WhaTHellsgoingonhere
WhaTHellsgoingonhere's JournalI have a feeling Hillary would be better off with women in charge of her campaign. Why on earth
would she say the things 3 incorrigible white men (Mook, Brock, Podesta) tell her to say? The Koch, Minutemen, GM bailout trifecta was not Hillary's idea. Why doesn't she put women in those positions? I'm sure it would change the tenor of her campaign. Coming across as a disingenuous incorrigible white man is hurting her.
The Rs have been unhappy with establishment politics for 10 years
the Dems are only now discovering they are growing more unhappy with establishment politics by the week.
Hillary is loved by blacks in states she can't win. Bernie is loved by whites in states he can win.
White Rs love Trump.
Bernie and Trump can peel away the anti-establishment vote.
All 3 have very long resumes. Trump's is mixed at best, but he's unapologetic. Hillary's is mixed and she's constantly apologizing for "mistake." Bernie has nothing to apologize for.
The Tea Party exposed the Democratic Party
The R Party used to be the Party of the "status quo" and now they are the change Party. For too long Dems believed the Democratic Party was the change Party, but aside from social issues (which we are being peeled back like layers of an onion), it's clear the Democratic Party is the status quo Party now. Look at how we've aligned ourselves with Rs from wars to Wall Street to NSA to prisons to trade to education to banksters. It's all facilitated the Great Recession and income inequality. That Tea Party has forced a split in the Democratic Party. And now we scramble.
I think Adam Green and his PCCC might be the problem
We don't have to be aggressive or wildeyed to present our case. It's pretty simple stuff. People are disenchanted and say there's no difference between the parties. Then the Third Wayers come along and say there's a huge difference but only highlight social issues. People know there's something amiss, and the argument becomes circular. There's a disconnect between the electorate, who sees the 2 parties as the same, and the Third Way, which only draws a distinction with respect to social issues.
Adam Green does come across as a radical. It shouldn't be like that anymore. There a so many examples to distinguish Progressives from Third Wayers that people will be able to figure it out themselves.
I really don't think Dems are enamored with Third Way policies. There are a bunch of Third Wayers who are more concerned about their Wall Street investments, taxes, and electing the first woman president.
Bernie and Adam Green probably shouldn't be the face of the Progressive Movement. Fortunately, it's based upon populist ideology. People will look at it and say, "Ah ha! That's me. Here I've been voting for Third Way Dems all along and never even knew what a Third Way Dem is. No wonder I've felt unsatisfied and disenchanted by the whole process. And this explains why the political center keeps moving to the right. Our leaders only campaign to the left then, in many cases, govern similar to Rs."
Evidence suggests otherwise. The political center continues to be pulled to the right
and Dems are fighting battles they thought they won decades ago: abortion, New Jim Crow laws. Third Way Dems align with Rs on all issues EXCEPT social. Maybe getting things done means voting with Rs (moving the political center to the right).
Well, let people decide for themselves.
Republicans and Third Way Democrats supported these policies
Policy #1
Policy #2
Policy #3
...
Progressive Democrats Opposed #1, #2, #3 etc. Instead, Progressive Democrats fought for
Progressive #1
Progressive #2
Progressive #3
Attach candidate's names to each policy issue will help differentiate the Third Way from the Progressives. It really blurs the line between Republicans and Democrats on all matters EXCEPT social. So people like Third Way Dems because they are right on human rights issues. That might be their only connection to the Dem Party. It's up to Progressives to help them suss it out.
In this ways, Progressives look mainstream Dems.
We have to look at individual policies
Bail Out Wall Street vs Bail Out Main Street
Regime Change for Oil vs Don't "Bring Freedom" to Cultures that you don't understand and don't want your intervention
Anti-labor and bad trade policies vs Promote Organized Labor
How to deal with white collar crime and market concentration. You can go down the list. Democrats have distinct ways of responding to each. Third Wayers would align with Republicans on each issue. Progressives would be the opposition.
I was wondering the same. The problem today is it's a top down movement
Bernie even said we pretty much have to clean house before we can go forward. We're also up against the establishment "Progressives" like Hillary and the Democratic Progressive caucus. First, we need to know how to differentiate ourselves from Third Wayers who have all of the exposure and are confusing the electorate by claiming to be Progressives. Second, we need a bottom up movement. There are politicians in Chicago endorsing Bernie. We have to identify these people nationwide. These are our future congressmen and senators.
But seriously, the Democratic Party is a big tent. The Progressive movement is not. That whole debate about who is more Progressive is an important debate, but it's certainly expedient for Third Wayers to never once out themselves as Third Wayers and instead dress themselves up in the cloak of a Progressive. On second thought, while millions want to identify as liberal or progressive, how many people have ever heard of Third Way. So, on second thought, we have to introduce the electorate to the Third Way movement and juxtapose their ideology against the Progressive movement. Hillary and the media made a mockery of the "who's more Progressive" debate, but it's exactly the debate that should be taking place within the Democratic Party because the Progressive Movement tent isn't big enough for Third Wayers.
Bad news for Hillary. The math says Stiglitz = Krugman
Ergo Stiglitz + Reich > Krugman
But Hillary's supporters argue the math looks thusly
Krugman + R/Q > Stiglitz + Reich
where R = Real thinking and Q = rational thinking; and the upshot is: Third Way Fail vote for more Third Way Fail
Lol Hillary supporters preparing for a GE loss, already blaming Bernie supporters
Low Dem turnout is a huge theme this primary and, because an unknown old white man isn't delivering, he's to blame. But with the first woman president in the balance, why isn't the Clinton campaign inspiring? Before you can scapegoat Bernie in November, you better figure out why your candidate, on the precipice of making history, has fallen flat as evidenced by turnout. Now, you could argue and might be correct to do so, that the DNC doesn't want high turnout. Less exposure - a small number of strategically hidden debates - makes it difficult for an unknown to simply introduce himself. John Lewis and Rachel Maddow were still litigating his participation in civil rights movement last night. That's just one example of how unknown he is and how easy it is for the establishment to turn it against him. So low voter turnout is by design. GE debates will expose Trump and history will bring Dems to the polls come November. Otherwise, low primary turnout is a function of Bernie's obscurity and Hillary's unfavorables. Each poll indicates the electorate cares most about a politician's honesty. And every poll indicates Hillary's biggest problem is people don't find her trustworthy.
Hillary supporters, you only have a flawed, uninspiring, untrustworthy, Republican lite candidate to blame if Dems don't turnout in November.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 10:00 AMNumber of posts: 5,252
