How progressives can ( and probably will ) blow the next election

[stevebreeze]

Please prove me wrong, but I think the math of the next election is against electing more progressives to the house and Senate. Here is what I see locally. ( burbs of Chicago).

The DCCC has declared some of the seat as targets. They are out requiting candidates of their own. Not surprisingly the people I suspect kind of look like they are cut from a pattern. Moderates, with a mixed D & R voting record in primaries. They are quickly, after announcing, endorsed by sitting moderate Democrats. Served on the staff of moderate Democrats or some mix of several of these indicators. Still there is great enthusiasm for progressive candidates among the new precinct members. A lot of the new progressive resistance groups have put forth their own candidates. In fact we are lousy with congressional candidates. The trouble with that is math. Anyone the DCCC has chosen is going to have money for 4 color glossy mailers. You may have already seen their facebook adds. The progressives are going to have a lot of people out canvasing, but not all that much money each since their are many of them.

So in my humble opinion what we are going to see is several progressives spiting that wing of the parties vote while the moderate DCCC person waltzes through the primary with a modicum of support and a weak slate of values.We could have a plethora of failed progressive candidate and a demoralized bass of activists, come the general election.

So that is my nightmare scenario. What do we do?

[Warpy]

1. IOW, progressives aren't the ones who are going to blow it, it's the DCCC

as usual, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[rainy]

2. You got it!

[stevebreeze]

4. the DCCC is just going to do what they do.

They can't be blamed for too many progressives splintering the ticket.

[Me.]

3. 'WEak Slate Of Values'

Yep, once again, serving weak tea.

[NotMyFuhrer]

38. Words matter, self labels mater. It is not just semantics!

Words matter, self labels mater. It is not just semantics!

Calling yourself a "Socialist" opens you up to be called a Communist by the right! So avoid it!!

WHY NOT JUST FOCUS ON ISSUES like:

- The taking care of the young (and old).
- The firm belief in separation of Church and State
- Shoring up “education” by going back to the teaching of Civics, instituting early pre-kindergarten, offering relief on student debt.
- Fighting corporate greed and corporate welfare
- Closing tax loopholes (like the 1000 tax lawyers GE has, that allow them to pay NO taxes and keep profits off shore!)
- Universal Medicaid for all (taking out the insurance industry profit motive out of health care)
- Eliminating the creeping oligopoly phenomenon where mega firms are allowed to gobble up other mega firms (thereby sty-felling competition, rigging prices, and influencing government in self serving ways)
- etc.


WE NEED TO BETER ARTICULATE.

WE NEED simple slogans that reflect our values! For example:

Make America America Again!







#

[Me.]

41. Make America America Again!

Amen!

[GulfCoast66]

5. Let me correct your scenario just a bit

Many districts will have competitive primaries. Since Americans as a whole and Democrats by at least a plurality are not 'progressive' but liberal and not at all comfortable with the socialist label, the progressive will lose the primary as they normally do in non-college districts.

Then the young progressives, rather than admitting that they fought a good fight but the majority chose against them, instead will throw a hissy fit, blame the 'establishment' and 'big money'. They will fuss about identity politics and then they will sit home and not vote in the primary giving the victory to the republicans.

There, fixed it for you. Because what I described reflects the real world.

Have a nice evening.

[bettyellen]

7. Nailed it- thank you.

[betsuni]

9. +1 (LOL this is perfect)

[murielm99]

11. You did nail it,

but you left something out. In 2-5 years, all these progressive groups who are showing up in droves at meetings and town halls? They will be gone. If they don't get everything they want, instantly, they won't stay around to build the party. I have seen it happen before.

[Doremus]

13. " not at all comfortable with the socialist label.."

GulfCoast66 said:

Since Americans as a whole and Democrats by at least a plurality are not 'progressive' but liberal and not at all comfortable with the socialist label

Who's using the socialist label? The pundits at Fox used to call Obama that you know.

Why does it have any relevance to this discussion? You're uncomfortable with being called a socialist by repugnant imbeciles?

[GulfCoast66]

14. I don't know...

Perhaps because the leader of the attacks on the party from the left calls himself a socialist

I am not a socialist nor progressive, but a liberal democrats who probably shares many if not most of your policy goals. Most Democrats are not socialist and will vote in a primary against a democrat who gives and gets most of their support from a candidate who self describes as a socialist.

These are the facts proven by experience. An yeah, I know, if only we make Americans understand that what we want is in their interests. That sentence has been the motto of losing campaigns for 50 years.

And by the way, I would object to being called a socialist because I am not one...So does that makes me, a loyal and liberal democrat, in your words a repugnant imbecile? That language proved the point of my original post.

[Doremus]

25. In my experience, the only people who call progressives "socialists"

are people who watch Fox News and repeat the swill about Obama being SOCIALIST!!!1!

Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist

?w=640


Just for shits and giggles, you seem to think that the terms "liberal" and "progressive" are self-exclusive. Why?

