Better than a republican.

[cali]

Yes, practically any democrat is better than every republican when it comes to the White House. (or any other elective office), but I find that statement so.... beaten down. Not to mention depressing. To say that's a low bar, is an understatement.

Yes, the SC is important, even vital. And the thought of what a republican president and a republican congress aim to accomplish, is horrifying. I don't deny that for a minute.

But every time we reduce our party to "we're better than the republicans", we cede ground.

I don't know where the American public stands. We've had quite a few interesting discussions over the years about whether the electorate is more liberal or more conservative. Personally, I think it's both; the electorate is all over the map. But both parties keep moving, seemingly inexorably, to the right, on issue after issue after issue. The more power republicans amass, the further to the right the democratic party moves.

There's this sort of smoke screen extant in democratic politics. More and more democratic politicians seem to be using social issues as the main criteria of liberalism/progressivism, enabling these politicians to take more right wing positions on foreign policy and economic policy.

It's frustrating.

[djean111]

1. Exactly right!!!!! -

There's this sort of smoke screen extant in democratic politics. More and more democratic politicians seem to be using social issues as the main criteria of liberalism/progressivism, enabling these politicians to take more right wing positions on foreign policy and economic policy.

This is Hillary, as far as I can tell, and see, from her supporters. Mention the TPP and they counter with her remarks about women, as if she had to choose one or the other. And as if things like the TPP and TTIP won't adversely affect women and children. As if women won't lose their jobs to H-1B visa holders.

[cali]

2. Yep. It's frustrating.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I'm really glad I'm not the only one who sees this.

The Corporate Party has two wings that are divided on social issues, but united in advancing the interests of the Overlords. When people brome tired of being exploited by one wing of party, the other wing is given power for a while.

[cali]

4. I think a lot of us see it. The thing is, what to do about it?

[TBF]

11. Exactly - that's the hard part

and I'm not convinced it can be a peaceful effort.

There are people on the ground - like Starry Messenger working so hard at local elections in California. I know there are countless other committed DUers in other states pushing the most progressive candidates we can. I feel like we are still getting steam-rolled by a government/media that is getting more fascist by the day.

Beyond frustrating.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. we really can't do anything

in a climate where one person with $10 million has more say than 1 million people with $10 each.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Could it be that ...

More and more democratic politicians seem to be using social issues as the main criteria of liberalism/progressivism, enabling these politicians to take more right wing positions on foreign policy and economic policy.

Social issues ARE a/the main criteria of liberalism/progressivism AND the adoption of right wing positions on foreign policy and economic policy are separate, secondary issues ... at least for most non-white, male liberals/progressives.

[wyldwolf]

48. Correct!!

Even the New Deal was social issue-oriented in that it was directed at the middle and lower economic classes. And the GOP got their foreign policy FROM Democrats, not the other way around. It wasn't Republicans that drove WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

What Democrats have to realize here on DU (well, they don't HAVE to realize it, but it's absolutely true) is that the New Left's influence of the late 60s is NOT the actual face of the Democratic Party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. So true ...

many here romanticize the Party into something that it never was, taking snippets of events they like and ignoring the rest.

[JaneyVee]

5. Yay! Another anti-Hillary thread!

It's going to be a long 2 years around here, possibly a decade.

[cali]

7. this really isn't an anti-Hillary thread. It's about exactly what it says it's about

Hillary is hardly the only politician that fits.

[JaneyVee]

8. No one has even announced.

But it's true Hillary would be far better than any Republican. I'm looking forward to a Dem primary, and may the best candidate win.

[cali]

13. I'm not just talking about potential presidential candidates n/t

[Scuba]

14. Hillary would be better than Scott Walker, but not far better. Her positions on war, workers and ..

... Wall Street would be pretty much in alignment with Walker's.

[boston bean]

22. If he becomes president, you will be in for a big suprise, imho!

Keep working it from the left... it just may happen.

