We believe in helping Americans balance work and family without fear of punishment or penalty. We believe in at last guaranteeing equal pay for women. And as the party that created Social Security, we believe in protecting every American’s right to retire with dignity.

We firmly believe that the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street must be brought to an end. Wall Street must never again be allowed to threaten families and businesses on Main Street.

Democrats believe we are stronger when we protect citizens’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We will fight to end the broken campaign finance system, overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision, restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act, and return control of our elections to the American people.

Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.

Democrats believe we are stronger and safer when America brings the world together and leads with principle and purpose. We believe we should strengthen our alliances, not weaken them. We believe in the power of development and diplomacy. ...

Above all, Democrats are the party of inclusion. We know that diversity is not our problem—it is our promise. As Democrats, we respect differences of perspective and belief, and pledge to work together to move this country forward, even when we disagree. With this platform, we do not merely seek common ground—we strive to reach higher ground.

We are proud of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. We know that today’s immigrants are tomorrow’s teachers, doctors, lawyers, government leaders, soldiers, entrepreneurs, activists, PTA members, and pillars of our communities.

We believe in protecting civil liberties and guaranteeing civil rights and voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights, LGBT rights, and rights for people with disabilities. We believe America is still, as Robert Kennedy said, “a great country, an unselfish country, and a compassionate country.”

These principles stand in sharp contrast to the Republicans, who have nominated as the standard-bearer for their party and their candidate for President a man who seeks to appeal to Americans’ basest differences, rather than our better natures.

The stakes have been high in previous elections. But in 2016, the stakes can be measured in human lives—in the number of immigrants who would be torn from their homes; in the number of faithful and peaceful Muslims who would be barred from even visiting our shores; in the number of allies alienated and dictators courted; in the number of Americans who would lose access to health care and see their rights ripped away.

This election is about more than Democrats and Republicans. It is about who we are as a nation, and who we will be in the future.

Two hundred and forty years ago, in Philadelphia, we started a revolution of ideas and of action that continues to this day. Since then, our union has been tested many times, through bondage and civil war, segregation and depression, two world wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Generations of Americans fought and marched and organized to widen the circle of opportunity and dignity—and we are fighting still.

Despite what some say, America is and has always been great—but not because it has been perfect. What makes America great is our unerring belief that we can make it better. We can and we will build a more just economy, a more equal society, and a more perfect union—because we are stronger together.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[leftstreet]

2. The 'kerfuffle' could be a good thing, media wise

Even if nothing within the party changes, the perception that people want it to could be useful

[Skittles]

3. I cannot say what I really think of him

because it would get me a Hide

[Me.]

6. I Say Independants Should Go THeir Own Way

and let Dems Be Dems

[ehrnst]

28. +1000. (nt)

[Cary]

29. But then they couldn't sow discord and discontent

Or at least bask in their perceived glory.

[Jim Lane]

32. Will you still say that if Dems have a net gain of two Senate seats this fall?

For example, suppose we flip Nevada and Arizona, all other incumbents win or are replaced by someone of the same party; or, if someone like McCaskill goes down, either Bredesen or O'Rourke (or maybe even Mike Espy) wins to make up for it. There are other scenarios.

Result: Republicans 49, Democrats-with-a-D-after-their-names 49, Independents 2. More precisely, Independents-who-have-always-caucused-with-the-Democrats-but-who-have-now-been-told-to-go-their-own-way 2. If King and Sanders take your advice, then the vote on control of the Senate is 49 to 49, Pence breaks the tie. All the GOP committee and subcommittee chairs retain their posts, and McConnell stays on as Majority Leader.

But, hey, at least the Democratic caucus will have been purified to the satisfaction of the people who despise Bernie Sanders. That's surely the most important thing, right?

[Me.]

36. If Your Scenario Should PLay Out

we'll talk, until then it's just hypothetical. However, I will say that any Dem expecting any type of loyalty from BS or the OR crowd shouldn't count their chickens for who knows when one or the other will be agreeing with Comrade Trump or decide to vote for a Con.

[Jim Lane]

39. The Bernie bashing is getting to be a parody of itself.

If a current member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate were to defect -- big-time, by formally switching to the GOP, or incrementally, by voting for a Comrade Trump pick like Neil Gorsuch -- it's much more likely to be Joe Manchin or his ilk than Bernie Sanders.

