Democrats need more than ANYTHING to win the White House back….
THEN?….
If they want to get legislation actually passed?
They need to win a US Senate majority…
And…
Win some state legislative bodies…
They will NOT get any of the above if they don’t play the LONG game….
By that?
One means that Progressive/Lefties/Democrats are gonna have to be flexible withIN their party…
Trying to knock off those who could win in the long run to appease their shot term goals gets them nothing but headlines in the media…
That is counterproductive ….
Their goals are obtainable ONLY if they have the political power to control the political agenda…
The below linked piece goes back to give a short history of ‘Progressives ‘ and points to its changes …..But also warns that the ‘movement’ will NOT succeed if it doesn’t make itself adjustable to the times and place it’s operating in….
Medicare for All. The Green New Deal. Calls to overhaul the Supreme Court and replace the Electoral College. Many activists today are heralding a new Progressive movement—a successor to the vibrant reform coalition that swept both major political parties in the early years of the 20th century.
There’s more than a little truth to this comparison. America’s current reality—marked by rising income inequality, the concentration of political and economic power and changing patterns of work and leisure—bears uncanny similarity to conditions that produced a burst of reform activity 120 years ago, including measures to improve urban health and safety standards, ameliorate labor conditions and introduce more efficiency and transparency in state and local government.
But if contemporary progressives aspire to drive the same degree of change as the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century, they might take a cue from their ideological forebears.
Many of today’s progressives define their movement by commitment to a specific menu of policies, and those who don’t share this very specific set of goals are easily read out of the progressive movement, typecast as “neoliberals” or “corporate liberals.” This kind of rigidity is something that their progressive forerunners never exhibited. The Progressive Movement of the early 1900s was successful precisely because it was flexible, and incorporated a wide range of views—so much so that the movement defies easy definition.
Indeed, historians have struggled for decades to characterize the “Progressive Movement.” Was it a coalition of middle-class reformers dedicated to good government? A top-down drive by politicians and businessmen to smooth out the sharper edges of industrial capitalism and blunt the appeal of socialism? The political project of urban workingmen and working women who demanded better working and living conditions? A full assault against concentrated economic power? A case could be made for any of these interpretations.
In some ways, the Progressive movement is hard to pin down because it was no movement at all, but rather an ever-shifting coalition of organized groups and individuals who agreed on certain issues and disagreed on others. They worked together and in opposition with equal fluidity and enjoyed strongholds within each of the two major political parties. Bound together by a common self-definition and guided by malleable principles, they entertained a diversity of thought and action. It was precisely this wide range of thought and action that made progressivism so powerful….
Blue-collar union workers in solidly Democratic California are rejecting “Green New Deal” politics, a possible preview of troubles for 2020 presidential hopefuls in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
When Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti launched his “Green New Deal LA” plan last month amid cheers from environmentalists, hundreds of jeans-wearing, tattooed union members outside the event chanted “Garcetti’s gotta go” and denounced the move as a betrayal. The Garcetti protest was followed by disputes in the state capital this month over a large buffer zone that would block new oil and gas wells, as well as a massive hydro project near Joshua Tree….
Folks?
AOC is working within the system…
She voted for Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker…
And now she’s working with Texas GOP Senator Ted Cruz on a bill…
Freshman Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found an unlikely ally in Republican Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday.
Ocasio-Cortez shared an analysis from Public Citizen on Twitter that found that close to 60% of former members of the last Congress have taken lobbying jobs or jobs that influence federal policy more broadly. Along with the study, she shared a message that “if you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn’t be allowed to turn right around & leverage your service for a lobbyist check. I don’t think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you’ve served in Congress.”…
image…reason.com
Regardless of whether you agree if members of Congress should be able to get lobbying jobs after Congress perhaps in exchange for select congressional votes, I’m pretty sure that Ocasio-Cortez is not hurting Democrats in any way by this stance. I agree with her and Cruz on this issue.
And by the way, don’t be surprised if the next nominee is a progressive. Biden has benefitted in the polls by Trump attacking him, It is possible that as the primary season unfolds Trump starts attacking a progressive – who will then also get a bump in support. And also by the way, defining the 2020 election as the long term is laughable to those of us who truly think about the long term.
Unless the sky falls I believe the nomination goes to Biden….
AOC has been playing her cards right….