[Scuba]

26. Nothing he could do would surprise me. I live in Wisconsin.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. I completely disagree ...

Hillary would be a lot better than Scott Walker, even accepting the false narrative that her positions on war, workers and Wall Street would be pretty much in alignment with Walker's.

[wyldwolf]

49. Your new guy is a prime example, too, right?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/27/1302362/-What-Happened-When-Martin-O-Malley-s-Dark-Money-Group-Met-With-The-Fracking-Industry#

http://www.vice.com/read/the-democratic-party-future-dark-money-fracking

[Nye Bevan]

6. I'm a Hillary supporter. But I would unhesitatingly vote in the general election for any Dem

who beat her in the primaries. Because I am confident that no matter who the Dem candidate is, he or she will be preferable to the Republican.

I'm not sure that this is "ceding ground" so much as understanding how our 2-party system works.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. before I log on, I can see those posts.

But since I trashcanned Hillary, Clinton, and HRC I just log in and DU is better.

I will vote for Sanders first, Warren second, and.. well I'll have to see how things unfold In the next year.

I will never cast a vote for Hillary.

[boston bean]

10. What is wrong with being better than a republican??

Would it be better to be worse than one??

[TBF]

12. It's just a very low bar -

I even see these types of phrases on places like Facebook. I am told "you are holding out for perfect - that won't happen".

Yeah. But if you start negotiations from the middle as opposed to the far left you move right so much quicker.

[boston bean]

15. So, support someone who better fits your preferences...

That would seem reasonable.

All these anti-Hillary threads, just bashing, and republican talking points are pretty tiring. I've pretty much zoned out on them.

They are just people griping about Hillary, and are doing NOTHING to further a goal of what one may feel would be a better candidate.

Don't want Hillary, who is not just better, but much much better than any right winged loon, then vote for someone else. No one controls how people vote.

It's like shooting oneself in the foot.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. +1, with one "small" edit ...

They are just people griping about Hillary, and are doing NOTHING to further a goal of what one may feel would be a better candidate.

Don't want Hillary, who is not just better, but much much better than any right winged loon, then vote IDENTIFY THAT BETTER SOMEONE ELSE; CONVINCE THEM TO RUN; WORK YOUR BUTT OFF CAMPAIGNING FOR THEM; THEN (and only then, do you get to do the easy part), VOTE FOR that someone else. No one controls how people vote.

[wyldwolf]

50. so to try and beat someone who's only 'better than a Republican..."

People here are using Republican talking points ... which makes them... just a little better than what?

[Scuba]

16. "... start negotiations from the middle as opposed to the far left you move right so much quicker."

So true, so very true.

[boston bean]

17. We are talking about a potential election, if you want someone else, go for it.

Why does one have to bash the hell out of Hillary to do that?

She aint the devil, and she isn't a republican... Want to mortally wound her for what? You got someone better to run, well then support that person.

At this point, I think all this handwringing is about trying to get her out of the race (before she even declares) versus working for a different candidate. It's pretty obvious.

[Scuba]

18. Hillary is a horrible candidate. She claims to be a Democrat, but her policy positions are ...

... those of a "moderate Republican" in that she's a bit liberal on social issues while being hard conservative on war, Wall Street and workers.

If you want to support her, be my guest, but don't tell me that I should stop pointing out the truth.

[boston bean]

20. What truth?

That she voted for the IWR? wooooooooooo... automatic disqualifier... NOT... She worked for Obama and supported his policies... wooooo... automatic disqualifier.... NOT... Did you vote for Obama? I'm assuming that you did, and that you are now unhappy with him.... cause he chose a warmongering, wallstreet, anti worker for Secretary of State. And then another who also voted for the IWR and took corporate donations during his bid for the WH?

She takes money from corporate donors? What candidate won't??

Hillary is not and has never been anti worker.

Your truth is not everyone else's truth. deal.with.it.

[Scuba]

29. You're entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts. The truths I cited are true for all.

You commented that Hillary "is not and has never been anti worker." Please explain how you reconcile that with her support for the TPP and more H1B Visas. Both are very anti-worker positions.

