"We're losing our damn minds": James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party

[brooklynite]

Vox

In a rant on MSNBC that went viral on Tuesday evening, the longtime Democratic strategist vented his concerns about the party’s prospects for beating Donald Trump, taking particular aim at the party’s leftward lurch.

“Eighteen percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats,” Carville said. “We’ve got to be a majoritarian party. The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”

His diatribe took place against the backdrop of an Iowa caucus that had fallen into chaos and amid a rancorous ongoing debate among Democrats over the party’s direction. He took particular aim at Sen. Bernie Sanders, whom he fears could lead the party to defeat in November.

Carville’s lament distills a concern among the Democratic Party’s establishment: Will ideological purity and playing to the base cost the Democrats victory in November? For Carville at least, “We have one moral imperative and that’s to beat Donald Trump.” That his comments went viral speaks to the sense of urgency among Democrats, even as it only fuels the debate over the direction of the party.

[Fresh_Start]

1. won't impact voters or votes at all

no one listens to Carville or the DNC

however I'm sure BS will have something to say to his adoring fans

and Trump will also use this to rile up BS

[mahina]

37. Is there any intersection between regular people of both parties' interests?

Interests that we believe in and that they could benefit from as well? I’m sure there are. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid come to mind first. Debt reduction too.

That’s how President Obama won.

The stakes are so much higher now. Carville is right that it really is life or death for the planet, much more than just about us.

[Fresh_Start]

38. yes, we have much more in common than we have that is different

I'm merely making a guess on the response to Carville from two different camps BS and DJT.

[Scurrilous]

2. Yep.

Play this for your Cuban friends. It's a Spanish curse word generator.

So fucking stupid...so very, very, stupid.

What do people see in this guy but a bunch of promises he'll never keep.

[njhoneybadger]

3. He's fucking right, forget ideological purity

If we don't stop this monster it's fucking over.

[zackymilly]

4. Carville supports Bennet. Does he think Bennet has a chance? n/t

[Peacetrain]

6. That was my question when I heard him.. I had MSNBC on

Bennet has how much of a chance??

[cilla4progress]

5. Do we really want to play

to the media meme that Dems are in disarray after Iowa?

What about 4chan bottling up phone lines.

C'mon people! Stand up! It's all we've got right now! That and the majority of Americans (and popular votes!).

[bluewater]

7. And what does Carville suggest we do about empty states getting so many Senators?

As states in the middle of the country, the actual geographic middle, continue to lose population, what are we supposed to do?

Those states keep getting more and more conservative.
I don't see much chance of that changing soon and it's a fool's errand to shift the party to the right to try and woo those voters.

[2naSalit]

21. Empty states?

You know, if a little attention were focused on some of the smaller populous states like Montana, we wouldn't be trapped in red state status when in reality we are sort of purple. But does anyone come here, other than the failed MF45 invasion to oust Sen. Tester a couple years ago?

No.

We have to travel very long distances to another state to attend campaign events for 99% of presidential candidates. Yet there are complaints when I won't decide which candidate to back until I know who will be on the ballot by the time I get one.

I see people on DU and elsewhere bitching about how low population states have more "power" because we have two Senators like all other states. Well if you look at it, we get ONE representative in the House against most other states that have ten or more. WE ALL HAVE TWO SENATORS and ONE House Rep/district so it almost evens out there except when it comes to campaigns to choose our president. We don't count because we have only a small handful, if that many, of delegates in the electoral college so we are at a great disadvantage and we really don't have much of a say in that process so once you consider that element of "who gets more political power" in this whole process, we are at a great disadvantage compared to the rest of the larger populous states.

When will all these candidates come to our state and show us what they have to offer us?

We western states - especially in the Rocky Mountains - have most of the public lands in the lower 48 where many of you like to come to get away from your congested states. Most of the fresh water in the US comes from this region, we have most of the forests and wildlife and National Parks upon which much of the US ecosystem relies... but since there aren't a lot of people here, we don't matter. I guess that's why so many show up here with no respect for the environment or those of us who live here because we must be uneducated and unable to live like all those fine cityfolk who come here to show us how to fuck up our environment so they can have more conveniences. Many of us are treated as though visitors are doing us a favor by coming here so we should treat them like royalty because they are on vacation or some shit... but I digress.

