There's an organization in dire need of new leadership.

Or, rather, name.

The only problem is that their don't share the same goals as you.

more in line with the Republican Party's goals. They have dragged the party to the right and even when the losses they are responsible for demonstrate their 'failure' as far as the people are concerned, their response is to go FURTHER to the right.

They then lie about where the country is, on issues in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

My goal is to see Democrats control congress and the white house, so obviously we don't share the same goals.

There needs to be a thorough house cleaning at the DNC starting at the top. And the party needs a come to jesus meeting with itself to decide what it really stands for - the people or corporations. Because they can't have it both ways.

to suck up to the economic royalists in order to feather their own nests. That is the whole of their agenda.

More and more, especially now that some of them have revealed themselves to the public when they panicked over Elizabeth Warren's popular attacks on their policies and made the mistake of publicly attacking her in the WSJ, showing just how far they are willing to go to stop anyone who interferes with them and their control over the Dem Party, there can be no more denying their power within the party.

I suspect that one of their goals was that the base would keep buying their bs.

Not that I actually believe he can get the nomination, but he will force Hilary Clinton to address the basic needs of the working class that have been neglected by the Democrats. If the party is to survive then it must get back to its most basic reason to even exist and that is to represent the working class for fair wages, good working conditions and benefits. The so-called Third Way has proven to be No Way for the workers who have been deserted.

Her track record on TPP and it's ugly EUropean cousin, warmongering, and Wall Street tells me all I need to know. Cripes, she has effing Summers advising.

She's a corporatist through and through. I remember cringing at a clip of her talking about putting 20 bucks in our pockets or some such nonsense. It's humiliating to be treated as if we're so stupid that we don't know that while she's tossing us "20 bucks" he and her cronies walk off with millions and billions at our expense.

FIRE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ.

Yesterday, if possible.

The fact that she wasn't raises alot of nasty questions about the Party Leadership.

last cycle, is beyond me.

She's way out of touch, but sadly I think she's indicative of what the party poobahs in DC think the people want; flat-out WRONG policy- like DSW's support of arresting medical marijuana users- along with a lot of shlocky, no-substance bullshit, combined with GOP-lite "values voter" pandering.

At least, not only from the head down.

I'd padlock some of the think tanks. I suspect DWS and others are following the thinking of the think tanks.

Where do I sign?

I was about to post the same thing, but scrolled down to see if there was already a post I could second.

We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Corporatists own both parties now. They couldn't care less which party actually wins, as long as the corporate agenda continues.

Right now, I think both fake sides, the Red and the Blue team, are working hard to ensure a Republican is elected next time. The Democratic Party is deliberately failing to stand for the people and is deliberately alienating its base. Witness the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign, the ostentatious attempt to shove Hillary down our throats, and the behavior of the party's mouthpieces toward liberals. They probably feel they need to do this, because six years of Wall Street policy under a supposedly Democratic president is waking people up to the fact that the parties are corrupt.

Once they have the Republican in office, I predict we will see a miraculous FEIGNED return to conscience by corporate Democrats. The return to conscience will be fake, of course, but they will pretend to oppose all these corporate policies again and will put on a good show of being the vehement, albeit impotent, opposition party.

That way, the corporatists hope, the people will be reassured that we really still do have a democracy. We can stop all this silly talk about oligarchy and corruption. People will believe that the Democratic Party stands for their interests, and we can all go back to pretending that the only problem we have is that Republicans are in office and we need to get the corporate Democrats back in.

It certainly isn't going to happen under Jeb W. Bush, either. Or Mike Huckabee, for that matter.

The party needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up, not the top down. One problem is, the folks at the top are making it more and more difficult. We don't need that.

I meant that they will *pretend* to have conscience and oppose the policies.

I completely agree with you that the party needs to be rebuilt completely.

Bravo, Matt Taibbi!

operates like a ratchet. The Republicans crank it to the Right, then when Democrats gain office they hold it in place until the next Republican begins cranking Right again.

Yes....the pain always increases. It never goes backward. One party ratchets the pain and predation upward...and then the other party holds and then continues again.

That's perfect.

I think, often, the Democrat has cranked it to the right, on the theory that the Republican masses, to the extent they are even paying attention, will have few to no complaints about what he did and Democrats will go easy on one of their own--the one for whom they voted, worked and donated, the one they hoped and prayed would win the Oval Office. And the reverse is true. Less likelihood of rebellion in the streets.