In fact, Joe Manchin did vote to confirm Gorsuch. Bernie Sanders voted Nay.

Then we have the recent bill to gut Dodd-Frank. More than a dozen true-blue D-after-their-names Democrats joined with every single voting Republican to push through that bill that Don the Con wanted. Bernie Sanders voted Nay.

If you trust the conservaDems more than you trust Bernie Sanders, that's your affair. I'm a lawyer and Gorsuch will be filling that seat for the rest of my professional career and I know who my friends are.

[Me.]

40. Now, Now, Don't Put Words In My Mouth

[Jim Lane]

41. Your exact word was "loyalty", tested in part by "agreeing with Comrade Trump"

I pointed out that, based on the test you propounded, Bernie has exhibited more loyalty to the principles of the Democratic Party than have many nominal Democrats, who've been willing to go along with Don the Con.

While we're on the subject of loyalty (your word), here's a little quiz. Fill in the blank in this sentence:

In 2012, Sen. ____________, who was facing reelection, said he was still deciding between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Hint: It's a Senator who's been mentioned in this thread.

To my mind, that sentence is very instructive about Democrats' prospects for "expecting any type of loyalty" (your words) from that Senator.

Further hint: It's either Joe Manchin or Bernie Sanders.

OK, you've had enough time to figure out where the loyalty problem might be. The quiz answer is... Joe Manchin.

[Me.]

65. BS/Loyalty To Dems

[Skittles]

70. Gorsuch would not be there if Trump wasn't there

and Trump would not be there if...........oh, forget it, not EVEN worth my time

[vi5]

56. What I find constantly hysterical....

...is the same people who are basically saying "Fuck Bernie.....let him go his own way!!!" are the same ones who say "We can't hurt (insert conservative Dem's name here)'s fee fees because we need their vote!!!!!!"

Bernie votes with us more than 90% of the time and people want him to go away and not expect anything in return form anyone in the party, but will fall all over themselves to protect someone who votes with us "75% of the time!!!!!" simply because they have a certain letter after their name.

[Jim Lane]

67. You're more charitable than I am.

What you write is absolutely correct, but I don't find "hysterical" to be a strong enough term. [Remainder of angry tirade declaimed to my cat instead of being posted.]

[vi5]

68. Oh believe me....

...when I say "hysterical" I mean "pathetic and infuriating".

[democratisphere]

51. THIS!

Sing it from the Democratic Mountain Tops!

[samnsara]

11. SAME HERE!

[radical noodle]

4. Of course we're not divided

We are unified. All we have to do is pick the best Democrats for the jobs.

[democratisphere]

52. Operative word "Democrats"!

Thank you!

[radical noodle]

71. I vote only for Democrats and

I think most everyone here does the same.

[JaneQPublic]

5. Bernie: "the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure."

If that's how he really feels, then Bernie should stay a million miles away from the Dem Party when he runs for president in 2020.

After all, it would be nothing short of hypocritical and opportunistic for him to swan back into the Dem Party for the next election just to reserve a mic on the debate stage, especially after he quit the party last time the minute it was clear he lost the nomination and after he's been blasting the party as a corrupt failure every chance he gets.

Let him stay the hell away from the failed Dem party. He can join Dr. Jill on the debate stage to compete for the Green Party nomination.

[Me.]

7. I Can't Imagine He Would Be Allowed Back

as a Dem

[JaneQPublic]

9. I agree! But I'm not familiar with DNC rules for such things. However,

This fella makes an ironclad argument for keeping Bernie out of the party....

Link to tweet

[Skittles]

25. cringe-worthy

nothing new though

[Jim Lane]

34. The DNC doesn't -- and can't -- make the rules.

There's this persistent view on DU that, in 2015, the DNC magnanimously voted to let Bernie Sanders run in the primaries, and that in 2019 that supposed mistake should not be repeated. There was no such vote.

In fact, ballot access is in the hands of the state governments that run primaries. (Caucuses may be a different story.) Qualifying for the ballot of a primary usually depends on paying a fee and submitting enough petition signatures, with the precise rules set by each state legislature.