So when a campaign that is designed to help change the political landscape in this way, I see that we don't matter at all because, why spend $$ to oust a senator from a state that could turn a lot bluer for the effort? Though we don't have a whole lot of delegates to offer, we have a lot that matters to everyone on the ground and should be given some serious consideration. The natural resources* that matter are here, and there aren't many humans, which is why we still have natural resources* that are important to the rest of you whether you are here or not. If we had some help turning ONE of our Senate seats blue, it would make more difference on serious matters regarding climate issues and other key VOTES needed in the Senate.

It would take all the Congress and the executive to sign off on changing our system, so if you want that kind of change, your gonna have to have a majority of all states to vote for and ratify the change to make it so. Helping us flip our red seats would be the first order of business in accomplishing your desired goal.


Until then, next time you come to my state to fly fish, ski, go to the NPs, watch wildlife, enjoy water in all the rivers provided by the snow in the mountains in our state(s)... you might recall that these things matter too and part of why we have so few people here is because of the natural environment that most of you enjoy on vacation. So if you think we're all idiots, if those of us who spend our lives fighting to protect these things for everyone's sake are that stupid, please proceed with your narrow arguments on how we are represented in DC.

Such arguments only serve to further isolate us from your objectives -all of our objectives for equality - by claiming we shouldn't have the representation we do have... even we Democrats out here. So please proceed with the insults, you're only serving our opponents with them.

Personally, I will proceed in voting and working to turn this state blue which is a very futile effort without support from the rest of the party.



*I am loathe to call the natural elements here "resources" because to me that means measuring the forests out in board feet for possible harvest and sale without regard to the importance of these thing when left in their natural state of being. It sets these things up for wanton exploitation in exchange for extremely short term monetary gain.

[bluewater]

28. "we get ONE representative in the House against most other states that have ten or more" Huh?

There is a good reason for that.

House seats are assigned based on population, not geography.

Small population states already get 2 Senators, the same as much more populous states.

Why do you think it's unfair that House seats are assigned based on actual population?

Seriously. Please explain that before we discuss anything else. It's a huge issue.

I am truly puzzeled.

[2naSalit]

32. interesting

how you just made my point against your argument.

[bluewater]

34. House seats are assigned based on population. Why do you find that unfair?

House seats are assigned based on population.

Why do you think that is unreasonable?

And why should low population states have more or equal power to more populous ones?

[LisaM]

29. This is an excellent post. And I have another point to add - we need to move a few blue voters.

If one tech company like Google decided to open up in a place like Bozeman or Laramie or even Grand Forks, ND (which is a nice little town, I've been there), there could be an almost instant shift.

[2naSalit]

33. Well, that's how we got Gianforte the body slammer.

He started a high tech company here, sold it and became a billionaire who is the epitome of what we have in the R party. Now he's running for Governor again, for the 3rd time. And his business partner, Steve Daines, our R Senator, hold the state's delegation in red zone.

Tester is our one D in DC.

[Midnightwalk]

36. Righteous rant

Agree with it just about 100 percent.

On the two senators point who cares whether it is unfair. It is reality and remain reality for a long time Only a constitutional amendment would change that and that isn’t on the horizon.

We have to compete in red states. That would fix the senate and make it easier to win the electoral college.

[MarcA]

24. The institutional structural deficiencies in the government

(electoral college, unelected lifetime courts, Senate arrangement) and the
structures which prevent their change, make democracy and progressive change
more difficult and the eventual break up of the US more likely.

[Skya Rhen]

8. In every Iowa poll, the majority of respondents agreed that Biden was most likely to beat Trump yet

they voted for the two candidates polling as least likely to beat Trump.


So the question is: Are we really serious about getting rid of Trump? Iowa has shown that the jury is still out on that one.

[empedocles]

11. Jury not still out. Dem party, primary activists vote for candidates least likely to beat trump.

Few days ago the DU 'jury' voted by 7-3 Blloomberg even, over Sanders. The larger DU population recognizes Biden electability.