So, you get Reagan raising taxes quite a few times, while Clinton passes NAFTA and pushes for repeal Glass Steagall.

feigned impotence. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and POTUS have mastered that technique.

Every four years each team casts their marketing meme while not telling the proles for whom they actually are marketing their wares - Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.

I'm pretty sure it's been done before in less sever cases. There's no coincidences as to why our education system is failing either. The theater has worked for a long time and still does. But I believe it's gone one step further and included agent provocateurs to keep the flame stoked.

They like frog soup.

We could start a third party or a third progressive party within the Democratic party and show our overwhelming support for Bernie Sanders. If progressive could dig deep into their pockets and along with the Labor movement it could be done. Bernie Sanders could win but we cant look at his candidacy and decide that its a losing cause out of the starting gate. Bernie could win.
All Labor Unions,+ progressive voters and progressive democratic organizations could fund his campaign.

the place is... well, not in good shape.

However, I come by every few days and you always have something good to read...

Thanks Woo...

I think you are right, we'll get a Republican President and a Democratic Congress or Senate and for 8 more years they will steal us blind while complaining that nothing is getting done due to the "opposition". Same Old Song and Dance.

There's a reason we're seeing a lot more progressive proposals from the President and Congressional Democrats now that they have an easy excuse why they'll never pass... They couldn't bring them up when they held control because then people would ask why they couldn't pass them (only part of the base buys the "wah wah we don't have a supermajority" excuse)

That's exactly what's happening.

And they assured this situation by throwing the midterms. What a brilliant, "Accept Doom" email campaign the DCCC gave us. And the party advertised two new wars and a trillion dollar ramping up of nuclear weapons *before* the election, but didn't even mention immigration until afterward.


What a bunch of despicable con artists.

they already know who the next president will be.

I've been told twice in the past few weeks that the dems can win without the left.

bring myself to vote for those who support perpetual war, allow cuts to the safety net for the most vulnerable among us, allow the wealthy, corporations and the banks to continue to screw over people who struggle to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, allow corrupt banks to police their own wrong doings and give them a smack on the wrist, place people who have wrecked the economy and harmed millions of people in high levels of power in our government (and give them fancy presidential cuff links) politicians who allow the income inequality that gives us two Americas, the have and the have nots. Fuck them. I have come to realize that if I could vote for politicians that support those things I could vote for a republican. And I'm not going to vote for a fucking republican. My parents raised me better than that.

People on DU at any rate, simply write off the lefties who post here as idiots and berate them, rather than realizing that we're speaking for a lot of folks who DON'T post here but think the same way. So sure, they can bully us, ignore us, even get some of us kicked off. But that just means they've built a giant blind spot around all the other people who think as we do. As long as the candidates are unwilling to actually try and win lefty voters over, they're merely throwing away votes they would be better served by winning. In the end it doesn't matter how a few score of lefty posters vote, but it DOES matter how all of the non-posters vote, even the ones who think like those few score here.

My feelings exactly

"I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more!!"

When did "smart and wise", not to mention calm, get such a bad rep?

Obama knew long ago that the All-In Age of Personal Demonization was coming from the fascists, it is historically common, and has prepared for these exact times by not giving the fascists what they really want from him.....anger.

Folks see through it...stay calm and carry on....it drives the cons mad. They ask, "without ginned up FEAR to mold public opinion and with a good economy, how else can we win elections but go all in on demonization?"

It's like they think the takeover of the House in 2010 didn't happen.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

to seek single payer healthcare?

And that he has sought compromise with the RWNJ's rather than use the bully pulpit of the Presidency, preferring to seek a "grand bargain" that would destroy Social Security?

Like Vermont?

Except, of course, that conservatives have created the Third Way and now feign being Democrats.

Love to know what they are 'conservative' about but they won't say of course. Wonder why...

Conservative Democrat=Oxymoron.

You nailed it.

in the 70's, I was a Jefferson Democrat. My views haven't changed and now I'm classified as far left.

This country needs to go left, far left from where it is now.

The term 'far left' is propaganda from the top of the Dem Party regulars(Rahm).

It's wrong and tends to betray the real activities going on behind our backs.

There is too much division in the party, brought on by either good intentions or intentional subterfuge.

Your choice, pick one. I tend to believe the latter as I've seen it before.

I was rather a conservative Democrat in the 1960s -- not extreme, but I wasn't a screamer. I cared about people. I cared about economic justice, civil rights, all the things Democrats stood for, but I was considered quite moderate on many issues.

