Van Jones on Democratic Partys Future: The Clinton Days Are Over You Cant Run and Hide

[Alekzander]

During a panel discussion about the future of the Democratic Party on CNN’s State of the Union this morning, political commentator and former Obama adviser Van Jones made the case that the party should be pressing in a more progressive direction rather than move towards the middle.

After former Democratic Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer blamed Democrat support for trade deals and Obamacare eroding support in the heartland and ex-Clinton aide Karen Finney said there was a need to build grassroots organizing in red states, Jones explained that there were some budding stars in the party.

Naming Kamala Harris and Keith Ellison, the CNN commentator then stated that Hillary and Bill Clinon’s influence on the party was done.

“The Clinton days are over,” Jones noted. “This idea that we’re going to be this moderate party that’s going to move in this direction, that’s going to throw blacks under the bus for criminal justice reform and — or for — for prison expansion, that’s going to throw workers under the bus for NAFTA, those days are over.”

Link to Mediaite Article: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/van-jones-on-democratic-partys-future-the-clinton-days-are-over-you-cant-run-and-hide/

[Historic NY]

1. Yeah that damn Obamacare.....

If that didn't work for you then the death panels will. Democrats never really explained it to the people they spent too much time dancing around it. Some even embolden enough to run against it.

[Alekzander]

5. I know & agree. It is hard to understand how the Dems let that part get away so easy. They should

have planned on getting the right people in place after they passed the ACA to make sure it was explained & clear.

Also, you & I know that it may not have made a big difference because the republicans had declared war on the ACA & Obama for getting it passed.

Also, you then had the weak dems who run away from their own shadow & tried to distance themselves from Obama & the ACA.

Regardless, it was a good thing and something that was & is very much needed in our country for those w/o any healthcare.

There was this in a paper the other day which is going to devastate a lot of especially rural communities & small towns if the republicans & Ryan get their way.

State data shows ACA helped hospitals save on charity care and bad debt spending in 2015


http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2016/12/31/State-data-shows-ACA-helped-hospitals-save-on-charity-care-and-bad-debt-spending-in-2015/stories/201612310120

[Hekate]

97. The Dems don't have a set of Koch Brothers to catapult the propaganda, Alekzander. That seems

....to be our main problem with messaging -- it costs money and needs access to the media.

[Hortensis]

129. Uhhh.... Our big problem is that LIES DON'T WORK FOR US.

But as we know, they do work very well for conservatives, who, generally speaking, have a dark view of humanity and are always eager to identify, villify, and attack.

For all of us, a nice juicy lie will always be far more interesting than policy explanations. And a lie may circle the planet in the time it takes the truth to pull its pants on.

But ultimately lies repel liberals, who, if not perfect truthseekers, do respect truth and become angry at being lied to a lot more than conservatives. That's why right-wing propaganda machines are so much more powerful than the ones operated by smarmy left-wingers.

[yurbud]

20. When Democrats do something right, they apologize for it. When Republicans do something wrong...

they double down.

And Democrats wonder why a party whose policies only benefit the 1% keep cleaning their clocks in elections.

[RKP5637]

79. Well said!!! Democrats are SLOW learners!!! n/t

[smirkymonkey]

119. +1000

[lapucelle]

2. Sounds like a pretty bizarre rant, given the facts that President Obama

has been at the helm of the party for the past eight years, the "progressive" in the race was the only candidate who actually voted for the crime bill, and the current administration was the only entity lobbying for the latest trade deal.

It seems pretty delusional (and more than a bit agenda driven) to blame a man who has been out of office for the last five presidential cycles and the candidate who ran on the most liberal platform in decades, rather than those who have actually been running the party. Van Jones has long been embittered by the political fallout of his own career mistakes.

Given some of Van's earlier outrage concerning "the white polluters and white environmentalists (who) are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities," I'm surprised that he's never spoken out against the Sierra Blanca deal.

[JHan]

4. [phone] I can't with Van anymore.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. Yeah his analysis borders on delusional

[Alekzander]

10. Actually, I think it is delusional to say his analysis borders on delusional. Van unlike many has

been traveling all through the rust belt & midwest visiting with the people because he did want an analysis of what happened, what exactly went wrong, why was so much of the information & polling off. He sit down with farm families & had dinner with them & discussed why they voted for Trump if they did, what was it about Clinton that did not resonate with them, was it all of the email coverage, etc., establishment. He talked with those in restaurants & spent a lot of the time i Ohio.


That series is on a number of media including CNN & is good.

Van Jones is far from delusional.

[Justice]

15. But Van seems to give Obama a pass on DNC and blames it all on HRC. Obama is the one who appointed

DWS and kept her there after losses in 2010 and 2014. Van can make his points without needing to always bash Clinton. He has rose color glasses on regarding Obama but only sour notes for Clinton.

[paleotn]

19. Agreed. There's lots and lots of bashing to go around in the present cluster fuck.

[JHan]

28. What I don't get is:

Neither the email coverage nor the establishment smear was ever really justified. The "establishment" is made up many different entities, the President is a symbol of it - and we've had Obama for the last 8 years, Bush for the previous 8. If Obama could run for a third term wouldn't he be an "establishment" candidate as well? How do these folks feel about Obama?

Maybe it's my age, but I can't relate to these Clinton arguments. It sounds like a rehashing of the 90's.

[paleotn]

18. Don't agree with Jones on all things, but he makes good points...

...It may have been 5 election cycles ago, but we're still living with the Clinton aftermath and will continue to for years to come.....

The '94 Omnibus Crime Bill gave us the infamous 3 strikes law and mandatory minimums, thus filling up the prisons. It also expanded the "war on drugs", next to Vietnam, the only war the US has lost miserably and caused arguably more social destruction than the use of drugs themselves. Seriously, what the fucking hell is a "super predator?"