[Peacetrain]

13. Apparently so did the people who did not go to caucus

I was away from here for 3 weeks basically not wanting to tangle with anyone in case Biden was not viable and I had to choose another candidate.. just keep an open mind. came in a couple of days early,but the polls were saying Biden was going to take second and maybe even first here.. You can imagine how I got knocked off my feet when it did not happen.. By mid Tuesday I am hearing from people who knew that I was a Biden supporter on how come he did not win. They read the polls and thought he had it and just didn't go to caucus. Now there is no way that many people stayed home that he would have won it.. I am not buying that for a second. But sometimes being number one in the polls suppresses your own voters.. it happened to Hillary.. What I want to know is what is wrong with Democrats that they think letting someone else vote for them is going to get them the result they want???

[bluewater]

16. No need to misrepresent things. Sanders does very well head to head versus Trump.

[empedocles]

9. Carville is good at going in a straight, clear, short way - to the core problem.

'Its the economy stupid' became legendary.

'18 % of the population controls 52 Senate seats . . . We've got to be a majoritarian party. . . One imperative, beat Donald Trump . . . We need power!

[Getting out the blue wave, urban vote, various policy aspirations, - will not do it].

[squirecam]

10. The blue wave

was due to moderate candidates winning moderate trump leaning districts.

That can work again with a moderate candidate.

[empedocles]

14. Yes, an electible candidate can work. Yes, we can at least hold the House, and possibly sweep with

ticket support.

[rockfordfile]

30. Any of our candidates can win the Presidency. Now it's different which one will have coat-tails

[Buckeyeblue]

31. We should say that to ourselves daily

The most important thing is to beat Trump. Next is to appoint judges and preserve ACA.

You can't do that by promising medicare for all or free college. We need to talk about better jobs and infrastructure. And common sense education standards.

[empedocles]

41. Carville on MSNBC last night just before Rachel. Carville still has the juice!

'Need to be a majority party'!

[OKNancy]

12. I just finished reading this article and I agree 100% with what he said

Loved the last line of the interview: "Falling into despair won’t help anyone, though. I mean, you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. I’m getting a fucking welding torch."

[musicman65]

17. Yes

He is usually right,,,,we need to listen

[Progressive2020]

15. Mobilize The Base

I think Bernie's strategy is not to capture the middle but to mobilize his progressive base.

Just like Trump survives by mobilizing the hard right, Bernie is trying to mobilize the far left. It is a different strategy from the Moderates, who run a bit left in the primaries, then move to the center in the general election.

The new strategy is not to capture the middle. Rather it is to mobilize the base. I think that we might be in a new era in American politics- the era of far right and far left versus the Moderates and the Centrists. This is happening in both parties.

So Carville is right to be concerned. The party is pulling towards the far left, not the middle. He is right. We need power.

[BlueIdaho]

19. If the Democratic Party moves to the far left

We will turn into Britain's Labor a Party - a perennial also ran.

[MarcA]

25. The "far left" bogeyman always a threat to the status quo. n/t

[BlueIdaho]

35. When was the last election the UK Labor party won?

It’s not a bogeyman it’s demographics.

[Jirel]

18. Couldn't care less about what he has to say.

His track record is mediocre. He is little more than a mouthpiece for the scared, stuck centrists of the DNC who still can’t comprehend that the party wins seats by electrifying the base. In other words, with candidates strong on ideology and policy

[Doremus]

40. Bingo! Thread winner here. nt

[Scurrilous]

20. Bernie Sanders, criticizing Democrats since the '80s

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is running for president as a Democrat, but as a registered Independent he has often leveled criticism at the Democratic party.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/26/kfile-bernie-sanders-criticizing-democratic-party-js-orig.cnn

[Autumn]

22. You might be, I'm doing just fine.

[denem]

23. Mr. Triangulation does not like progressive policy?

[MarcA]

26. +1,000 n/t

[mahina]

27. He's right.

[Doremus]

39. Carville hasn't been relevant for years.

American campaigns he's been involved with since his big win in 1992 have tanked. Don't know how his foreign ones have done since he's started farming himself out overseas.

[Blue_Adept]

42. A rant on Tuesday that went viral and was noticed finally on Friday?

And from Carville?

The comedy writes itself.

[Gothmog]

43. JAMES Carville was great tonight on the debate

Link to tweet

?s=20