The DNC is the problem. Or is it?

[Rhea]

“The DNC is the problem.” I feel like what I’m hearing is:

1. The DNC is too big and successful for the progressives to overcome.
2. But the progressives can overcome the GOP
3. Even while the DNC did not (barely) due to the Gerrymander of the Electoral College, but the Progressives could
4. Even though the progressives can’t even win without the DNC in AOC’s D+29 district (she ran as a Dem) and only have 1 state, VT with a progressive non Dem Senator
5. But… magic happens…
6. And Progressives think destroying the DNC and replacing it with a structure that is not like the DNC, will help them beat republicans.


We don’t need the DNC; the DNC is bad and structurally problematic in a way that we don’t need for beating the GOP.
I feel that anti-Dem progressives should be able to point to ample evidence of accomplishing this in Congressional and Senatorial races, Governor’s races, hell – even mayoral and city council races.

But they can’t. Or can they? What’s the evidence of succeeding without the DNC?
As a former elected official, blue (in a 3:1 Red:Blue district,) I am VERY AWARE of voter opinions and dynamics. And I just do NOT see any evidence AT ALL that either the DNC is “the problem” or that a DNC that is purged of moderates is viable.

I am interested in a real discussion on WHY the anti-DNC progressives do not have a portfolio of successfully elected officials, given their claims that they have a winning coalition. Serious answers, please, I really want to know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd bring up a "Name the candidates Sanders supported in the primaries in 2018 That Won" challenge. This is important for realizing that the DNC is trying to win elections in states like Texas and Louisiana and Utah as well as New York. The demographics vary heavily. Senator Jones in Alabama isn't getting elected if he strays too far from right of center, but can vote to get the big really important stuff through, ie, picking your fights.

Ocasio-Cortez's victory in New York seemed to be some sort of odd canary in the coalmine event for some progressives that mistook it for a national movement... when in fact, while Ocasio-Cortez did score an upset victory, she did so in a dark blue district in a heavy Latino community that personally identified with her.

 

[marc]

I think it is a bit more like this

1. The DNC has been falling into the trap of chasing big donors to fund campaigns. In doing so they are catering to the donors instead of the voters.
2. This has led to Democrats being honored for how much money they bring in rather than the causes/legislation they champion
3. In pursuit of those funds, and trying to chase votes, the party has been moving right for decades, becoming republican lite
4. This strategy does not attract many on the right, who see little reason to vote for a watered down version of their own party, and alienates those on the left who start to see no difference between the two
5. This also leads to DNC not fighting for the kinds of policies that people want, instead going for the policies the corporations tell them people want.
6. They support 'blue dog' democrats who side with republicans more than their own party, because those candidates support the DNC establishment
7. Progressives are trying to change the party, that is why they run as democrats even though the DNC does not support their candidacy.
8. Progressives seek to win by appealing to people with actual policies that will help them, which can bring back people who gave up because of 'politics as usual'
9. The progressives have been successful in getting a few people in so far, and have changed political discussions to include talk about M4A and GND, which likely would not have happened if they never tried.
10. It is not so much a purge of moderates that is needed, but getting away from the corporate democrats.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think it is a bit more like this

1. The DNC has been falling into the trap of chasing big donors to fund campaigns. In doing so they are catering to the donors instead of the voters.
2. This has led to Democrats being honored for how much money they bring in rather than the causes/legislation they champion
3. In pursuit of those funds, and trying to chase votes, the party has been moving right for decades, becoming republican lite
4. This strategy does not attract many on the right, who see little reason to vote for a watered down version of their own party, and alienates those on the left who start to see no difference between the two
5. This also leads to DNC not fighting for the kinds of policies that people want, instead going for the policies the corporations tell them people want.
6. They support 'blue dog' democrats who side with republicans more than their own party, because those candidates support the DNC establishment
7. Progressives are trying to change the party, that is why they run as democrats even though the DNC does not support their candidacy.
8. Progressives seek to win by appealing to people with actual policies that will help them, which can bring back people who gave up because of 'politics as usual'
9. The progressives have been successful in getting a few people in so far, and have changed political discussions to include talk about M4A and GND, which likely would not have happened if they never tried.
10. It is not so much a purge of moderates that is needed, but getting away from the corporate democrats.