Gramm - Leach - Bliley blew up Glass - Steagall, eliminating the firewall between commercial and investment banking

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act threw off any semblance of efficient capital allocation and turned Wall Street into a full fledged casino.

Riegal - Neal gutted state banking regs, leading to merger mania for financial institutions and thus, to big to fail. Use to be, a large city had 8, 9 maybe 10 different commercial banks, on top of the S&Ls and credit unions. If a few did stupid shit, took on far too much risk and went bankrupt, there was little to no systemic danger for the US financial system, much less the whole fucking globe. The S&L crises for instance, made but a few ripples on the financial pond. Now they're tidal waves.

....all these, signed into law by Bill Clinton with much fanfare, are responsible for the 2007 /08 financial implosion and will be responsible for the next, and the next, and the next...until we get our heads out of our collective asses.

NAFTA, originally a Reagan idea, rejected by a Democratic Congress, was pushed by Clinton in his 1st term. His FIRST fucking term!! With robotic automation still in its infancy, it cost US workers 700K+ jobs and helped create the wage arbitrage nightmare we're currently living, which has arguably destroyed the US middle class. Also started the idea that corporations could sue sovereign nations if they felt their profits were adversely impacted by local legislation. An idea Weyland-Yutani would love.

DOMA....no need to elaborate on that nightmare.

That's just off the top of my head. He patented the run left, govern right mantra, to the point where some Dems don't even bother to run left.....they just lose.

[lapucelle]

26. Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has been covering the revisionism

concerning the 1994 Crime Bill all year. Only one candidate for president this year voted in favor of that bill. It wasn't a Clinton.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/03/greetings-from-babel-did-williams-know.html

Somerby is one of the few liberal media analysts who actually holds our side to high standards. Here's his take on liberal punditry vis-à-vis Bill Clinton and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/search?q=bill+clinton+glass+steagall

I'd be careful about swallowing anti-Democratic narratives wholesale, even if they do seem to be coming from our side. The people selling them are generally agenda driven rather than honest brokers.

It was the election of Bush and then Trump that will wind up doing the most long term damage due to their impact on the Supreme Court. You can blame third party spoilers for that.

[TexasBushwhacker]

51. "Only one candidate for president this year voted in favor"

Are you saying Hillary would have voted against the bill her husband signed into law? There were parts of the law that were good, like the sex offender registristry, and parts that were really bad, like mandatory minimums and 3 strikes. But Joe Biden wrote it and Dems passed it. Hindsight is 20/20 and WE FUCKED UP!

Own it, fix it and do what can be done to fix the damage.

[lapucelle]

53. I think it's safe to say that Hillary would have voted for the bill, but it's Jones

who is dissembling concerning the point. The only people he seems willing to blame for anything are the Clintons who have both been out of power for quite some time. Why point fingers only at them? I'm tired of narrative driven punditry and those who promulgate it. They are a major source of the problem.

Perhaps you should advise Mr. Jones to own it rather than going back two decades in order to find a scapegoat.

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. Fair enough n/t

[paleotn]

59. Two points.....

..Yes, early 90's crime was high. I lived it. I was in my mid 30's at the time. And yes, a lot of Dems voted for the '94 crime bill, but so what? That's a silly argument from authority. Many did not. Turns out its provisions were a knee jerk, overreaction to a populace and pandering pols not interested in sensible reforms, but knee jerk overreactions. Crime is down over the last 20+ year, sure, but at what cost? It would have also gone down if life in prison and summary execution were handed out to every first offender. Mandatory mins and 3 strike laws are abhorrent. They tie judge's hands, not allowing them to do their damn jobs....taking all aspects of a situation into account when passing sentence or instructing a jury. And thus we have the decimation of a generation of black males by the judicial system. And guess what....drugs are still a major problem because, as many of us believed then, we're still NOT addressing the underlying issues. Treat it like every other advanced western democracy...ie. a public health issue, NOT just a criminal one.

On Gramm-Leach-Bliely, yes a number of Dems voted for it, but a number voted against. Again, an argument from authority. My opinion then is the same as now. What exactly has changed from 1933 that makes Glass-Steagall obsolete? My answer then was...nothing... and I stand by it. The underlying reasoning for Glass-Steagall is as relevant today as in the '30's. The basics of the global financial system hasn't changed all that much in nearly 90 years, it's just become far larger, more interconnected and vastly more complex, thus Glass-Steagall is of even greater importance. That whole argument reminds me of another 90's bout of stupidity...the dot.com morons who thought actual profits, ROI, etc. didn't matter anymore and fundamentals guys like me were antiquated. Easy for them to say while they were living off venture capital, but it didn't end well.

Now, I'm not a Clinton basher. I voted for Bill twice and Hillary once and would do it again in hindsight. However, Bill had a very bad habit of taking very bad advice...Rubin and company for instance.

[lapucelle]

64. Bob Somerby was not defending the crime bill or the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

He was simply pointing out the double standards of a punditry that uses these cases to selectively tar some of the players while giving others a pass. That is exactly what Jones did this morning.

[paleotn]

67. Yes, a lot of blame to go around....

...but pointing out that Bill Clinton is also to blame isn't necessarily being hypocritical. Jone may blame Clinton too much, he may not, but ole Bill was President at the time. The price of being in the Oval Office, for better or worse.

[JHan]

66. I wasn't aware of him, that's the most balanced commentary on those issues I've read.

I sometimes hear arguments that all of Glass Steagall was repealed: when it was one provision which put a wall between commercial banks and investment firms which was repealed. To blame this repeal solely for the crisis is really reaching when investment firms were at the heart of the crisis - and other risk behavior that had nothing to do with Glass Steagall

And the crime bill discourse this year was dishonest - this was a year for Pundit fallacies all around.