The DNC's only power would be to go totally dictatorial: "We will not seat, at the Convention, any delegate who has been chosen in the primary but who is pledged to support a candidate we disapprove of." The Republicans would just love to be able to tell the people of, for example, New Hampshire (heavy Sanders win in the primary, narrow Clinton win in the general), that the Democratic Party refused to seat their chosen delegates. "The Democrat [sic] Party doesn't care about the people of our great state!"

It's hard to imagine a course of action better suited to hand the election to the GOP.

[Skittles]

35. I have never read anywhere on DU where anyone thought the DNC had that vote

nope

[Jim Lane]

43. Then I'm confused by your own #23 in this thread

You wrote that "it should never have been allowed". Your use of the passive voice meant that I had to do some interpreting -- allowed by whom? If you didn't mean that the DNC allowed it, then I apologize for guessing wrong.

So, who or what was the actor who allowed it and should not have?

Aside from your comments and others in this thread, there have been numerous comments in other threads along the lines of "allowing Bernie to run in the Democratic primaries was a mistake that I hope (or, in some posts, that I predict) will not be repeated." I don't think anyone has ever expressly said that there was a DNC vote, but it seems to be an implicit assumption. Certainly no one has ever explained who else it was that supposedly made a mistake.

[Skittles]

44. saying it should not have been allowed

is not the same as thinking there was an actual VOTE

I just think if someone is going to run as a DEMOCRAT they should have BEEN a DEMOCRAT (as in, maybe something should be CHANGED so that CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN)

[Jim Lane]

45. Sorry, but if you keep using the passive voice I won't fully understand you

You now write "maybe something should be CHANGED" without specifying the agent who would do it.

Let's start with the DNC. My point is that the DNC can't make rules about ballot access. Its only option would be the one I called "dictatorial" in #34: a refusal to seat duly elected delegates whose opinions displeased the party oligarchs. I'm confident that the DNC is too smart to shoot itself in the foot by incurring the enormous ill will that such a decree would generate.

A change in the rules about ballot access would have to be made by 50 separate state legislatures plus the governing bodies of a handful of other jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.) that choose convention delegates. (Maybe it would be fewer than 50 if, in some states, there is no primary, and the caucus is completely under party control. It would still be a lot.) Furthermore, given that several states (including Vermont) don't even have partisan registration, any such change to confine ballot access to Democrats would have to define the term in a way that didn't assume partisan registration.

If that's the program that you think should perhaps be implemented, well, it obviously won't happen.

That's a good thing, IMO, because the Democratic nominee in 2020 would be hurt by such a change. In 2016, more than 13 million people voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Most of them then voted for the Democratic nominee in the general election. If you tell them that they can't vote for whom they want to in the primary, that would obviously cause some of them to be alienated enough to vote third party or stay home in November.

[Skittles]

46. um

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

[Jim Lane]

59. Did you read your link all the way to the end?

After much frothing about the fact that "12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump," the article finally gets around to giving some perspective:

While much was made of the so-called Bernie-or-bust phenomenon, the number of Sanders supporters who crossed party lines to vote for Trump in 2016 may not be that unusual. A 2010 study in Public Opinion Quarterly found that in the 2008 election 25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election.

IOW, as has been pointed out on DU more than once, the "disloyalty" (i.e., support for the Republican nominee) was more than twice as high among Clinton 2008 voters as among Sanders 2016 voters.

[Skittles]

69. yes I read it all

and it does not distract from the original premise

he helped Trump - A LOT

DONE HERE

[betsuni]

49. "party oligarchs" -- you're calling Democrats oligarchs?

[Jim Lane]

60. Please note the context.

I was talking about a hypothetical situation in which the DNC repeals its current rule of neutrality in the primary. In this scenario, the DNC instead decrees that delegates won't be seated at the convention if they're pledged to a candidate who's not on the approved list.

Should the DNC tell duly elected delegates that they wouldn't be seated because, even though they attracted enough grassroots support for success in the primary, their opinions displeased the DNC? Party leaders who tried to overrule the voters that way would indeed be acting as oligarchs.

Note also that I said, in the very next sentence, that the DNC would be too smart to do such a thing.

[betsuni]

64. Oligarchs.

I know what you are doing.

[Skittles]

23. it should never have been allowed

[Me.]

31. Totally Agree

Let him travel on his own organization

[JaneQPublic]

10. This discussion is not about HRC/BS 2016. It's about BS in 2020. (NT)

[Skittles]

26. copy that statement; you'll need to keep pasting

yes indeed

[NCTraveler]

14. It is not about HRC. Nt

[Cha]

16. This is NOT about Hillary.. These are BS' words in Jackson

Mississippi yesterday.. why can't you see that, Initech?