[RiverLover]

32. And she was for NAFTA before whe was against it when running for president previously

[Mnpaul]

39. Better than a Republican

ends up giving us Republican policy. When the "better than a Republican" Dem compromises with the far Right Republican, we get Republican policy. The repeal of Glass Steagall is a good example.

[TheKentuckian]

42. Nothing but it is a worthless statement, the list of equal or worse is tiny and often just a subset

of the Republicans anyways.

I have already flushed better than the Republicans today. It means next to nothing in context like calling something cooler than the sun when discussing an object in the solar system.

If one sets their bar to these delusional, theocratic terrorists then it is nigh unto inevitable that when they aim for the planet core that we will at least crash into the ground if not digging us pretty damn deep themselves.

[H2O Man]

19. Recommended.

A couple of weeks ago, my younger son and I were discussing his job with teenagers. He currently works with young men who are attempting to master the skills needed to live independently. They have not had decent family lives, and hence have spent years living within “the system.” Many experience more difficulties making the adjustments required to live on their own, than people their age who have not become dependent upon an institution to do their thinking for them.

My son said that he finds it interesting that, almost as a rule, if he points out something one of them did wrong -- for example, spending next month’s rent money on a bag of pot -- the youngster will say, “Yeah? But what about ________? What he did was worse!”

My son laughed, and said that he remembers that each time he or his siblings attempted this dodge of responsibility, I would say, ”Yes, but we are talking about you now. So we are not going to get sidetracked on what anyone else might have done. We’re going to focus on you.”

He recalled that this created a stumbling block, of sorts, for him when he was 7 or 8. One he had problems getting around. But by his teens, he knew that Old Dad wasn’t going to fall for the attempt to deflect attention from his actions. He recognizes that the 18-19 year olds he works with haven’t learned that yet.

The old and tired “but republicans are worse” is, quite literally, the adult version of this same stumbling block. Indeed, it is a product of a form of mental institutionalization, that keeps adults dependent upon “the lesser of two evils” in politics. It is not, as you point out, that this isn’t a given: a republican, by definition, is “worse” than a democrat. But if things are to improve in this nation, we have to get beyond that type of concrete thinking.

[RiverLover]

34. I love this post of yours H20 man. So true, so deeply relevent.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. I have to disagree ...

The old and tired “but republicans are worse” is, quite literally, the adult version of this same stumbling block. Indeed, it is a product of a form of mental institutionalization, that keeps adults dependent upon “the lesser of two evils” in politics.

Unless you believe that making a choice based in the reality of our current binary electoral system is a form of mental institutionalization.

While denying the reality of “the lesser of two evils” in politics, might be mentality liberating ... that fantasy has real world consequences.

Lamenting the "lesser of two evils" (choice) in politics comes down to saying that liberals/progressives should start their political choice calculation with, " IF we didn't have so much money in politics; and, IF we had more liberal/progressives that would run; and, IF those candidates could win national elections ..." ... The fact is, we haven't; we don't; and, they haven't.

[Fumesucker]

52. What's really frustrating is that more than a few of us seem to like it that way

And take great delight in telling anyone who is desperately in need of something better to just grin and bear it.

Then of course that same group will blame any loss on those who have been constantly told to suck it up and vote for someone they have no confidence will represent their interests.

If 2016 turns out to be Clinton vs Bush Part Deux as seems very likely then don't expect massive turn out, we've seen this show before and syndication won't improve the quality of the screenplay, just the opposite in fact.

[L0oniX]

40. +9999999999999999999999999999

[Martin Eden]

21. Harry Truman was spot-on 63 years ago, when he said ...

The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat...