[lapucelle]

101. Bob Somerby is daily read for me. He's a liberal critic of the liberal media,

and he doesn't pull any punches. He has a online book called "How He Got There" that dissects the liberal media's role in putting W in the White House.

And as an interesting aside, Somerby was a roommate of Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones at Harvard.

[Cha]

41. Well said, lapucelle! Why hasn't Van Jones spoken out against Sierra Blanca?

Sounds to me like he doesn't know what he's going on about.

[Fast Walker 52]

45. I suspect he is on CNN for a reason-- because he will help undermine Dems

sorry, but I think that he is ok as a person, but I'm not clear he's helping us.

[nolabels]

52. That's funny, there i was thinking the rest of brass in Democratic party had it well in hand

Maybe they should start even earlier by picking their next candidate for the presidency this year

[Fast Walker 52]

69. the fact is moderate Dems are the ones who've gotten elected President recently

and Hillary came pretty damn close. As much as I'd love the party to be more liberal, liberal politicians have not done well in national elections.

[nolabels]

118. You must be talking about the chameleons that talk like liberals

and turn into right of center's after taking office. And you are now mad that many of us didn't take the bait this last time around

[Fast Walker 52]

120. well, thanks for helping to get Trump elected then

[Cha]

72. Totally agree, Fast Walker.. "he will help undermine Dems"

[otohara]

127. He's Very Good At Artful Smears

Called Hillary "Hillary Rodham Obama" and used the tiresome smear about her being a Goldwater girl when she was a teenager.

I'm not moving on because a TV pundit says something.

[Fast Walker 52]

131. Yes, artful indeed. Because he says a lot of good things, while putting out crap like this (the OP)

[truebluegreen]

55. Let's see, FDR was President how many cycles ago?

and yet his legacy lingers. Bill Clinton was President 5 cycles ago, and his legacy is still with us too: who signed NAFTA? Who signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Who signed bank deregulation? Do those have any effect today or are they just ancient history?

[lapucelle]

58. Jones was talking about current putative problems in the perception of the Democratic

party, not presidential legacies. He's reaching back 20 years to assign blame (but only to some of the players who were active in the 90's) and neglecting to discuss anything that has happened in the past 16 years.

It's a script, and he reads from it often. He strikes me as someone who has been nursing a grudge since 2008.

[truebluegreen]

65. My "perception" of the Democratic Party

(as a lifelong Democrat whose first vote for President went to McGovern) is that the party lost its way decades ago, but especially with the policies of Bill Clinton. The party abandoned labor and started taking $ from corporations instead, and their policies amply demonstrate that. The effects of those policies are very apparent as well. It isn't "perception" when Democrats bail out Wall St. while leaving Main St. holding the bag; it isn't perception when the signature achievement of this administration was a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation; it isn't perception when this president made 90%? of Bush's tax cuts permanent.

It isn't perception, it's a problem. Van Jones has it right, imo.

[lapucelle]

68. I wasn't talking about a life long Democrat's perception

of the party, and I don't think that Jones was either. I think he was specifically addressing the "Democrats are suddenly in big trouble" talking point that has emerged since November 8 and that ignores the success of voter suppression measures, the impact of misogyny on the race, and result of the popular vote.

Your points are well argued, but if that was the message that Jones had hoped to convey, he should have laid at least some of the blame for what has happened in the last eight years at the feet of the Democrats currently in power.

[truebluegreen]

75. The only thing wrong with the talking point

is the "suddenly" part, imo. The losses of the past 8 years, and in this election, cannot all be chalked up to enemy action. Hillary said it herself: "why am I not 20 points ahead?" Why wasn't she? Running against the shitgibbon, they shouldn't have been able to steal it, unless there was already a problem. And yes, Van Jones should have laid some of it at the feet of leading Democrats from these past years. Maybe he didn't because of the way too many come unglued at the Very Idea (this board being a good illustration) and because he is far more tactful than I am.

[lapucelle]

77. I think Hillary paid a higher price for her mistakes

than any male candidate would have. By the time the press realized exactly how bad Trump was, it was too late to walk back their own longstanding narrative about Mrs. Clinton.

I agree with you that the party's problems are not sudden, but I do resent pundits like Jones framing it as a "problem with the Clintons". He's been playing that game for a long time, and it's disingenuous at best.

[truebluegreen]

87. Sexism certainly played a part

but I do see it as "a problem with the Clintons." I think Hillary had "dynasty" baggage, partly because of W (another dynasty) and also because of Bill. This is not the 1990s and we as a country have paid a high price for choices made then; the Big Dog doesn't have the same cachet he had.

I also agree with Thomas Frank, in his new book (Listen, Liberal), where he said that the US reached a turning point in 2008, but did not turn. I think we can draw a bright line from that failure to the losses since then, including this one.

Just my opinion.

[lapucelle]

94. There was a great article in NY Magazine that in part discussed

the irony of the fact that many of the steps Hillary took over the years in order to be viable as a potential presidential nominee wound up hurting her in this "outsider" year.

I don't see Hillary as part of a political dynasty in quite the same way as the Bushes. She isn't a legacy hire, or of a second generation, and she has always run as "Hillary" rather than as "Clinton".

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/hillary-clinton-didnt-shatter-the-glass-ceiling.html

[truebluegreen]

111. I think she was a legacy

in the sense that she would not have been a viable Senate candidate in 2000, or a presidential candidate in '08 if her name was not Clinton.

