And acknowledge that last year was greatly about white male "identity politics" and how we cannot pander to that shit.

It's just that it's not as simple as saying that if we just address voter suppression, we'll win again without needing to make any significant changes to what we stand for.

Voter suppression is part of the problem...a major part...but it's not the only thing.

Clinton ran on one of the most progressive platforms in history. It was a platform of change. There is absolutely no question about that.

"It's just that it's not as simple as saying that if we just address voter suppression, we'll win again without needing to make any significant changes to what we stand for. "

This sentence has no bases in reality and diminishes Clintons progressive platform as if it weren't there. It's nothing more than a way to start a fight.

Mainly it's about adding some things-making it clearer that, when it comes down to it, we're with those on the bottom rather than those on the top.

We had some of that...we just need to be more a party of the 99% and less of the 1%.

"It's just that it's not as simple as saying that if we just address voter suppression, we'll win again without needing to make any significant changes to what we stand for. "

That or you are stating you want to back away from one of the most progressive Presidential platforms every ran on. A platform of true change. A platform the party rallied around.

n/t.

So we had the most progressive platform ever but somehow we are not with the bottom?

Reminder...most progressive platform ever.

Screaming about the one percent, or the millionaires and Billionaires does not mean jack shit if you are not willing to join with the establishment Democratic Party that had the most progressive platform ever. And by the way, most Americans understand it is not really 1% vs 99% and it pisses us off when told that it is We can fucking do math. 33% of Americans are thriving, 33% are holding their own and 33% are poor even if they do not know it. I am not a victim but a fighter.

Have a nice evening.

We should have had specific "no TPP" phrasing(or, failing that, should at least have allowed people to stand holding up "no TPP" signs during the acceptance speech, rather than confiscating the signs-it was THAT decision that caused the chants. People silently holding signs couldn't have done any harm) and less hawkishness on foreign policy, but I was personally good with the platform.

There didn't need to be any big shows of saying "no" to things.

I had had a few glasses of wine.

My overall point is that we cannot act like it is all of us vs the one percent. A third or so of Americans are doing well. They have employer provided health care they generally like(even if we think universal care would better). Most importantly they ALL vote. Every election.

I am in that group. It is why I support universal coverage thru ACA like programs moving us to a health system more like France or Germany and oppose Medicare for all. Now, I will vote Democratic regardless of the plan we end up backing, but many Americans will not.

I also supported the TTP as so many democrats. We are already seeing China moving into that sphere now that we abandoned it. President Obama knew it was in our best interest and he will be proven correct.

I do not like the nationalistic tendencies I see in the modern 'progressive' movement any more than in the progressive movements of decades ago.

It is apparent you and I disagree on several issues but we are both good democrats and I again apologize for the tone of my previous post.

Have a nice day.

n/t.

So I don't know what people want and expect to happen on that. I also am sick of the ignorant finger pointing at anyone who has taken contributions- to the point where their votes are ignored. Why are "progressives" smearing Dems?

That would be no one.



We don't need to choose between avoiding nuclear war and eating breakfast either.

The implication that the party is otherwise just fine, that we don't need to change anything, as long as voter suppression is done away with.

Everyone other than Republicans agrees that voter suppression is a massive injustice.

We're all on the same side on that.

simply saying that there is voter suppression.

It's not a denial of voter suppression to point out that ending voter suppression does not, in and of itself, lead to us making a comeback in 2018 and 2020.

Some of it is voter suppression...some of it is changing the way we run fall campaigns-which is something a lot of us have argued for decades.

The dynamic of the fall campaign tends to be like this:

The Republicans launch an all-out campaign to demonize everything we've supported since 1932(and especially everything we've supported since 1972), while our party's response has been to say next to nothing in defense of things like social spending, strong labor laws, civil rights legislation. Every time we choose that strategy, our support erodes, because the voters assume that if a party won't defend its policies and its core values loudly and passionately when they are under attack, that party is admitting that those policies and those values are as horrible as the right claims they are.

When Barack Obama did stand up and defend at least some of what we stand for, the change was dramatic. The voters actually started believing that we weren't wrong, that we stood for something-and they decided that we could be trusted with the presidency. The people trusted us because we trusted THEM.

That's part of what we need to do in the future.

progressive economics.

Not ever.

No one.

when anybody argues that we need to address economic justice in a stronger way, is the response always "We need to stop voter suppression"? And do pundits like Joy Reid keep trying to frame it as "either/or" or as though there are actually people arguing that voters suppression doesn't matter?