Pushing for change…
BUT…
Also working WITH the party and even Cruz for now…
That IS what the linked piece points to…
Compromise is essential to getting things done in American politics….
Yes- Compromise is important on all sides. And at the risk of stating the obvious, it won’t be good for the Democratic Party in 2020 if progressives feel they have no say.
I put the AOC piece in to point to the fact that she IS working WITHIN the party….
Even on the impeachment front?
Pelosi is WELL aware that impeachment does NOT play for the dozens of Democratic House seats in Trump friendly country…
Lets face it…
The impeachment drumbeat is a high octane media sell…
Since Mueller’s throw down?
Media anchor talking heads will just KEEP asking Democratic lawmakers CONTINUALLY about impeachment…
That while the reporters working the House stand up and report that only 20% of the House Democrats are talking impeachment…
Trump is NOT gonna be impeached and Progressives aren’t gonna get most of their way from the Presidential nominee, Schumer or Pelosi…
It doesn’t work that way for the Win come 2020….
It simply
So moderate Democrats should conpromise with Republicans, but not progressives? And you say you truly care about winning in 2020?
My congressman, Tom Malinowski who won his seat by about 2% beating a popular and long-term Republican has called for impeachment.
Democrats have to have principles to win. In 2016, we nominated someone who was unable or unwilling to fight for anything and we lost. It is way too early to determine if Biden will run like Hillary, but let’s all hope not.
And Biden’s odds at winning the nomination are no more than one in two.
Z?
If ya don’t WIN?
All the principals are just talk….
If ya WIN?
At least ya can try to effect change
I agree (at least knowing what we know at present) that impeachment [prosecution] of the President is premature and a foolish strategy that helps Trump and endangers Democratic down-ballot candidates.
But it’s still far from as clear as James suggests whether to follow a strategy of appeasing moderate fence-sitters or ex-Trumpists, or one of mobilising the base.
And Amy Walters (a non-academic student of campaigns and polls) said almost exactly that on
one of the talk shows last Sunday: “No one really knows yet.”
One of the things that I find most hopeful in a Biden campaign is not just his potential appeal to working-class and Rust Belt voters, but the possibility that he could do that while still arousing the progressive activists (whom James seems to despise) . Hillary Clinton, — who still won the plurality of 2016’s national popular vote — seemed signally incapable of doing either.
Oh, i’m NOT happy the Democrats have been out games by Trump & Co.
I don’t advocate staying silent against Trump’s seeming illegalities…
But impeachment just isn’t the option to choose right now…
The politics would screw the Democrats and next election results…
Dave, I support impeachment hearings before impeachment prosecution. Maybes will learn that what appears to be crimes are far less nefarious than they appear. But It seems Trump continues over and over to disregard the law. If impeachment hearings don’t make sense now, they never will. And failing to act only emboldens him.
if they don’t pursue impeachment hearings, the Democratics sure look pathetically weak and impotent. And it is hard to win an election if you look pathetically weak. Deep down, you already know this.
Once they start with ANYTHING named impeachment they will e unable to go the whole route and Trump gets a second d term guarantee….
I totally disagree, and you didn’t even bother to give a reason for that statement.
And people like yourself who just like to whine only decreases the chance of a Democratic victory. I want to win in 2020 more than you do or you wouldn’t have called for Sanders to run for President as a third party candidate.
Here’s MY point Z….
Once you start ANY formal hearing?
You have the media and safe Democrats clamouring for a FULL hearing with charges….
Then?
The Democrats are screwed….
If they do NOT go ahead?
Trump and the GOPer’s say ‘ah HA!”…No basis for the charges…
If they DO go ahead and hand up charges?
The Senate Republican’s hold tight and defeat the effort…
Final outcome?
Donald Trump and Republican THEN go before the American people and SCREAM their guy is NOT guilty and the Democrats should shut the fuck up about getting him OUT OF OFFICE!….
Trump’s base is grinning and happy…
AND ENERGIZED by WHO?
The dumb assed Democrats and the Media….
Nancy Pelosi is 1000% correct….
Let the investigation’s continue …
Let Trump keep screwing HIMSELF
There is NO rush to impeach and screw us by giving the guy a second term…
And Z?
A foolish stab at impeachment could cost Democrats the House to boot…..
Sanders needs to get off the stage after he loses….
His time NEVER came….
He is NOT what this country needs as a President…