But yes, the decisions she made to keep herself viable did hurt her this year. I thought her campaign was hobbled from the start by those past choices; that was why she had to run as the alternative to Trump the Horrible Person--she had no record she could run on.

That would explain, if true, Bill's motivation in encouraging Trump to run. Didn't work though.

[maddiemom]

125. No record to run on?

Particularly as opposed to Trump? Good One! LOL!

[maddiemom]

124. Exactly!

The Bush/Walkers are a Dynasty. The Clintons would be if Chelsea ran and was elected to a major office, and then her kids entered politics, whatever their success. You're right that Hillary ran as herself, not as a Clinton. Neither Bill nor Hillary's families played major political roles in the background. The "DYNASTY" thing applied to the Clintons is really wrong. The Kennedys might be considered a dynasty. FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were distant cousins, but it would even be stretching it a bit to call them a dynasty if Eleanor had ever run for office.

[betsuni]

92. +1

[AnotherMother4Peace]

3. What did we do wrong? Hard to say because the election was STOLEN. The Putin/Trump war room

had strategies that attacked our electoral system, social networks, media, etc. I'm sure they had/and continue to have it all laid out. Hell, even DU went dark. How does one fight/strategize against a Manchurian candidate and a hostile foreign country? I very much agree with McCain on this one - It was an act of war.

[lastlib]

9. It WAS an act of war--and the Republican party was NOT on the American side!

The GOP doesn't want fair elections because they know they lose them. They want them stacked, rigged, gamed in their favor. So they suppress votes and rig the counting and the boundaries to give themselves an edge. The only thing we did wrong as a party was to bring spoons to a gun-fight.

[paleotn]

21. Funny, the Republicans seem to have a habit of not being on the American side...

...I wonder why they hate American so much? I guess kleptocracy and fascism are more to their liking.

[Fast Walker 52]

50. sure seems that way!

[Cha]

43. Mahalo, AM4Peace! All these vultures aren't talking about that.

[RealityChik]

113. While Dems Chase Russians, Repubs Keep Rigging Elections...

is the title of a very soul-searching but enlightening article I found that nails the problem without a doubt. The election may have been stolen but for certain Election 2016 was rigged by the Republicans in 4 swing states.

https://ourfuture.org/20161213/while-democrats-chase-russians-republicans-keep-stealing-elections

The fact is that the recounts were vigorously opposed and ultimately stopped because the recount observer teams were getting too close to uncovering deliberate acts of hiding, destroying, ignoring or disqualifying ballots by the tens of thousands in predominantly democratic voting districts in WI, MI PA and FL. Access to those ballots would have returned the win to the rightful owner, Hillary Clinton. The 3 million vote win of the popular vote validates that in a historical way. But to date, we have no proof because access was denied. "We, the People" have to work together to change that.

In fact, only one thing will save our democracy and that is to restore voter integrity to our elections in all 50 states. Without that, we're doomed. As of Election 2016, we have become an oligarchy. What's next? A dictatorship? Anybody ok with that? Let's stop the blame game and get to work.

[truebluegreen]

121. I agree with all of this except:

"As of Election 2016, we have become an oligarchy."

We did that long ago, but now it is out in the open. Here's hoping that turns out to be a good thing.

[rtracey]

7. good

Good. the Clintons were a powerhouse for this country, and still is. I admire both for their civic work and their patriotism, but it is time for the Clintons, Kennedy's, to step away and allow new blood to get this party moving forward.

[Alekzander]

8. Absolutely agree. There is always a time for those to move on & that does not take away from the

good things they have done as well as does not mean they were & are not appreciated.

[zentrum]

14. Exactly. Thanks.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Yup yup, VJ just tellin it like it is... the Clintons are SO yesterday.

[HopeAgain]

16. Clinton came across as the elitist establishment

Perception is everything.

We need a populist of our own who is willing to tell Wall Street we are coming for their asses rather than kissing them...

[paleotn]

23. That's been the Democratic mantra for generations....

....until the last 30 years or so. The party of FDR's welcoming the hatred of the moneyed class lost its way and now look where we are. Our original play book played very well this election cycle. Too bad it wasn't Dems using it.

Oh, by the way...welcome!

[LenaBaby61]

33. Clinton came across as the elitist establishment

And God KNOWS that tRumputin didn't come across at elitist at ALL:

[Cosmocat]

42. I mean

Right?

[Cha]

71. No she didn't .. that was a RW talking point. 66 Miilion thought not.

[RazBerryBeret]

81. Just because we voted for her

doesn't negate that some may have viewed her as "Elite Establishment".
one doesn't equal the other.

I mean, if you have an individual net worth of over 30 million, you ain't exactly balancing your checkbook to make sure you can make the mortgage payment.

[Cha]

83. "Elite Establishment" RW Talking point.

[RazBerryBeret]

85. even if....

you totally believe that not a single person of the 66 million considered her to be a wealthy, powerful, well connected person in the political world?

[Cha]

86. Hillary had a wonderful progressvie Democratic Platform.. she's

a smart woman who would have fought like hell to get it implemented.

That other shite is just labels that served those with an agenda too well.

[RazBerryBeret]

88. oh I'm not disagreeing with any of that

just questioning your response to the comment that Clinton came across as the elitist establishment.
your reply was an absolute "no she didn't RW talking point, 66 million voters thought not "

I simply question the validity of that statement.
that's kinda like saying Clinton never had ties to Wall Street because 66 million people voted for her. just one doesn't equal the other.

