The Future of the Democratic Party

[Flex]

She lost because she is a woman, don’t you think?

I'm sure that was a factor, especially among the suburban center-left msbc-watching crowd who consider themselves savvy political consumers, who were told over and over again by people who couldn't fathom why Clinton lost the election that it must mean a woman can't win.

So yes, it helps explain why the centrists who were supporting her were so willing and eager to jump ship over some bad and unpredictive polling - it confirmed their priors that a woman wasn't a viable candidate.

[eumaas]

I was hoping that the look Warren was offering, early in her campaign in particular, was something that would resonate with enough folks in both the left and center of the party that she'd be a good inter-party coalition builder and get good left policies a person committed, or at least open to them, in the oval office.

What's interesting is pinpointing when exactly her support started eroding. Contra a lot of perception (and how I remembered it before seeing a timeline established), she didn't first start bleeding support when she released her 2-part healthcare plan. It was when a batch of polling was released that showed her weak in head 2 head matchups against Trump.in battleground states (despite those polls being completely unpredictive). So, she started losing support from the centrist eLeCtAbIlItY Democrats, she got attacked from the Buttigieg Right at a subsequent health care debate on m4a further bleeding her of centrist support, and then she released a 2-part health care plan designed to appeal to the folks she was losing support from - which it didn't because the folks she was losing don't care about policy - and which lost her more support this time from the Left, since dedicated m4a supporters were understandably skeptical of the wisdom of breaking health care reform into 2 different legislative battles.

After that, it was all over for Warren. But her collapse started from the center, not the left. So, I dunno, physician heal thyself I suppose.

She lost because she is a woman, don’t you think?

It was the preemptive compromise of her two stage healthcare plan that made me second-guess her. I think that’s when she started bleeding supporters to Sanders. I was much more pro-Warren at the start because I thought she would be better as she’s younger. I have had concerns about his age since he decided to run again for the 2020 election.

My other big problem with Warren was her foreign policy. She didn’t condemn the coup in Bolivia. Hell, in the last debate in response to the question “should the US move its embassy from Jerusalem?” she said “it’s not our decision to make.” Bernie is to my right on foreign policy but he’s much better than Warren on this. I think that also drove anti-imperialist socialists to Sanders. I think Sanders has better positions on dismantling the empire and stopping American interference abroad and Bolivia was the real litmus test for the candidates in that regard.

But again I don’t have an especial attachment to Sanders himself. He is likable precisely because of his positions. I wouldn’t give a shit about his candidacy if he had the same politics as Biden or Buttigieg. And honestly I would rather have a younger person at the helm. But we need someone who is willing to be firm with those policy positions at the start. We saw what the reflexive preemptive compromise got us before.

There is a class dictatorship behind the democracy, and there is every chance that even if Sanders won the primary fair and square they wouldn’t give it to him. To me he looks like he’s offering European social democracy, not that radical. But man, the ruling class fucking hates it and is terrified of it. It might be to my right but the fact that it scares the ruling class is a good reason to throw my lot in with the movement.

We also are running out of time when it comes to incremental gradualism as an approach to climate change! There’s a ticking clock here. I would rather join the only viable movement around in the chance that we can stop or ameliorate climate change.

[Dr. Medulla]

The "a woman can't win" has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy within the media. When women fail to attract voters, the default assumption is that it's their sex, not their positions. It reflects, I think, the basic contempt that media figures have for the average person, that voters don't evaluate candidates based on a variety of factors but only on the most superficial standards. Yes, of course women have a harder time because bigotry regarding their appearance, how they should talk, and other superficial standards. But to reduce it all to "It's cos she's a woman" gives into a lazy script that confirms a narrative that will continue to be used against women running for office. But then that's the corporate media—it deals in superficialities and dumb digestible "facts" rather than complexities. Far easier to say that Warren and Clinton lost because of their sex rather than their policy proposals.

[BostonBeaneater]

If you wnat to drop the drunken masshole schtick maybe we can discuss it. But I don’t really recall you ever identifying as a leftist or showing any understanding of left-wing concerns so it’s hard for me to take your criticism of Sanders as a good faith critique from the left.

I’ll drop the Masshole schtick if you leave the your high minded douchebag schtick at the door too. My political leaning have always leaned hard left. I am pretty cynical about it all because the left has not been able to get out of its own way my entire life. It’s pretty damn disappointing to see a guy like Bernie and his supporters scuttle any chance of getting rid of Trump. The guy is 78 and had a recent heart attack.

“high-minded douchebag” again, you’re just being a dick. I don’t think I’m particularly highminded. If anything I have become way more pragmatic and willing to compromise. The reason being the actual socialist movement that coalesced around Sanders in 2016 convinced me to get involved in electoral politics for the first time ever.

Can you give some examples of your hard left positions?