Yes. It's the money. Dems are competing for donors with the GOP. There's an infrastructure of high priced and high powered consultants that are invested in the current system. Bernie is a disaster for them. Not surprisingly, they try to convince everyone that Bernie is a disaster.

 

[Rhea]

You appear to be claiming that corporations only, not individual voters, oppose medicare for all.
What makes you assume that?

 

[southernhybrid]

The only way to get rid of the money is to get rid of Citizens United. That a'int gonna happen with the current SCOTUS. The Democrats have to take big money in order to compete with the Republicans. Goodness! Some of you act as if politicians were these honest little saints who never do wrong. Some are just more dishonest than others, but nothing comes close to the dishonesty, and disgusting behavior of the current Republican Party. We don't need a revolution. We don't need another cult figure! We need common sense and reason. If that means that Democrats must take big money, than they should do it. And, while I'm on a rant, Bernie has done some sneaky things and has plenty of baggage, just like any older politician. He's another self centered cult figure who adores being praised. But, compared to the current cult figure, he's an improvement. Last week, Bill Maher interviewed Steve Bannon. At the end of the interview, he told Bannon, "I wish we had someone in the Democratic Party who was as evil as you." Bannon smirked. You can't fight that behavior by being pure.

There's an expression that I sometimes use: "There is no reality, only perception". This is particularly true in politics and religion. Some of you think the Dems are moving further to the right, when it obvious to some of us that the opposite is true. Do you really think the ACA had any chance of passing if the party was moving further to the right! It was much further right during the 90s, but it's not as far to the left as it was in the late 60s and early 70s. During the Obama era, DACA was created. Nothing like that happened during the 90s. In fact, it was during the 90s, that Clinton cooperated with the Republicans to cut back on social programs. I guess he wanted to get something done, but I don't remember anything that right of center happening under Obama.

Military action is hard to define as right or left and those things happen under both. Obama inherited two wars that he never voted for, but were very difficult to wind down. That didn't make him right of center. He was able to get a rather large financial stimulation to help boost the worst economy since the Great Depression. That wasn't easy. My point is that there is plenty of evidence that the Dems have been moving towards the left, not the right. And, as much as some of you hate to hear me say it, McGovern. It's just that those of us who were the young idealistic progressives of our day see so many similarities between then and now. It just makes us very skeptical that an offbeat, far left progressive, with some very unrealistic, idealistic ideas and goals will be able to get nearly enough votes in the more moderate areas of the country to win. My state is about to turn blue, but it's not goanna be that bright shade of blue. It is more of a purplish blue. I can't see it going for Sanders, and I'd like to support a realistic candidate who has a chance in states like mine.

And, just like the so called radical far left movement of my youth, many of today's youth aren't looking at things realistically. And, some of my generation still thinks it's the 60s, well meaning, but unrealistic. Ahhhh The dawning of the age of Aquarius. In fact, it appears to me as if there are as many apathetic, moderate and even conservative young people these days as there were in mine, but we were so caught up in our movement, we didn't realize that we weren't in the majority. De ja vue! But I digress.

One more thing about perception. I heard a pundit the other day say exactly what I've been saying for awhile. The Democratic Party is progressive. Those of us who aren't as far left as some, are still part of the left. The wonderfully challenging thing about the Democratic Party is that we are not sheep. Democrats are the party of gender, religious and racial diversity. Dems are the party with a wide number of views and ideas, which make things more challenging. That is why I find this party the more attractive one. I am glad that it's been gradually moving to the left for many years, but considering it's diversity, compromise is always necessary to make progress.

Like Rhea, I live in a red/blue district. It's actually red in the way that it votes, but that's due to gerrymandering. My county is about half black and half white racially. I know many Republicans that are sheep, while all of my Democratic friends have their own ideas, but they all know we must unite in the end if we want to make any progress at all. It's really that simple.

 

[jab]

You appear to be claiming that corporations only, not individual voters, oppose medicare for all.
What makes you assume that?