[loyalsister]

24. Yep

We need new ideas, and we need to include people who have not seen themselves in the campaigns or policies. We need to remember that there were low turnouts and ballots with some votes blank. We need to figure out why.
And, we really do need to expand our bench with younger candidates for all elected offices when the opportunity arises. Many of the up and coming state elected officials were early 20s and younger during the Clinton administration and we have an opportunity to let them help shape policies and campaigns that reach more voters.
One thing we will see from here on is the baby boomers aging. Their kids are going to be learning some lessons about social security, medicare, and healthcare in general as they become caretakers. Do they help financially, put their parents in nursing homes, or abandon them altogether? They will also start to notice bad backs, arthritis, and general physical decline. It's about to get real for those in their 40s and 50s.

[brush]

56. I'm sure the Clinton's agree. Don't think it's in her plans to run again. Sanders OTOH. . . ?

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2017, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

We need to cultivate candidates who will be younger than mid-to-late 70s in 2020 and that includes both Clinton and Sanders.

[SunSeeker]

11. The tell this is a right wing rant: "Democrat support for Obamacare..."

First, it's Democratic support. Democrat is a noun. Second, and more important, the reason the red states hate Obamacare is because of the lies about it by the right that we were never able to overcome because red states live in a Fox News bubble. Obamacare is saving 45,000 American lives each year that were previously lost, EACH YEAR, due to lack of health coverage. Fuck this BULLSHIT.




You don't fight back against Fox News lies by adopting them, for fuck's sake.

[Cha]

63. Prescisely SunSeeker! I wouldn't put one bit of stock in anything

jones or schweitzer had to say about Hillary.

'Cause there they are spouting hogwash on cnn.. big fucking deal.

[SunSeeker]

74. Yep. You know they've adopted right wing narratives when they've adopted GOP mangled grammar.

It's not "Democrat support," it's Democratic support. And Obamacare is not the problem, it's lies about Obamacare that have turned red states against it. Yet this OP chooses to blame Obamacare, which has saved tens of thousands of lives each year, including my brother's.

[Cha]

84. It's Ridiculous.. but here we are countering RW Talking points.

It's so messed up.

[dionysus]

115. Van Jones is a RWer now?

[SunSeeker]

117. No, he is repeating a right wing rant. nt

[zentrum]

13. Agreed. nt

[Horse with no Name]

17. They've gone hard right

Our only response is hard left....that is the only way we will be able to pull the country back to the middle.

[vlakitti]

22. I agree 100%

And Van Jones is correct. Centrism and neoliberalism have decimated progressive ranks for many years now. Look at the states and the House and the Senate.

[jalan48]

25. More Progressive is the way to go. The Clinton's had a great run-time for some new blood.

[Alekzander]

31. Yes.

[Hekate]

95. Definitely time for the Dem Party to move Right to capture those rural & red low information states

Since those are the ones we lost, amirite?

[jalan48]

96. LOL-if we did at least we would be consistent with past behavior.

[Hekate]

98. You appear to have missed my sarcasm thingy, as well as my point

[jalan48]

99. I got it-

[Ohioblue22]

27. well you cant count on the left to vote so you have to move to the middle

[femmedem]

36. In my area, at least, you absolutely cannot count on the left to vote.

Young progressives, people who feel abandoned by everyone, people who feel the system is too broken to participate in, are not people whose votes anyone can take for granted.

[Ohioblue22]

39. the excuses make me sick

[dionysus]

116. So you wanna move right, eh?

[Ohioblue22]

123. no i dont. i want the left to fall in line during the general

[elmac]

29. The Clinton days are over,

yes, those days are over because you probably will never, ever see another Democrat elected for president, not in our lifetimes. This s because we eat our own, we blame ourselves while the fascists lie, cheat and steal their way into power and riches.
I voted for Hillary Clinton and supported Bernie during the primary. I was over Bill decades ago but wanted Hill to be our first female president. She didn't just swoon her way into the election, she worked hard for 25 years and took a lot of abuse along the way. She isn't just a Clinton, she isn't the twin of Bill, she is her own person. The Democratic party needs to be jolted to the left, they need to be seen as the peoples party again, but the same dumbasses that voted for sniffles will keep voting for whomever the fascists run because these voters are too brain dead to know what is bad and what is good for them.
I'm not blaming Hill nor the Democratic party for the deeds of really, really stupid people.

[delisen]

30. a Clinton is so Scary that Republicans had to turn to Putin to keep her out of office. So sad. n/t

[bigtree]

32. Sanders is talking about more sucking up to white working class men who voted for Trump

...not a word about black voters who helped form the MAJORITY who cast a ballot in the election.

All this fellow seems to be able to do is posture against the far left's caricature of Hillary.

And more wedge politics from the op. Shocked, I am.

[LenaBaby61]

34. Sanders is talking about more sucking up to white working class men who voted for Trump.

IF this is truly what Bernie's advocating (I want for him to unequivocally & directly tell us Democrats that he wants us all to do this), then the Dems are DEAD, because nobody I know--even strong Bernie supporters who ALL voted for Hillary in the GE--are going to go kissing white, working class males asses.

[OnionPatch]

128. It seems to me Bernie's talking about

jobs issues that are relevant to the WWC and ALL working class Americans. I haven't heard him throwing any red meat to racists. I've been following Bernie for more than ten years. He's a good and decent person. If anyone is being divisive it's people pushing the idea that Bernie is a racist.

[bigtree]

130. if he WAS talking about ALL working class

...he'd do well to acknowledge that Hillary WON their votes.

When you include minority Americans in the equation, she actually bested Trump by far among the working class.

“I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from,” wrote Sanders, who was born and raised in Brooklyn, N.Y.

[OnionPatch]

132. So he acknowledges some of the party's failures

after an election loss. What a traitor!!

I also don't think the Democratic Party talked to the working class enough, white or otherwise, especially in the rust belt where we lost the votes we needed to win the election. I guess in your view that makes me a racist.