And you weren’t being a dick? Come on, I can play ball without insults. Deal?

I believe in universal healthcare for all.
I believe in a robust education system that is free to all students.
I believe these things should be paid for by business and personal taxation with the most fortunate carrying most of the burden.
I believe in term limits and I think there is an age at which it is decent to step aside.
I believe race, class and sex bias needs to be constantly addressed.
I believe the capitalist mindset fuels most of our problems and is going to be a huge struggle to change (if we’re luck enough too.
I believe Trump won and holds undying support from a solid 33% of the country because politician from the left have talked down to them.

Seize the means of production. Workers of the world unite. Can I have my card now?

[eumaas]

The "a woman can't win" has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy within the media. When women fail to attract voters, the default assumption is that it's their sex, not their positions. It reflects, I think, the basic contempt that media figures have for the average person, that voters don't evaluate candidates based on a variety of factors but only on the most superficial standards. Yes, of course women have a harder time because bigotry regarding their appearance, how they should talk, and other superficial standards. But to reduce it all to "It's cos she's a woman" gives into a lazy script that confirms a narrative that will continue to be used against women running for office. But then that's the corporate media—it deals in superficialities and dumb digestible "facts" rather than complexities. Far easier to say that Warren and Clinton lost because of their sex rather than their policy proposals.

I think it would be great to have a woman as the leader of the movement. I do think policy positions matter, though, and having a woman in charge doesn’t in itself dissolve sexism or improve the material conditions of women (see Thatcher or May).

Representation is good and I want the broadest, most diverse movement leadership possible as that practical experience is very valuable.

I think Warren’s weakness is that she was plugged into the NGO/nonprofit world but less so the working class organizing world. She probably would have been more held to account if she had more roots in the movement. I mean we can see Sanders being dragged left on some issues because that’s where his supporters are.

[Dr. Medulla]

The "a woman can't win" has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy within the media. When women fail to attract voters, the default assumption is that it's their sex, not their positions. It reflects, I think, the basic contempt that media figures have for the average person, that voters don't evaluate candidates based on a variety of factors but only on the most superficial standards. Yes, of course women have a harder time because bigotry regarding their appearance, how they should talk, and other superficial standards. But to reduce it all to "It's cos she's a woman" gives into a lazy script that confirms a narrative that will continue to be used against women running for office. But then that's the corporate media—it deals in superficialities and dumb digestible "facts" rather than complexities. Far easier to say that Warren and Clinton lost because of their sex rather than their policy proposals.

I think it would be great to have a woman as the leader of the movement. I do think policy positions matter, though, and having a woman in charge doesn’t in itself dissolve sexism or improve the material conditions of women (see Thatcher or May).

Representation is good and I want the broadest, most diverse movement leadership possible as that practical experience is very valuable.

Precisely. It's deeply problematic when certain roles are filled exclusively by one group. But diversity for the sake of checking boxes is cynical and how both Democrats and Republicans do it (well, Republicans barely even try to hide that they are the party of white men). We do need a shared standard of values and ambitions, whatever those may be, first and foremost. From there, the human agents for carrying them forward.

I think Warren’s weakness is that she was plugged into the NGO/nonprofit world but less so the working class organizing world. She probably would have been more held to account if she had more roots in the movement. I mean we can see Sanders being dragged left on some issues because that’s where his supporters are.

That seems a fair assessment, and probably reveals something of my own unconscious bias, as I'm more at home in an academic left (tho I still hesitate to consider myself an actual leftist, but whatever), rather than the working-class left. I know that I preferred Warren because of her age and that I think she had a better chance of working with Congress, but it could also be that I recognize that scholarly left style and feel more comfortable with it.

[IkarisOne]

There is no Democratic Party anymore-- there are only Trump Republicans and old-time Rockefeller Republicans, who took over the Democratic party and wear its hide like an Ed Gein skinsuit. Hence all this frothing about "social justice," a term that is never defined and changes incessantly. Social justice warriors are the toy poodles of the Oligarchy. They yip and nip constantly but pose absolutely no threat to the ruling class. Social justice is the Oligarch's inoculation against economic justice. The Oligarchs love idpol because it keeps the peasants at each other's throats.

The Democratic Party is exactly like the GOP: utterly controlled, managed and steered by a tiny handful of billionaires. Nearly all of the richest families in America bankroll the Democratic party and call its tune. Why do you suppose that is?

Just look at the meltdown the entire party leadership went into when they thought Bernie might win. That's when the mask slipped and you see the plutocratic face beneath.

Southern California, a feudal Oligarchial hellhole, is the Rockefeller Republican Potemkin Village. Insane privilege surrounded by a permanent serf class and a desperate and destitute throng of homeless. You really have to see it for yourself to believe how dystopian it is. San Francisco and Silicon Valley are the same. Now they want to export that model to the entire world.