I haven't changed my points of view but now I am considered to be a left-wing Democrat. I didn't change much, but the Democratic Party moved way, way to the right. I feel a bit abandoned at times.

that decided to become "Democrats" IMHO.

It drives them mad...who gives a fuck. That is a trip so short that it can be made without taking a single footstep.

Who drives a millimeter and who is impressed if they do?

About time someone told the truth to the Bosses:

"Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time." -- President Harry S Truman

And during a year with low voter turnout.

If the voting districts are rigged to let the skunks win....we get skunks. Yes, yes , yes more Dem votes. Your comment is so true!

But I think it is significant. Phillip Bump is entitled to his opinion, so am I. He says the numbers are no big deal because most "Republicans won in lower-turnout elections," hence the lower vote totals. And then he ironically proceeds to cherry pick just the totals for the low turnout elections (like 2010 and 2014) to prove his point. I cited a relatively conservative source to make you happy, alas, no such luck.

But it is indisputable that 20,000,000 number is correct:

The Senate races were only in 1/3 of the country. Mainly Democratic seats were up. So of course there would be a Democratic edge. The House races were national.

Whatever your causal analysis may be, the figure is still 20 million.

Facts are facts.

Consciously becoming less liberal in order to appease corporate interests may make money in the short term, but it loses the very people they were hoping to reach and nullifies their reason for being.

I sure hope that saner heads prevail and party leaders stop trying to become GOP Lite.

HRC, pro-big bank, pro-Iraq war, pro-keystone pipeline.

HRC defines the problem highlighted by this report.

I agree 100%.

Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

That's a great platform.

It just shows what we have lost.

It's crystal clear to everyone who is not corrupt and / or brainwashed that the Democratic party supports policies and takes actions that favor the wealthy and powerful at the expense of average citizens. And that occasional detours toward good policy are Potemkin facades designed to fail ("We're no longer in the majority, you know.&quot .

The last thing the corrupt DNC wants to do is align policies and actions with the false values it parades in front of voters. That much is clear from the slate of corrupt candidates it decides to fund in every election cycle.

So "re-messaging", which will do nothing to change policies, funding strategies, or election outcomes was really the only option that could have emerged from such Kabuki soul-searching. It really is that simple.

whistle-blowers

it's about a muddled message and inability to turnout loyal voters on the otherhand it's about fund-raising.

Well I can tell you if it's about message...the progressives are ready to act on that, if it's about money the DLC/3rd way has always been about not conceding big money funding sources ...

This report isn't going to fix the growing rift between the left and right sides of the party

1 - seriously rich individuals & corporations (republicans)
2 - church families, baggers, gun nuts
3 - vast middle that doesn't know which way to go
4 - unions, labor, specific rights: women, gay, jewish, etc
5 - seriously rich individuals & investment banks (democrats)

The seriously rich individuals/corporations/banks are fighting it out. They use the components in 2 & 4 as pawns. The folks in 3 are stretched thinner and thinner.

Realize that 90% of the country falls in boxes 2-4.

At one time, the left-right spectrum of our country looked like an upside-down V. There was a vast middle, tapering off as you got more extreme to the right or left.

Then Republicans went insane, and dragged their party (and voters) to the right. Now the left-right spectrum looks like an upside-down W. There's a left peak and a right peak. Republicans are aiming at the right peak. "Third way" style democrats are continuing to aim for the middle....which is now a pit instead of a peak.

Also, even back when there was one peak, only a very small number of "swing voters" actually existed. Lots of people claim independence, but always vote for one party.

Or to put it in your description, #3 isn't vast. It's tiny. Radical swings in election results are being caused by changes in turnout, not 2008 Obama voters voting for Republicans in 2010.

larger turn-out in elections. They're not turning out because they don't see how they are affected. Unless they specifically identify with one of the groups in 2 or 4 in a a serious way they aren't voting. They are sitting there in the middle losing ground every year economically.

Partisans (especially the rich ones) would like us to believe it's this big war with 50% on each side. It's not. We'd see much higher voter turn out if it were.

The middle moved to the right when Republicans went off to insaneland.

Democrats are basically in the same place they have been since the 1930s. (Ignoring Dixiecrats - they were only Democrats to not be from "the party of Lincoln&quot . Republicans have gone extremely far to the right. That moves the middle to the right.