[wyldwolf]

51. Except that quote is taken very much out of context.

That isn't the entire quote - it isn't in it's context. And based on it's usage here, not even true. Let's set it up:

Harry Truman is giving a speech to the Americans for Democratic Action, an organization led by Eleanor Roosevelt. Truman and (Eleanor) Roosevelt didn't always get along and sometime they'd butt heads on matters of policy and candidates. Eleanor was an early supporter of Henry Wallace, who ran against Truman in '48.

Truman took some small swipes at the ADA in this speech. First off was this:

there was a time when it might not have been so pleasant for me to meet with the ADA. I understand that 4 years ago-along about this time--some of the leaders of ADA were engaged in rather wild fancies about the Presidential nomination... You know, the peculiar part about it was that you were a young political organization and you had not studied the history of conventions. A President of the United States, when he desires and when he wants to be nominated, there isn't anybody in the world can keep him from being nominated.

Here, Truman was referencing the third party run of 'progressive' Henry Wallace and he was chiding them for supporting him. He was actually a little condescending, wasn't he? He essentially says, "It's understandable that you were stupid in '48. Your were inexperienced wannabes. We can all laugh about it your 'wild fancies' about politics now."

He then sets the audience up for his famous "phony Democrat" quote:

In spite of the various notions about the nomination in 1948... the outcome of the election that year astonished a great many people. We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates--Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat.

Here, Truman calls out the 'progressive' movement by referring to Henry Wallace as a 'crackpot.' He also mentions the Dixiecrat (Strom Thurmond.) Two men who he rightly considered phony Democrats - a 'progressive' and a racist.

Now here comes the money quote:

When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

You have to ask yourself who Truman was specifically referring to. Was it 'Democrats' who didn't believe in the New Deal? That's certainly what he said and it was directed at Strom Thurmond. But it might have just as well been directed at FDR himself who said this in his annual message to Congress in 1935:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity... The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

Whew! Strong anti-welfare words from FDR himself.

Were Truman's words directed at 'Democrats' who weren't sufficiently 'progressive' overall as is claimed by people on DU and other places? There is NO indication of that whatsoever. Truman himself was accused by 'progressives' of the day for being too conservative (as was FDR, as a matter of fact.)

In '48, Truman made his feelings quite clear on the far left ("crackpots&quot and far right of the party. After his victory, he said: "The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the left-wing or the southern bloc."

If we were to take Truman's quote and apply it to any time period beyond 1952, it would make just as much sense, perhaps more sense, to apply it to 'progressives.'

But let's say the quote IS about DLC/blue dogs/centrist, whatever. If it is, Truman was wrong. Those types of Dems have defeated Republicans in countless elections. People did not, in fact, choose the Republican over them "every time."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. "Not as bad" is a piss poor campaign slogan or form of government. K&R

And a "No Sale" for me.

[whereisjustice]

24. K&R A corporate conservative Pres. would likely appoint a corporate conservative justice. We don't

need more of that. Wall Street has invested heavily in Clinton. They expect dividends. They don't work for free.

[MineralMan]

25. You wrote: 'I don't know where the American public stands.'

I think that is true. Presidential elections are not the same as your local congressional district election. It takes a genuine coalition of voters with many different points of view to elect a President. In 2008, the electorate chose to elect Barack Obama. They did the same in 2012. In 2016, they'll again choose a President.

Understanding how Americans vote in presidential elections is difficult. Truly it is. But, there are people who are pretty good at it. Some of them will decide who the nominees are. None of us here on DU will do that.

[Half-Century Man]

27. I hope we field a candidate with higher qualifications than "Not AS psychotic".

Potential candidates will evolve over the next 2 years.
Potential candidates will perfect their messages.
Potential candidates will unmask themselves as complete buffoons.

I will watch and see what happens.
I will vote my conscience at the appropriate time.
I will not vote for any republican candidate.

I will work to keep the pressure up to move the entire Democratic Party as far left as I can.
I will work to make us as progressive as I can.

[zentrum]

31. Also...

…..I get really confused about trying to figure out the long term survival of the Democratic Party as a true Party.