1. Does the DNC oppose Medicare for all? Not being an American, I'm not sure. Or am I not sure because the DNC is equivocal?
2. You seem to be suggesting that perhaps you don't support Medicare for all. Don't you? Or are you being equivocal?
3. Do all corporations in USA oppose Medicare for all? Or only some corporations? Do some corporations support it? Is Medicare the only issue that corporate donors want to influence American politicians on?
4. Do you think that the Poster(s) you call "You" think that Medicare is the only issue corporations want to influence American politicians on? If not, why did you isolate that issue with what appears to be a deflecting, rhetorical question? Or is it?

 

[marc]

You appear to be claiming that corporations only, not individual voters, oppose medicare for all.
What makes you assume that?

Guessing you are responding to me... No, I am not saying anything like that. On individual voters, pretty much any conceivable stance on an issue you could possibly find an individual supporting, but the voters barely matter. 70-90% support more gun control, such as universal background checks, but congress listens to the people with the piles of money instead. For the majority of voters to get what they want it pretty much has to be something the donors are ok with.

So sure, you can find voters against medicare, but it is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that tend to get their way.

 

[Rhea]

You appear to be claiming that corporations only, not individual voters, oppose medicare for all.
What makes you assume that?

Guessing you are responding to me... No, I am not saying anything like that.

Yes, your reply is what I’m responding to.

You said in that reply:

9. The progressives have been successful in getting a few people in so far, and have changed political discussions to include talk about M4A and GND, which likely would not have happened if they never tried.
10. It is not so much a purge of moderates that is needed, but getting away from the corporate democrats

When you said that it’s corporate democrats standing in the way of progressive ideas like M4A, I responded to that asking, basically, how you thought their few votes were making it happen. My experience is that there ate a LOT of democratic voters who do not want it. (I think they are wrong, in fact I prefer UHC). And those voters are needed to get even partial medicare-for-those who want it. (Which I think is an excellent start, and as soon as people see that they can get on it, they will start to, in droves, IMHO, and it will quickly become M4A and thence UHC). But I do not see that there are some “corporate interests” in the DNC which keep us from it at this time. It’s voters. We do not have enough Democratic supporters of the idea yet. (I think we can get there in one presidential term, though, if we had the Senate, which Obama only had for 10 months, alas.)

On individual voters, pretty much any conceivable stance on an issue you could possibly find an individual supporting, but the voters barely matter. 70-90% support more gun control, such as universal background checks, but congress listens to the people with the piles of money instead.

What’s standing in our way on gun control is the fucking GOP. And we need to beat THEM, not a DNC boogey-man. The GOP is in the pocket of the NRA (and every other corporation) and as long as they have the Senate and the presidency and the Gerrymander, Dems can howl all we want and it will never go.

For the majority of voters to get what they want it pretty much has to be something the donors are ok with.

Not in the DNC. They put most of Sanders’ positions into their platform in ‘16. We progressives who were not nihilists cheered that. We tried to elect that platform. What stood in the way was not the DNC.

So sure, you can find voters against medicare, but it is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that tend to get their way.

Yeah, as long as the GOP gets elected, they sure do.

The ACA was a mighty step forward. I had been anticipating the next step with it, and the next. Alas. The Dem voters did not turn out to stop Trump. Some, because they thought the Dems are “just as bad.” And now things that progressives care about are being destroyed byt the GOP. Women’s rights, worker rights, environmental protection, jusdges who would rule fairly. THings that the dems, even the centrist ones, would never have done and you know it.

 

[Trausti]

The DNC is doing just fine. Keep up the good work!

 

[Rhea]

You appear to be claiming that corporations only, not individual voters, oppose medicare for all.
What makes you assume that?

1. Does the DNC oppose Medicare for all? Not being an American, I'm not sure. Or am I not sure because the DNC is equivocal?

They do not oppose it.

2. You seem to be suggesting that perhaps you don't support Medicare for all. Don't you? Or are you being equivocal?

I do support it. As soon as I can get it. Not willing to throw away people’s lives for being in a hurry, tho. 4 more years of GOP is killing lots of people. I’d be happy with a 4-year “public option” to avoid that risk and get my UHC in 3 steps instead of doubling down on other people’s lives to swing for the fence and try for it in one step.

3. Do all corporations in USA oppose Medicare for all? Or only some corporations? Do some corporations support it? Is Medicare the only issue that corporate donors want to influence American politicians on?