[bigtree]

133. you're arguing with your own invented premise, not mine

Hillary WON the working class, even as she lost the contingent who are white.

The idea that we need to 'talk' to them is absurd. These white Trump voters say blacks and immigrants are the cause of their economic demise.

'Fuck off' is my response to them.

[JI7]

35. lol. van jones works for cnn

[Warren DeMontague]

37. we need leaders like Gavin Newsom, who represent the future.

It's not so much left or right or center, but certainly freedom vs. authoritarianism.

[Alekzander]

38. Gavin Newsom has been mentioned a lot along with Kalama Harris

Meet Kamala Harris, Who Could Become The First Woman President
California’s popular attorney general is headed to Capitol Hill. The White House might be next.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kamala-harris_us_58247ce2e4b0aac62489433d

[Warren DeMontague]

40. I like Harris, too.

One thing about Gavin is, he has led even when not politically expedient, on everything from marriage equality to cannabis legalization. Thats what leaders do, to my mind.

The larger point is, the west coast is the one place where our party is strong and consistently wins. But the beltway ignores it because they dont "get" us, they think pot is a giant stoner joke, and technology confuses/frightens them.

[Alekzander]

44. True there Warren. Gavin & Kamala are like CA, forward thinking, young & strong leaders that has

been shown.

I am not sure, that remains to be seen but there may or may not be too much emphasis or whatever put on the rustbelt or midwest white male voters. There were a lot of factors involved in the Clinton loss all around.

The Dem Leadership has to figure out:

1) How we interpret that data has important ramifications for how the Democratic Party moves forward. If, as a New York Times headline said, Trump's win was in large part a result of non-college educated white voters who supported Obama in 2012 defecting to the Republicans – perhaps for good – then the logical conclusion is that Democrats have to reach out to this group specifically or face the prospect of future losses.

2)Or did Trump energize just enough Republican-leaners who stayed home in 2012, and Hillary Clinton failed to turn out just enough Democratic partisans, then we can attribute this disaster to factors that aren't specific to this group. It may be that she was an unpopular candidate who faced a perfect storm of media coverage tainted by a tendency toward false equivalence, hackers releasing her campaign's internal emails, a clumsy intervention by FBI Director James Comey and latent misogyny – all of that while running against a celebrity who dominated nearly every news cycle. If that's the case, then the solution, whatever it is, should be the same for blue-collar white Democrats as it is for Democrats in general – running a better candidate who's more focused on a progressive economic agenda, for instance – and we shouldn't indulge in a lot of handwringing over this one group of white people.

Based on what we now know, there's good reason to believe this last analysis is the correct one. According to the exit polls, Clinton underperformed Barack Obama's 2012 results among not only non-college educated whites but also white men; black men and women; Hispanic men and women; Asian men and women; men and women of other races; every age group except voters over 65; liberals, moderates and conservatives; Protestants, Catholics, adherents of other religions and those who claim no religious affiliation; married men and unmarried men and women; union and non-union households; self-identified Democrats; straight people; people who think undocumented immigrants should be given legal status; and people who think the country is going in the right direction.

I don't think Bernie or others are saying we need to kiss anybody's asses but are saying we need to get it figured out & we have always been the party of inclusion which means everybody if they are interested. Van went out to the Midwest Rust Belt & including a lot of time in Ohio to do this.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. You make good points. One thing that should be remembered, though, outside the specific presidential

results- we have lost an unprecedented number of statehouses, etc.

We need to win some of those back, and fast, particularly in light of the 2020 census redistricting.

My larger point, or one of them, is that we need to be seen as standing for something, something beyond celebrity endorsements and David Brock poll-tested campaign slogans about "everyday Americans". Particularly by younger voters/Millennials who didn't grow up watching the GOP play footsie with the Moral Majority and go all "culture in crisis" trying to legislate personal morality.

We have lost the messaging, to my mind, that we are the party of things like free speech- we are the party of personal freedom- we are the party of choice. We've let too many people speak for us who are on some misguided crusade to tell others what they can say, to censor what people can watch on cable, to impose speech codes and thought bans and "you can't say that" and lets get the sports illustrated swimsuit issue off the magazine rack because a woman who wears a bikini is exactly as oppressed- if not more- than one who is forced to wear a burka.




This is not the Democratic Party I grew up with. When Debbie Wasserman Schultz goes full reefer madness to the NY Times, defending laws that put granny in prison for growing a pot plant to manage her chemo nausea, Houston, we have a problem.

The GOP will try to placate their dwindling Jesus base and their "Lawn Order" authoritarians, which will provide us an opening. Combining strong personal freedom/bill of rights messaging with pushing long-overdue economic remedies, like a livable minimum wage and a REAL single payer health care system (or that public option we were promised) would go a long way towards making inroads with the unaffiliated.

[Alekzander]

57. Well, you & I are on the same page, agree totally especially the messaging part. Also, yes,

stand for something. I do believe we are now in a place where the results show that we definitely need new leadership because that is what it is going to take to start winning back those statehouses you speak of.

We are not out of the game by any means, need to just find our way back home. Take a look at social issues that were on the ballot in various states & how those won. We did gain 6 seats in Congress not sure about the senate. Also, it showed that a high percentage of those who voted for Trump said they did not think he was qualified, nor did they even like him for so many things he said. That is how strong some of them were about Clinton. So you look at all that he certainly has no mandate.

For us it is just a matter of getting smart leadership & no more of that crap the emails showed.

[treestar]

78. googling leads to he is running for governor of CA

in 2018.

After Cal. strong support of Hillary and all the BS, I am for a California POTUS from us next.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. he has led on issues like marriage equality and cannabis legalization. Ahead of the curve.