You should be appealing to Sanders.

Link to tweet

BS chose the day after we won big in Wisconsin to attack the Democratic Party.. and the day of the Anniversary of the assassination of MLK to go after President Obama.

[Initech]

20. Yes that was total bullshit, I agree.

[Cha]

22. ..

[pnwmom]

18. Why don't you really wish Bernie would stop disparaging Barack Obama,

which he did once again on the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's death?

[Initech]

21. I wish everyone would.

Especially compared to the shit stain we have in the White House now.

[DLevine]

47. Disparage him how?

By calling him charismatic, extraordinary and brilliant?

[pnwmom]

50. By saying he was an extraordinary "candidate" while linking him to 15 years of Democratic failure.

In Bernie's telling, the charismatic Obama was merely window-dressing, helping to distract the public from the party's failures.

[DLevine]

58. I disagree with your characterization that Bernie said he saw Obama as

merely window-dressing. I took it as Bernie saying that despite Obama's charisma, extraordinary candidacy, and brilliance, the Democratic Party lost ground over the past 15 years, and we as a party need to work on that. I don't think he was blaming Obama.

He also urged people to gotv and vote Democratic. He caucuses with Democrats. He constantly attacks the KGOP. He is on our side. Why so much hatred for this man?

[pnwmom]

61. He said he was an extraordinary candidate but didn't give him credit for being a great or even good

or even satisfactory President -- though Obama managed to pull us out of the worst recession since the great depression, AND got universal health insurance passed, despite solid opposition.

He never passes on an opportunity to blame Democrats -- even traveling to Mississippi on the anniversary of MLK's death so that he can disparage the Democrats and the first African American President in history, pretending to compliment him with comments about his candidacy -- but saying nothing about his successes as President.

He literally isn't on the Democrats' side or he would have remained a Democrat --not returned to the sidelines.

[Wellstone ruled]

12. Understand the Bot network is

the real promoter of the Division theme. BTW,we have a ton of Trolls echoing this same meme.

We are united despite what Fox Fake News says.

[msongs]

13. oddly enuff repubs control ALL the federal government and a majority of states nt

[vi5]

55. Bingo!

"But.....but....we won the special state election for country clerk in district 5 of Iowa last month!!!! So that must mean we are doing everything right!!!!"

[NCTraveler]

15. I dont think we are in disarray.

I think we have a Sanders problem. He is detached from reality in a truth to power kind of way. His message resonates with more people than many think, IMO.

[TCJ70]

17. Bernie encouraged people to vote for Democrats

So one of the things we have got to do, which I mentioned earlier, is make sure that the Democrats - you don't win elections unless you show up!

The quote you posted isn't incorrect...but it isn't complete and doesn't reflect what he was actually saying. He brought up the gains made lately and encouraged people to come out for Dems. Not a bad message.

[mcar]

19. The media will try to push their favorite meme

But it isn't true. We are united!

[Trumpocalypse]

24. So he attacks the party instead of

saying something to honor the memory of Dr. King and the civil rights movement. I can't believe I voted for this guy.

[Blue_Tires]

27. THANK YOU!

[herding cats]

33. Actually, the Dem Party is doing pretty damn good right now! 🙂

Bernie taking potshots at the Democratic Party isn't divisiveness, it just means Bernie was out dipping his toe into 2020 someplace again. His message has always been the Democratic Party is bad, corrupt and little more than Republican lite. That's what he's built his career on and his base loves it.

Right now the Democratic Party is on the cusp of potentially winning back the House and making some gains in the Senate. We're doing great right now all the way down to the local races!

So, don't go out and light your hair on fire and run screaming in the streets just because someone in the press, or in the internet someplace says Bernie says we're broken. We're actually on the mend and doing better than we have in ages.

[peggysue2]

38. I agree

Don't care what crabby old Bernie says. At the moment, there's more unity in the Democratic Party than I've seen in years. And the elections we've been winning prove the point. We're fighting not only for Democrats but the country at large. It's truly that serious. If Sander's can't see that then he's even more myopic than I thought. As for his recent comments at the MLK celebration? He shot himself in the foot, regardless of what his supporters claim. Not the first time either.