I think a lot of them oppose it. Corporate medical benefits are part of the indenture articles. That benefits them.

4. Do you think that the Poster(s) you call "You"

It was marc

think that Medicare is the only issue corporations want to influence American politicians on? If not, why did you isolate that issue with what appears to be a deflecting, rhetorical question? Or is it?

I isolated it because it was mentioned in his answer.

 

[Rhea]

The DNC is doing just fine. Keep up the good work!

Asking for serious answers, please, not poo-flinging. There’s a whole forum Elsewhere for that.

 

[Trausti]

The DNC is doing just fine. Keep up the good work!

Asking for serious answers, please, not poo-flinging. There’s a whole forum Elsewhere for that.

Very serious. Much happy with their work of late.

 

[Rhea]

Like Rhea, I live in a red/blue district. It's actually red in the way that it votes, but that's due to gerrymandering. My county is about half black and half white racially. I know many Republicans that are sheep, while all of my Democratic friends have their own ideas, but they all know we must unite in the end if we want to make any progress at all. It's really that simple.

For clarity - my district is not Red:Blue like it is purple. It is 3Red:1Blue. There are 75% GOP voters, and 25% Dem voters.

 

[marc]

9. The progressives have been successful in getting a few people in so far, and have changed political discussions to include talk about M4A and GND, which likely would not have happened if they never tried.
10. It is not so much a purge of moderates that is needed, but getting away from the corporate democrats

When you said that it’s corporate democrats standing in the way of progressive ideas like M4A, I responded to that asking, basically, how you thought their few votes were making it happen. My experience is that there ate a LOT of democratic voters who do not want it. (I think they are wrong, in fact I prefer UHC).

I think there is a lot of support for M4A, and many people see it as a form of UHC or a significant step towards it. There is enough support that the subject is brought up on debate stage, that the Koch brothers commissioned a study to try and counter it, that there are talking points to oppose it. Talking points that people like Biden have repeated.

But I do not see that there are some “corporate interests” in the DNC which keep us from it at this time. It’s voters. We do not have enough Democratic supporters of the idea yet. (I think we can get there in one presidential term, though, if we had the Senate, which Obama only had for 10 months, alas.)

There are apparently enough to force politicians to at least talk about it. There are enough that there is pushback.

What’s standing in our way on gun control is the fucking GOP.

Yes I know. I was using gun control as a clear example of how popular support matters little, it is the donors that have far more influence on policy. Now the DNC is not nearly as corrupted as the GOP, but in an effort to competemoney wise they are going down the same path. In the case of healthcare, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are the main influencers.

Alas. The Dem voters did not turn out to stop Trump. Some, because they thought the Dems are “just as bad.” And now things that progressives care about are being destroyed byt the GOP. Women’s rights, worker rights, environmental protection, jusdges who would rule fairly. THings that the dems, even the centrist ones, would never have done and you know it.

Yes, those "just as bad" or "both sides" arguments are incredibly stupid, and work to the GOP's advantage. I may have problems with the DNC, they are leagues better. I voted for Sanders in the '16 primaries, Hillary in the general. This year I'll vote for Sanders again, and whoever is the dems candidate.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think there is a lot of support for M4A, and many people see it as a form of UHC or a significant step towards it. There is enough support that the subject is brought up on debate stage, that the Koch brothers commissioned a study to try and counter it, that there are talking points to oppose it. Talking points that people like Biden have repeated.

But I do not see that there are some “corporate interests” in the DNC which keep us from it at this time. It’s voters. We do not have enough Democratic supporters of the idea yet. (I think we can get there in one presidential term, though, if we had the Senate, which Obama only had for 10 months, alas.)

There are apparently enough to force politicians to at least talk about it. There are enough that there is pushback.

What’s standing in our way on gun control is the fucking GOP.

Yes I know. I was using gun control as a clear example of how popular support matters little, it is the donors that have far more influence on policy. Now the DNC is not nearly as corrupted as the GOP, but in an effort to competemoney wise they are going down the same path. In the case of healthcare, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are the main influencers.