And it's true. The entire West Coast is a solid blue block. It's well past time our party start listening to us and figuring out what we as Democrats are doing right, out here.

[KittyWampus]

46. Only supported Clinton in primaries/general cause she was choice left after O'Malley

That said, both Bill and Hillary don't understand politics past getting cronies elected.

And sadly, Obama allowed Clinton cronies to take the helm at the DNC.

Look what it got us.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Now we have a leadership vacuum, but that also provides an opportunity for us to decide what we

stand for.

I think it's time we start listening to the Democrats on the side of the country where we keep winning, personally. Because the West Coast is doing something right that the East Coast doesn't seem to understand.

[Alekzander]

61. Warren that is correct like how the Brooklyn Clinton Headquarters ignored the campaign workers on

ground about wanting to go back to Michigan.

How Clinton Lost Michigan -- and Blew the Election

Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.

SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.

http://portside.org/2016-12-17/how-clinton-lost-michigan-and-blew-election

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Exactly.

There was a Manhattan bubble. They almost won, in which case it wouldn't have mattered. But it did.

[aikoaiko]

49. Jones is mostly correct, but it remains to be seen how much $$$ the Clinton Foundation will be able

...to collect and disburse without the prospect of a Clinton holding a political office.

If they have the cash, they can influence campaigns and community organizers quite a bit.

[Maru Kitteh]

70. You don't have a single damned clue what the Clinton Foundation actually does; do you?

What does the Clinton Foundation do?

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation builds partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere to work faster, better, and leaner; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be tomorrow.

Since our founding, the Foundation has focused on tackling a number of the world's greatest challenges: Global Health; Climate Change; Economic Development; Health and Wellness; and improving opportunity for Girls and Women.

Because of our work, nearly 35,000 American schools are providing kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 150,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; working with partners, more than 8 million trees and tree seedlings have been planted to strengthen ecosystems and livelihoods; over 600,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises and health and wellbeing programs in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, over 11.5 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; an estimated 85 million people in the U.S. will be reached through strategic health partnerships developed across industry sectors at both the local and national level; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made more than 3,600 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 435 million people in more than 180 countries.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions

The Clinton Foundation is non-profit and non-partisan. It is not involved in American partisan political activity. It is a global human rights/health/welfare organization.

So what the hell are you talking about?

[aikoaiko]

80. Yes, Maru Kitteh, I know what the Foundation does.

All those programs are someone's important project and let's face it, that list of authentically good deeds are things that matter to Democrats and to some sympathetic Republicans.

When you can help someone with funding to achieve goals that they could not otherwise achieve you become very important to them. That matters to politicians, the community organizers in their states or districts, and the big donors with mutual interests. Influence can be very subtle or explicit, but I'm sure there was no quid pro quo.

There is nothing illegal about this practice and the Clinton Foundation does it brilliantly. In terms of influence, funding, and facilitating goals, I don't think we've seen anything like this since the Kennedy's Camelot.

Now you know what I'm talking about.

[Maru Kitteh]

90. So, sideways out of orifices not intended for the purpose, then.

I'm so sick of reading right-wing talking points and right-wing buzzword trash about the Clinton Foundation on Democratic Underground.

[betsuni]

91. You can say that again, Kitteh

Thank you for debunking these stupid talking points -- thank you everyone who does!

[aikoaiko]

100. Your friends will console you through your sickness, I'm sure.

It puzzles me that the idea of providing resources (especially funding) to people being linked to influence is RW talk when it is about a foundation, but we hammer that point when it comes to unrestricted or dark money in campaigns or even ear-marked budget items.

[Thinkingabout]

60. The fact of HRC for the most votes on the primaries and the most votes in the

General election says the Clinton ideas are still the most popular. There has been changed in the DNC and rather than to bash the DNC we need to embrace and build a stronger DNC, we will probably get the opportunity in the next four years to show the failures of Trump and enhance the DNC, it is time to build and leave the bashing of the DNC to the ugly GOP, the GOP will not get progressive ideas in place. For those who did not vote for and support the DNC nominee needs to accept their responsibility of failing to beat Trump.

[betsuni]

73. Wait, is it 2001? Did I accidentally fall into a time machine or something?

I am from 2017. Donald Trump was just elected president. Don't laugh, I assure you it's true. I've got to find Doc to send me back to the future!

[HassleCat]

76. Far from over.

The Clinton variety of neoliberalism has a strong grip on our party, and many are very comfortable with things just the way they are. It is quite possible things will go on as they are, until a third party gains traction.

[stevenleser]

82. Bill Clinton's influence on the party resulted in winning the popular vote 6 of the last 7 elections

I think Van has selective memory in terms of what our results were like before that. I'm being generous because he actually doesn't seem like he remembers it at all.

You want to complain about a change from the results of 1980, 1984 and 1988 to what Bill Clinton brought in 1992 and 1996 and thereafter?

The burden is on anyone who wants to move the party further to the left than where it is now to convince those of us who actually remember the party pre-Clinton to show us how that will work.

There is absolutely nothing indicating the country is demanding a shift to the left. On the contrary, the country and the world seems to have taken a sharp turn to the right.

At a time like that, Jones is suggesting offering up candidates and policies that is not what the country wants right now?

No thank you. I am not interested in another map like this one:



and by the way, this map ^^^^ is the better one for Democrats than 1984 and 1980.

[MFM008]

89. so proud of my state

of Washington. Since 84 voting democratic.
Disappointed WI and Iowa bucked the trend and went for the maggot.

[SunSeeker]

93. Yup. 47% of voters wanted the next president to be more conservative.

Only 17% wanted the next president to be more liberal.


http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls


We ignore reality at our own peril.