That's just a guess. And a handy reason to nominate a centrist instead of someone more left. I'm not buying it.

And those surveys and other measurements yield the results I described. That's why I described them.

The vast middle does not exist. Actual swing voters are a very tiny minority. The vast majority of "independents" always vote for the same party, when they show up to vote.

you want to analyze using "surveys" and then in the next breath you refer to voters. You're all over the page trying to put together your "sides".

The truth is that voting rates are very low. The rest of the people - the non-voters - could be anywhere on the spectrum. We don't know if they are swing, leftists, or don't have a clue - because they aren't voting.

But making it seem complicated lets you hold on to your beliefs instead of reality.

The objective way to measure participating is voter turn-out. Let's look at facts about voter turn-out in the USA vs. your musings that "all have cast a vote". The facts show that my perspective can be validated with data:

Robust voter turnout is fundamental to a healthy democracy. As low turnout is usually attributed to political disengagement and the belief that voting for one candidate/party or another will do little to alter public policy, "established" democracies tend have higher turnout than other counties.

Voter turnout in the United States fluctuates in national elections, but has never risen to levels of most other well-established democracies. In countries with compulsory voting, like Australia, Belgium, and Chile, voter turnout hovered near 90% in the 2000s. Other countries, like Austria, Sweden, and Italy, experienced turnout rates near 80%. Overall, OECD countries experience turnout rates of about 70%, while in the U.S., about 60% of the voting eligible population votes during presidential election years, and about 40% votes during midterm elections.



http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/voter-turnout/

Your analysis assumes it's the same people sitting out every election. It isn't. Sometimes people on the left stay home, and sometimes people on the right stay home. The left stay home more often than the right because the Republican party knows where its base is.

There's plenty of "marginally attached voters" who will go to the polls if you give them a reason to vote for someone. Obama did that in 2008, overwhelming McCain's voters. In 2012, Obama still got some of the Democratic-leaning marginally attached voters to the polls, and benefited from Romney failing to turn out as many Republican-leaning marginally attached voters.

The Democratic party leadership failed to motivate Democratic-leaning marginally attached voters 2010 and 2014 - The campaign theme was "We're sorry we did what we said we'd do, but at least we aren't Republicans!". Republicans got roughly their usual turnout, Democrats got awful turnout.

There are large sections of the population not voting because they are farther to the left than those who would claim to represent them.

I didn't mean to represent the boxes as a left to right line. More of a 2 very small partisan rich boxes, 2 medium boxes full of partisans that vary greatly on issues like gun control, abortion, etc and actually vote - and are very manipulated because they seem to ignore economics, and then 1 quite large box of folks not voting because they don't strongly identify with the propaganda and aren't motivated to vote because they don't think it affects them (ie they don't see change when they do vote). That could very much include leftists or libertarians (left or right in other words) who feel their ideas aren't even given consideration.

In a way I blame the "founding fathers" for this nonsense. The "voters" when we declared independence were white, male land-owners. They set it up as 2 parties which ensures that the establishment wins.

Accurate breakdown of groups and the role they play the game the PTB plays.

Yup - and their associates (as we see above) will twist words around in an attempt to pretend there are 2 big teams duking it out. But voter turn-out rates prove that people are really not that in to their games. We have very low turn-out for a democracy.



http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/voter-turnout/

no improvement over 74 in 78.

Reagan wasn't really that earth-shattering in terms of turn out, surprising to me at least. but better in his second term than his first.

The thing I don't remember & would have to research (unless someone here remembers) is whether they had strong primary challengers.

Perhaps the fierce fight between Hillary/Obama in primaries resulted in a lower turnout. It could be the DNC knows this from data and that is why they are pushing Hillary strongly at this point to avoid that down the line.

They deliberately chose the path they're on.

Hillary had better at least divorce his policies.

....five of the last six Presidential Elections? And they've gotten more than 26 million more votes in those six elections than the republicans.

Democratic campaigns keep trying to appease the right. That results in low turnout from the left in places where that turnout matters.

If a district votes 80% Democratic that gives you the big total you cite. It doesn't change the election result. What would change the election result is to get more voters from the left to turn out in the district that voted 51% Republican.

Add to that all the negative comments that people read about the democratic party, mostly from "DEMOCRATS", and you'll lose voters.

Here is a discussion with more than 50 replies now, how many are positive? If you (not you specifically) go around with an attitude of gloom and doom and negativity, how are you going to attract anyone?