[BostonBeaneater]

Southern California, a feudal Oligarchial hellhole, is the Rockefeller Republican Potemkin Village. Insane privilege surrounded by a permanent serf class and a desperate and destitute throng of homeless. You really have to see it for yourself to believe how dystopian it is. San Francisco and Silicon Valley are the same. Now they want to export that model to the entire world.

When I lived in NYC I used to wonder when there would be no one left to work at Duane Reade. What is the tipping point where people would decide to simply not commute and hour plus to earn $12 an hour? I hear they have to pay supermarket workers $80k a year in Palo Alto just to make it worth it to come in. You figure we couldn't be that far away from general strikes, right? Or have they succeeded in hiring half the poor to keep the other half in line?

[BostonBeaneater]

That seems a fair assessment, and probably reveals something of my own unconscious bias, as I'm more at home in an academic left (tho I still hesitate to consider myself an actual leftist, but whatever), rather than the working-class left. I know that I preferred Warren because of her age and that I think she had a better chance of working with Congress, but it could also be that I recognize that scholarly left style and feel more comfortable with it.

I supported her because I thought she would have been able to get something, anything, done which would be considered progressive. I am just horrified that our only hope to avoid another four years of Trump is Joe Biden.

[Kory]

I suppose the optimistic view could be that even if Bernie doesn't get the nom, it shows that there is interest in supporting this kind of candidate and we could see more of it in coming years, essentially creating a viable third party.

[Dr. Medulla]

That seems a fair assessment, and probably reveals something of my own unconscious bias, as I'm more at home in an academic left (tho I still hesitate to consider myself an actual leftist, but whatever), rather than the working-class left. I know that I preferred Warren because of her age and that I think she had a better chance of working with Congress, but it could also be that I recognize that scholarly left style and feel more comfortable with it.

I supported her because I thought she would have been able to get something, anything, done which would be considered progressive. I am just horrified that our only hope to avoid another four years of Trump is Joe Biden.

That's mostly my position. Sanders' vision is closer to what I'd prefer, but I regarded Warren as more likely to get half a loaf, so to speak, should she win.

[BostonBeaneater]

I suppose the optimistic view could be that even if Bernie doesn't get the nom, it shows that there is interest in supporting this kind of candidate and we could see more of it in coming years, essentially creating a viable third party.

It almost feels like we're in a holding pattern until the oldest generation dies off.

[IkarisOne]

Southern California, a feudal Oligarchial hellhole, is the Rockefeller Republican Potemkin Village. Insane privilege surrounded by a permanent serf class and a desperate and destitute throng of homeless. You really have to see it for yourself to believe how dystopian it is. San Francisco and Silicon Valley are the same. Now they want to export that model to the entire world.

When I lived in NYC I used to wonder when there would be no one left to work at Duane Reade. What is the tipping point where people would decide to simply not commute and hour plus to earn $12 an hour? I hear they have to pay supermarket workers $80k a year in Palo Alto just to make it worth it to come in. You figure we couldn't be that far away from general strikes, right? Or have they succeeded in hiring half the poor to keep the other half in line?

Well, I think that's the impetus behind the $15 minimum wage. I don't think it has anything to do with fairness, it's about keeping people at these posts. They'll still be poor but not so poor that they can't even afford to work these jobs.

This is why I always try to be friendly to people waiting tables and working cash registers. It's amazing how the most sour faced cashier or barista brightens when you treat them with respect. I worked plenty of those jobs myself so I know what they have to put up with.

[IkarisOne]

That seems a fair assessment, and probably reveals something of my own unconscious bias, as I'm more at home in an academic left (tho I still hesitate to consider myself an actual leftist, but whatever), rather than the working-class left. I know that I preferred Warren because of her age and that I think she had a better chance of working with Congress, but it could also be that I recognize that scholarly left style and feel more comfortable with it.

I supported her because I thought she would have been able to get something, anything, done which would be considered progressive. I am just horrified that our only hope to avoid another four years of Trump is Joe Biden.

That's mostly my position. Sanders' vision is closer to what I'd prefer, but I regarded Warren as more likely to get half a loaf, so to speak, should she win.

With all due respect, Doc, I have never trusted Warren. She talks a good game-- I especially want to see Big Tech smashed back down to size-- but she doesn't walk the talk. And her fabulism is a huge red flag. I think the fact that she placed third in her own state shows the esteem her own constituents hold her in.

[Kory]

I suppose the optimistic view could be that even if Bernie doesn't get the nom, it shows that there is interest in supporting this kind of candidate and we could see more of it in coming years, essentially creating a viable third party.

It almost feels like we're in a holding pattern until the oldest generation dies off.

I think that unfortunately shows a lot of optimism in youth—it seems to me like there's still a lot of right wingers in the under-30 set.