[GulfCoast66]

26. That is not my experience.

But perhaps we live in different parts of the country. My Democratic Voting relatives(what are left of them that have not become republican) would reject the term Socialist.

I also agree that some people use your definition for Democratic Socialist. But I think the definition betters suits the term Social Democrat and outside of Europe and DU you will not find many folks who could discuss the differences in the two! You and I could have a friendly discussion/debate of the nuances of names and it might be enjoyable. Regardless, most Americans have never been to Europe and are not on DU and I think it is not wise to handicap ourselves from the get-go by self identifying with a name so may people view with suspicion. And not just Fox viewers. Marketing does matter!

You question about why I reject the name progressive has 2 separate but related answers:

First, the spotty to sordid history of the progressive movement from it's founding over 100 years ago until around WW11. It was at its heart a populist/nationalist movement presenting tons of grievances, some true and some not so much but looking for people to blame. Most often the rich, which might have been partly true. But the movement not only ignored blacks and other minorities, it often actively threw them under the bus in order to attract the white working class. Huey Long and Woodrow Wilson are both example of progressives who used racial animus and xenophobia to further their causes. Now I know these things happened 100 years ago, but I personally see the beginning shades of that behavior in parts of todays progressive movement. And as a Louisianan who learned from my father, a staunch FDR democrat, the dangers of men like Huey Long, and I just choose not to associate my name with men like them

The second reason I reject the name because to me, it has been about elitism since I first started hearing the word again several decades ago....many progressives are 'too pure' for we poor liberals. I am concerned that it too often harkens back to the reasons from 100 years ago. My take is that many of them see economic justice as the prime reason for our existence as a political party and are not adverse to letting other go to achieve that overriding goal. I am not saying they are actively hostile to other causes, but will not go to the mat for them if it furthers their economic cause. I may well be wrong, but that is my impression.

And other things like rejecting free trade but I am already have diarrhea of the keyboard!

Thanks for the spirited discussion. Feel free to respond and challenge any of my assertions.

Have a nice evening.

[Doremus]

33. Hmmmm....where else have I heard that Socialism is evil, progressives are elitist,

and poor rich people get blamed for everything? I'll leave that to the reader to answer the obvious.



Dude, Huey Long and Woodrow Wilson ... seriously?

[GulfCoast66]

35. Yeah dude, seriously

If you choose to think that our history has nothing to teach that is on you. Ridiculing a Long reference in the age of trump seem rather obtuse to me. History teaches us that a populist movement on the left can be as concerning as one on the right.

Even if that danger is just to divide the left vote in the nation rather than achieving actual power.

[Doremus]

36. Answers my question. Thanks for clarifying.

It's crystal clear now, to me and to anyone else reading.


Go ahead, have the last word and seal the deal.

[GulfCoast66]

39. Have a great day

[R B Garr]

21. Perfect--the shallowness of it all is very evident. nt

[NurseJackie]

23. Sad but true.

[uponit7771]

31. +1

[FSogol]

34. +1 n/t

[BainsBane]

6. From the broad-brush nature of your claims

I'm going to guess that you decided they are moderates with "a weak slate of values" irrespective of actual information on their positions.

I have seen that happen a lot lately. For example, we are now being told that Kamala Harris is a protector of big banks, with absolutely no elaboration on why they think that.

Meanwhile, we are told the party must purge leaders like Pelosi and Jim Clyburn because they are supposedly bad for the "brand." We are told banishing those leaders and abandoning support for civil rights and women's rights is necessary to win, with absolutely no evidence as to why that should be so.

I have yet to encounter a single person who insisted Clinton's platform wasn't progressive enough who informed themselves on what she was running on. They not only repeatedly make claims that are directly contradicted by the issue positions on her website and what she talked about at campaign events, but even now they refuse to read the site to correct their misunderstanding. Her "slate of values" were weak because of who she is, not based on policy proposals.

Since then, we saw Schumer attacked for coming out in support of issues the progressive critics had supported until last Monday. I myself have been met with insults for telling some of those people I agreed with them on a whole list of issues they proclaimed were litmus tests for being a progressive. I learned that nothing pisses them off more than agreement on issues because, it seems, it undercuts their claims of superiority. Policy and issues appear to matter far less than being one of them.

So considering the complete absence on any mention of particular issues in your post, I have to wonder if this condemnation of candidates being less than progressive is based not on issues but who they are--not the right sort of people.

If your concern is money countering the DCCC, that shouldn't be a problem, given the low funding that organization and the comparatively high incomes of "progressives." Besides, I remember being told that money doesn't win elections and that true progressives raised money entirely through small donations. So raise away. Why would you want to contaminate the righteous with DCCC funding?

Suburbs tend to be more affluent. If they are as full of progressives as you claim, fundraising for a glossy mailer shouldn't present a challenge.