Alas. The Dem voters did not turn out to stop Trump. Some, because they thought the Dems are “just as bad.” And now things that progressives care about are being destroyed byt the GOP. Women’s rights, worker rights, environmental protection, jusdges who would rule fairly. THings that the dems, even the centrist ones, would never have done and you know it.

Yes, those "just as bad" or "both sides" arguments are incredibly stupid, and work to the GOP's advantage. I may have problems with the DNC, they are leagues better. I voted for Sanders in the '16 primaries, Hillary in the general. This year I'll vote for Sanders again, and whoever is the dems candidate.

The difference is, there are loud and active forces to combat problems seen in the DNC, and corporate interests in high places oppose them quietly. There are loud and active forces in the GOP to double down on it's problems in high places, and everyone else just stays quiet and goes with it...

I'm one of the people looking to reform the DNC. Anyone saying it doesn't have a Hillary, Biden, Bloomberg and Perez problem hasn't been paying attention

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think there is a lot of support for M4A, and many people see it as a form of UHC or a significant step towards it. There is enough support that the subject is brought up on debate stage, that the Koch brothers commissioned a study to try and counter it, that there are talking points to oppose it. Talking points that people like Biden have repeated.


There are apparently enough to force politicians to at least talk about it. There are enough that there is pushback.




Yes I know. I was using gun control as a clear example of how popular support matters little, it is the donors that have far more influence on policy. Now the DNC is not nearly as corrupted as the GOP, but in an effort to competemoney wise they are going down the same path. In the case of healthcare, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are the main influencers.

Alas. The Dem voters did not turn out to stop Trump. Some, because they thought the Dems are “just as bad.” And now things that progressives care about are being destroyed byt the GOP. Women’s rights, worker rights, environmental protection, jusdges who would rule fairly. THings that the dems, even the centrist ones, would never have done and you know it.

Yes, those "just as bad" or "both sides" arguments are incredibly stupid, and work to the GOP's advantage. I may have problems with the DNC, they are leagues better. I voted for Sanders in the '16 primaries, Hillary in the general. This year I'll vote for Sanders again, and whoever is the dems candidate.

The difference is, there are loud and active forces to combat problems seen in the DNC, and corporate interests in high places oppose them quietly. There are loud and active forces in the GOP to double down on it's problems in high places, and everyone else just stays quiet and goes with it...

I'm one of the people looking to reform the DNC. To say it doesn't have a Hillary, Biden, Bloomberg and Perez problem hasn't been paying attention

So having people in a party with differing ideas is a problem? You want everyone to be lock in step with each other? How boring.

 

[Jarhyn]

The difference is, there are loud and active forces to combat problems seen in the DNC, and corporate interests in high places oppose them quietly. There are loud and active forces in the GOP to double down on it's problems in high places, and everyone else just stays quiet and goes with it...

I'm one of the people looking to reform the DNC. To say it doesn't have a Hillary, Biden, Bloomberg and Perez problem hasn't been paying attention

So having people in a party with differing ideas is a problem? You want everyone to be lock in step with each other? How boring.

No, just in touch with the actual constituency, not merely doing their best to say one thing and do another.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The difference is, there are loud and active forces to combat problems seen in the DNC, and corporate interests in high places oppose them quietly. There are loud and active forces in the GOP to double down on it's problems in high places, and everyone else just stays quiet and goes with it...

I'm one of the people looking to reform the DNC. To say it doesn't have a Hillary, Biden, Bloomberg and Perez problem hasn't been paying attention

So having people in a party with differing ideas is a problem? You want everyone to be lock in step with each other? How boring.

No, just in touch with the actual constituency, not merely doing their best to say one thing and do another.

So do you believe that there are no moderates in the democratic party? Or do you believe that moderates shouldn't have some representation?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd bring up a "Name the candidates Sanders supported in the primaries in 2018 That Won" challenge. This is important for realizing that the DNC is trying to win elections in states like Texas and Louisiana and Utah as well as New York. The demographics vary heavily. Senator Jones in Alabama isn't getting elected if he strays too far from right of center, but can vote to get the big really important stuff through, ie, picking your fights.

I wanted to fill in the gaps here. For the US House, of the thirteen challengers Sanders supported in the primaries, only three went on to win. Of the eight Governors, only two won the General Election. The Dems swept the 2018 election.