[joshcryer]

122. That's a scary statistic.

The rightward lurch is really fucked up.

[killbotfactory]

103. We lost in 2000, 2004, and now 2016. And that's ignoring state-level results, which have been worse.

Stop ignoring the role charisma plays in electing a president, or the effect it has on down-ticket races.

Stop nominating bland bureaucrats who have it drilled into their head that they can't show genuine human emotion or speak off script.

[stevenleser]

104. Stop trying to use melodrama to try to overcome facts. It makes you look silly and it won't work.

The facts are as I outlined them. More people voted for the Democratic candidate 6 of the last 7 elections.

The statewide races are another issue and is easily explained by the fact that a lot of Democrats simply undervote and leave the lower races blank on their ballots because they think everything is fine if they just vote for President and occasionally congress.

If you actually talk to lots of Democratic voters, you hear that a fair amount.

If you stop with your agenda and try to really understand what's going on, you realize the facts do not support what you want them to support.

[killbotfactory]

107. "a lot of Democrats simply undervote and leave the lower races blank on their ballots"

Holy shit, really? It's almost like the DNC needs to do more than try to ensure a democrat is president. I dunno, it's anecdotal evidence, and that's bulletproof, right?

[stevenleser]

108. Yep.

Hey, you could do your own research.

I've already done it. I know what I am talking about and don't have to guess.

You come back and let me know when you can speak from actually knowing.

[stevenleser]

106. And by the way, see Sunseeker's #93 above. We don't have to guess what the people want.

47% wanted more conservative candidates, 17% wanted more Liberal.

That's consistent with what happened in 1980, 1984 and 1988. We had more Liberal candidates, and we got that 17% by golly. The problem is the Republicans got just about everyone else.

That's the direction you want to move us in.

[killbotfactory]

112. Why do you have so much trust in polls after this election?

Up until the election results came tumbling in everyone was expecting us to eat the republicans lunch, based on polls and mainstream media reporting of them. The ones that weren't were dismissed as "concern trolls". We have a general idea, and no one knows what the fuck conservative or liberal mean anymore. Our parties are a mishmash of the caricatures of those ideas.

For me, it's less about having a liberal candidate. It's about having a candidate that can espouse their beliefs without sounding canned or rehearsed because they believe in them.

And 1988 was nearly 30 years ago. If that amount of time doesn't matter, why not get behind FDR's economic bill of rights from more than half those years ago?

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

He won so much that republicans had to implement term limits. The message Bernie ran on was this in a nutshell, and he went from a Kucinich-like nobody that the media wouldn't bother to cover except to insult him or his supporters, to closing a huge gap in support against Hillary among democrats within a few months.

We are the most wealthy nation on the goddamn earth, the most productive, and still half of us live paycheck to paycheck. Anyone who hasn't lived a life of wealth and power for any significant portion of their lives should know that by know and be completely offended by it.

[stevenleser]

114. Yes, all of a sudden everyone thinks they are smarter than pollsters and can ignore the one piece

of empirical data we have to measure people's preferences.

I've explained what happened before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2668272

You see, polls that try to determine what is going to happen in an election are actually measuring two things. They are first trying to measure who is going to turn out, and then they are trying to measure what the preferences are of those people that are turning out. We refer to this as "Likely voter polls" as opposed to "Registered voter polls". Registered voter polls are much easier. No turn out needs to be accounted for, its what would happen if EVERYONE turned out.

When you have a major event like Comey in the last few weeks of an election, one of the crucial ways it is felt in the result is that it depresses turnout. The problem is, measuring a change in voters turnout likelihood in the waning weeks of an election and adjusting turnout models is often difficult in the short term. So what happened is that somewhere between 1-5% additional Hillary voters stayed home depending on the state than what was accounted for in the polls. Their preference was still the same. If they had voted they would have voted Hillary. But they didn't turn out. So, back what a likely voter poll is, it has to first get right who is going to turn out and then get right who the preferences are of those folks who are turning out.

What you are attempting to attack, in terms of what I said about what 2016 voters said they want as far as ideology is concerned, is the exit polling of people who voted. This isn't a likely voter poll. No turnout needs to be accounted for here. It's a pretty straightforward survey. You would of course have addressed that if you understood the empirical political analysis that is polling. You don't understand it, but you attacked it anyway. Why? Because you have an agenda.

And because of that agenda, you committed the Arthur Conan Doyle defined sin of twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.

[aikoaiko]

102. Wow. I never would have guessed how easy it would be for some to throw him under the bus.

And with such zeal.

That's a shame.

[stevenleser]

105. What you call throwing under the bus, I call disagreeing because he is wrong. No big deal. nt

[aikoaiko]

109. Calling his point delusional, bizarre, RW talking points not throwing him under the bus?

Sure, whatever you say.

I get it. The Us versus Them dynamic is in full effect around here. It happened.

[stevenleser]

110. I would say his point is definitely bizarre given history. Disagree with delusional. Could be

RW depending on how you look at it. There is a tinge of Clinton Derangement Syndrome to it.

[ismnotwasm]

126. I love Van Jones

And I get where he is coming from, but I vehemently disagree on trashing the Clintons to make a progressive point. At the same time I agree with the idea of a full in your face progressive agenda, I'm not sure we can pull it off. In fact, any progressive agenda may have been pushed back by at least a decade or more-- The reason is the damage that Trump is about to inflict, indeed, the damage his very presence inflicts, he thrives off contention, he is deliberately increasing the political polarization in the US--not to mention internationally and his particular "base" needs to be thoraghly discredited, before we move forward. We need to contain and limit the damage.

If Hillary had won--he'd actually have more of a point, but she didn't--too many fell for too much bullshit. Too many didn't care enough to vote. And here we are.