It's the Clinton/Geithner/Rahm/DLC type "Democrats" who have dragged the entire party ever more right of center until now, it's hard to distinguish them from the old style Republicans. Warren should not be such a rarity. There was a time when the Democrats were like her and she would have had many cohorts.

I think the Clinton Clique eats at Democratic values from within.
I'll vote for her because a Jeb or a Cruz is terrifying, but I don't see how I can get myself to work my ass off for her as I did for Obama.

It's really sad that the one motive to vote for a Democrat is to avoid a Ted Cruz—that's not a true Party any more.

[JHB]

33. Of course it's frustrating. But that said, then what?

First off, there are no "but..."s to "the SC is important". Conservatives, up in arms about "the liberal courts", spent the 1970s building an apparatus to systematically funnel partisans for their views into the courts. Not just the SC, but the entire court system. They hold up judicial appointments under Democratic administrations to help limit how many non-conservatives (not necessarily "liberal", just not conservative enough to suit them) become federal judges, and then fill the vacancies with their own conservative-pleasing choices.

That practice will not stop until it stops working, and the only way to stop it is to not let them pick the judges. Which will mean sometimes supporting frustrating people. After Citizens United (just to name one), it is right-between-the-eyes vital. No "even"s are in the ballpark.

As for the source of your frustration, you've pretty much described the trend in Democratic internal politics for the last 30 years. Of course it's frustrating. But don't let frustration pull you into jumping off a cliff. Work to find ways to twist the arms of the frustrating people, and work to build a less frustrating "farm team" to follow them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. +1 ...

Lamenting the (rational choice of) "lesser of two evils" in politics comes down to saying that liberals/progressives should start their political choice calculation with, " IF we didn't have so much money in politics; and, IF we had more liberal/progressives that would run; and, IF those candidates could win national elections ..." ... The fact is, we haven't; we don't; and, they haven't.

[joshcryer]

46. Bush's judges have set us back by a generation.

That's just how bad they've been.

[Darb]

37. Is there a pony somewhere in this thread?

I want a pony.

[L0oniX]

41. >|:-)

[geek tragedy]

43. Managing disappointment is a crucial part of politics. nt

[joshcryer]

45. We don't cede ground.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

47. A turd is better than a republican, mighty low bar you set.

Expect less, get less.

[cali]

53. reading is not fundamental to you, I see.

[Historic NY]

54. If we lose the WH we lose the SCOTUS appointment....

if that isn't enough. Wishing with one hand and hoping with the other isn't going to get the WH. Capturing the Senate and the Congress isn't in the tea leaves.

If Hillary is such a bad candidate then why are the Republicans in all out attack mode...they keep trying to recycle old shit. Why?

[Marr]

55. Yep, the Supreme Court is a good argument to push for a real liberal, and not a Third Way type.

Their whole strategy is to take liberal positions on social issues and go right wing on economics and foreign policy. It's reasonable to assume their choice in judges would align with that strategy; staunchly corporate, but liberal on social issues.

So a Hillary Clinton win would only be a half victory (at best) even in terms of SC appointments, and I don't really understand why her proponents constantly cite that one crumb as a reason to support her.

[Orsino]

56. Yes.

I'll even advocate for building better Republicans, if only so Dems will have better Republicans to be better than, so to speak.

[mmonk]

58. My dog is better than a Republican

but not necessarily qualified to be president.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. I'm pretty tired of these threads in which straight white people declare that 'social issues' do not

matter at all and are entirely different from the all important 'economic issues'. What a bunch of privileged and confused individuals they are. This week, in one of these threads some privilege blinded straight white man informed me that I can't eat my rights, and that without jobs rights are no good to anyone. This individual took his screen name from one of the States that allows discrimination against LGBT people in employment. You can't eat rights because what you need is jobs, but their is job discrimination and that's among the 'social issues' that are very clearly 'economic issues' as well, if you are not a straight white person spouting faked up Marxist lingo.
A huge number of people on DU who aggressively identify as the only true left strike me as conservatives.