And why does virtually any argument for a stronger economic justice position get labeled as, of all things "choosing rich white men over people of color"? Does anybody here really think that the only way we can fight for peoples of color is to be "centrist" on economic issues? You'd think that people of color somehow aren't part of the economy and aren't affected, in addition to the massive effects caused by social oppression, by economic issues-income inequality, massive concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, wage cuts, layoffs, and outsourcing?

An artificial division was created in the 2016 primaries between the concepts of "social justice&quot which in 2016 was stripped of most redistributive and egalitarian aspects) and "economic justice&quot which, in 2016, was presented as something that could almost be described as left-wing support of white privilege). Given that neither of the people whose candidacies represented that artificial divide are likely to run again, that whoever we nominate in 2020 will be of a newer generation that isn't defined by that divide, can we all finally move on from it and accept that the two justice struggles are not at odds with each other? That, at least in post-1964 America, those causes are in a natural affinity with each other and should be working together?

achieved social justice without economic justice.

It's not possible to achieve economic justice if we have to wait to work on that until every single form of social injustice has first been vanquished.

And it's not possible to achieve social justice in isolation from economic justice-market values will always end up working to prevent the end of social injustice, because the system needs some social injustice and some bigotry to keep us all from uniting against it. That is the lesson of the Sixties.

As a goal in itself, "social justice" is meaningless. It has to incorporate economic justice. The attempt to separate these goals is misguided at a minimum.

NOBODY in contemporary progressive politics argued that there was a massive barrier between the social justice and economic justice movements...OR that economic justice was some sort of code phrase for left-wing white privilege.

It's time to move past that and to admit that there's no actual divide on what the justice struggles, at the grassroots level, support.

All of a sudden "social justice" takes on a whole new level of priority and importance.

Sure you can attempt to patch up the worst aspects, but would that achieve the goal by itself, that is without also achieving economic justice? They are intertwined.

Good luck achieving social justice without also achieving economic justice. I actually cannot imagine what that would look like.

Nobody at all has said that institutional racism and police violence don't matter. It's a blight and a disgrace that that happens, and happens as often as it does.

Nobody on the left disagrees with you about those issues.

Do you mean to suggest that progressives can work to strengthen the ACA even as we recognize that Medicare for All or a similar form of single payer is a better solution?

Recommended.

Making it binary in the manner you have is nothing more than a continuation of the primaries.

I do have a dispute. You coloring it as if it were binary.

Dispute number two. All progressives are committed to fighting against voter suppression. That couldn't be further from the truth. The list of self-proclaimed progressives who state Russia, gerrymandering, and other such things being nothing more than poor losers who supported Clinton is one heck of a long list.

"Let's just accept that we're basically on the same side here and work with that. "

Yes, WE should.

IT was NEVER binary. There was never actually an argument by any significant part of the left in 2016, that ONLY economic justice mattered. The claim that there was has always been a myth.

We are all for social justice AND economic justice with equal commitment and that just needs to be accepted.

All part of controlling the narrative.

The economic justice movement is staunchly against institutional racism and police violence-many of its members have marched with BLM across the country. Many(and this is the movement, not any particular campaign) ARE people of color, LGBTQ people, women.

People thrown out of work by corporate greed are victims of a kind of oppression too...not the same as fear of police violence, not the same as what institutions do to people of color, but oppression in its way as well...sometimes they die...sometimes people who are victims of economic oppression are victims of institutional racism and police violence. too.

The narrative in the primaries was that we had to choose which justice struggle to center-we didn't, they need to be, essentially DUAL centered...and that is the way to proceed.

And contrary to the great misstatement of the primaries, nobody, even the handful who said economic justice should be privileged over social justice-EVER argued that the establishment of economic justice, in and of itself, would wipe out all other forms of injustice. What was said was it needs to happen IF social injustice is to be wiped out. That's an entirely different concept.

My point is that we need to be past that, to admit that our fight should be for justice for the many.

Why does there have to be a divide or a choice? Democrats are perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
those who think that it's either or are just either being stubborn or just want to argue over some empty thing.

People seem to think if you want to bring up economic fairness it somehow is ignoring everyone but, older white republican men.
Economic fairness and issues is just as much a minority issue.
A woman issue.
A children's issue
A left issue
A right issue
Everyone's issue