The Trumpster and his acolytes are the enemy--the true enemy--not the Democratic Party.

[Thekaspervote]

37. Thats right!! If we were so divided would we be winning so many special elections?

[betsuni]

42. K&R

[oberliner]

48. There are definitely divisions with the Democratic party

To think otherwise is ridiculous.

[Locrian]

53. absoluletly

purity tests for everyone's favorite candidate, infighting etc.
constructive criticism on policy is fine - however I see a lot of cult of personality and people actively working as disruptors.

[vi5]

54. I don't agree with him completely....

But looking at the past 15 years, other than Obama and a few special elections in the past year it's hard to argue that something is not 100% right with our tactics and approach.

Yes, some of this can be blamed on Republican shenanigans but not all of it.

In the past 15 years we only briefly controlled the house and the Senate and that was after.....wait for it.....Obama's election.

We control very few state houses, and ones we do such as New York are plagued by skeezy bullshit like the "Independent Democratic Caucus" giving control to Republicans.

This anti-Trump wave may get us some pick ups but if we want to sustain it we're going to need to work on our longer term strategy than just "Yay we won an election!!"

People are going to look at what Republicans did in the past year when they were in charge and even though most of them will hate it, they are going to see what is and is not possible, even with the slimmest of majorities. And people are no longer going to accept the excuses of "Well we don't have 61 votes, can't do it......President can't act unilaterally." and all of the other excuses.

So yeah...if we're going to dig our heels in and say that nothing needs to change about the Democratic party, just to spite something Bernie said......then we're going to be in a world of hurt.

[bronxiteforever]

57. I am Fired Up! Ready to go! For 2018.

Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2018, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)

As President Obama rallied us in the past. The Democratic Party is the last fire extinguisher left in a house on fire. Why would we want to spray it into each other’s faces? It belongs fighting the fire.

In the face of the attempted destruction of our Country, we will not be divided but inspired.
There are many opportunities to fire rethugs in 2018. If we do not succeed in 2018, despite Bernie’s desire to run for POTUS, we don’t make it to 2020.
So folks either need to join in saving the Country or get out of the way for the millions who want to.

[CentralMass]

62. Sanders has the support of many Democrats including myself. I understand that he maintains his

independent status and that issues arise from that. IMO he is a positive force fighting for issues that matter to me. If he were allowed run as a Democrat i would likely vote for him again.

Most if us are not sycophants.i like the Clintons and President Obama and I voted for them all. That doesn't preclude me from being critical of them or the party.

I won't devolve this into a laundry list of negatives but I have issues with all politicians and the party and don't blindly follow and worship the ground that they walk on. President Obama is a remarkable man. His presidency was transformational. I really admire and like the Obama's on a personal level. However I had some issues with some his policies. I'll start with Arne Duncan and his crappy public education policies that could have come straight out of a republican think tank.
This race to the top was terrible. States competed for dollars in what essentially was a lottery by agreeing to drop limits or moratoriumd on charter schools and had to adopt this blame/penalize teacher policy with merit pay etc. That issue alone would be enough to make me vote for another candidate. I also disagreed with some his fiscal management. He opted not to allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset back in 2010 . IMO this was more then just a pragmatic necessary evil, it was buying political capital at great cost. I think that fight for the ACA had sucked all the oxygen from the room.
It gave into the narrative that tax cuts (while you are bleeding money) are beneficial.


While the issue of how you calculate how much a President added to the national debt is complicated, https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293, it went up nearly $10 trillion under his watch. The massive national debt that unfortunately doubled during his presidency is going to be the justification the GOP uses to gut spending on social programs. Starve the Beast
.

[Orsino]

63. We just aren't in lockstep like GOP voters are.

They've been conditioned to update their history books and to nod along with almost any lies.

We educate our voters. That takes the kind of work that the Republicans have long forgotten how to do, but we're doing it, and it's worth it. If we look disorganized, well, that's the way politics is supposed to be.

[Jim Lane]

66. Agreed! I don't support the fetishization of unity.

In particular, the denunciation of any primary contest, and even of any public statement of disagreement, ignores that "that's the way politics is supposed to be."

People can be unified in opposing Trump and yet still have differences, such as over single payer. We don't suppress those differences. We work them out, even if it makes us look disorganized.