[betsuni]

10. +1

[JHan]

16. Yep +++

[NastyRiffraff]

17. Bravo!

I wish I could rec an individual post. Thanks, Bains.

[BannonsLiver]

18. +1

But I do agree with the OP's overall premise: we're fucked in 2018.

The last 24 hours here has convinced me of that. Positively. Fucked.

The hard truth is a lot of progressives are just as easily manipulated as the deplorables. Sad but true.

[Egnever]

27. The hard truth is a lot of progressives are just as easily manipulated as the deplorables

[NurseJackie]

24. +1 (Thank you.)

[Garrett78]

30. While some of those arguments (e.g., abandoning civil rights) are absurd...

...it is pretty clear, I'd think, that the Democratic Party (as a whole) needs to change its ways. How can one not reach that conclusion given the Republican majorities at the state and federal level?

Kowtowing to right wing interests and starting every policy discussion from a position of compromise has clearly not produced positive results.

[BainsBane]

32. If the goal is to not start from a place of compromise

Why all the demands to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the GOP? We are told that we must cater to a tiny section of the electorate--a few thousand Republican white men earning over $100k--and purge our party leadership of women and people of color because they hurt our "brand." We are told we must get rid of leaders the GOP dislikes because of their effectiveness. We are told we must abandon values of equal rights because they upset those delicate conservative voters whose lives matter more than the tens of millions of women and people of color who make up the Democratic party.

All change is not good. People said they wanted change and they got Donald Trump. Now we are faced with demands of remaking the party to assuage the fragile egos of men who can't handle seeing women and people of color in positions of authority. We see people who did not vote for our nominee, who show no interest in issues other than as rhetorical obfuscation to seize power they can't gain through consent of the electorate. We see the language of leftism cynically used to promote narrow class interests and to undermine the rights and economic survival of the majority.

All change is not good. Some is morally repugnant.
I'm all for not making compromises. And the compromise I will not make is to acquiesce to the attacks on the civil, reproductive, and voting rights of the majority of Americans because a segment of the white male bourgeoisie is put off by living in a diverse society where they can't skate by on a mere accident of birth.

So if you want change, make it about something that improves the lives of the majority of Americans rather than worsens it. Make it about something other than mendacious claims that demands meant to improve the lives of a few are about "economic equality for all." When the all are treated with contempt, dismissed as a "distraction," and not seen as fit to participate in political decision making, there is no all. 'There is class/gender/race dominance. Make the change about something that is morally just rather than repugnant. Encourage input from all Americans, not just a self-entitled few who are certain that no interest but their own matters. Make it about something other than going back to the party of Jim Crow and back alley abortions. Or don't. But don't expect a Democratic electorate to acquiesce to demands that relegate them to second class citizenship.

Everyone gets one vote. You can vote for whatever candidate you chose, based on issue positions, rhetoric, or who they are--your choice entirely. Everyone else votes as they see best. The outcome of those elections determine the future of the party and the country. The problem we are seeing now is that people who have been unable to win a single election anywhere, even in the deepest blue districts, feel entitled to power they can't achieve through the consent of voters. So they engage in dominance politics--insults, ridicule of rape victims, the poor and vulnerable, and vitriol against anyone who is not of their political tribe. They of course have every right to be exactly what they are, but voters likewise have the right to reject them and their demands. If they want to vote for Trump again, they will. If they want to target the Democratic Party to punish the poor, women, and people of color, they will. And they do so because those are their values. I draw the line at taking on those values. That is a compromise I will not make.

[Expecting Rain]

8. More tiresome attacks on the Democratic Party

The lunatic fringe is not "progressive." Liberal Democrats are progressive.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. How about this?

Democrats--whether they be moderate or progressive--wholeheartedly support whoever is the Democratic candidate who wins the primary, whether he or she is moderate or progressive.

Is it really that hard?

[Wounded Bear]

15. Apparently, it is...

[BannonsLiver]

20. Yes, apparently it is.

And if you disagree or don't see it as black and white you are shouted down.

So progressive.

[ananda]

19. Here's how ..

Right-wing SCOTUS and federal judges in place

Voter suppression

Election hacking and help from Russia


... just like last time, only worse

[Weekend Warrior]

22. Thankfully the real world isn't wrapped up into these neat and tidy little boxes.

Don't turn around. I hear there is a DCCC member standing behind you.

[brooklynite]

28. Would it be possible to set up a separate "we doomed!" discussion group?

It would speed up my reading...

[Warren DeMontague]

29. It's the fault of everyone I don't like

but me and my friends are here to save it.

[LexVegas]

37. ...

[Orsino]

40. Well, the nation isn't very progressive.

And a Citizens United environment is hardly conducive to the masses' being able to learn what a good deal progressivism is. No, most Americans believe that that huge GDP is a product of resistance to socialism, rather than being a remnant of the formerly regulated capitalism.

Progressivism should be a goal, rather than a label for an inconvenient demographic getting in the way of corporatism.