about why we - as a party - should defeat progressives and progressive ideas.

very sad to see this (I mean this. I get why/and from where the push back is coming. But so sad)

Those Democrats all had progressive ideas and got a helluva lot more of them enacted than Sanders ever has.

regression to the mean

Hopefully this won't play out across the country

but it sure might

then you probably understand the concept of a bell-shaped curve. The Democratic Party is the left part of that a bell-shaped voter curve. Independents represent the middle of that curve, and Republicans the right side of that curve. Leftist Progressives like Warren and Sanders represent the left part of the left section of that curve. Being far away from the center, it is less likely that they will be elected than someone who is closer to the center like a Moderate Democrat. There is a reason why all of the Democratic Presidents who have been elected in the past 100 years ran as Moderate Centrists and then offered Progressive agendas after getting elected--because that is the easiest way to get elected. It is the same reason why Republican candidates do not reveal all of their right-wing agendas until *after* they get elected. For example, Donald Trump did not run on cutting aid to poor people. He only introduced that idea after he got elected.

It is usually easier to get elected when a candidate is closer to the center. Successful Democrats usually are closer to the center when they run, then go left after getting elected. Successful Republicans usually run for the center then go right after getting elected. It's all about being as close in viewpoints to as many voters as possible.

again
not in a debating way - but in a really, this is what I believe.

I think if we offer up the same old same old - we will lose. IMO, we've been down this path before.

I think voters want a different kind of politician (that gave us our current idiot-in-chief).

But, of course, we'll see.

I've witnessed a lot of progress in my lifetime.

Kennedy had to be pushed by the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King. Yes, work with the Democrats, but join the change makers who are shaping the progress. Define "Democrat" as a principled citizen and make THAT your goal. Yelling "bullshit" (above) only looks foolish.

I wouldn't for a candidate who would endorse cenk uygur for Congress even after the CA BS branch urged him not to. That's Not Progress.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I heard Kennedy talking about the program that would become Medicare, live and in person, during his campaign. The proposal that LBJ was able to get passed after the assassination - in tribute to JFK, was submitted to Congress by JFK, as was the civil rights bill, which was also passed after the assassination, as a tribute to JFK.

Let's give credit to the candidate that was actually pushing these causes and trying to get them through Congress, who was dealing with a conservative gang of Southern Democrats, which happened to include LBJ. 1960 was also the first year that the black community started voting for Democrats rather than
Republicans. It is an historical fact that when the campaign began, Dr. Martin Luther King's father had endorsed Richard Nixon.

Let's not over simply historical facts, please.

…than Sanders has. His decades-long political career is the epitome of not making progress, which is why it's an insult that those who accomplished the least have now someone co-opted the term "progressive." You can't be a progressive is you never make any progress.

But okay.

She has spent a career as a change maker shaping progress.

Odd on a Democratic board that anyone feels the need to exhort Democrats to work with Democrats and redefines "Democrat" as an idiosyncratic catchall rather than as party members committed to Democratic party values and the principles of our platform.

but the future is not the past. And Biden's touchstone is where we've been.

Not where we need to go (imo)

In fact, your entire post is pretty glib. The Democratic platform has always been progressive so don't hand me that crap. Think of the progress we could have made if the far left had not voted third party out of spite in 2000 and 2016. It's not Biden's fault.

He is who he is.

But as I've said, I really don't think he stands a chance.

Of course, none of us can predict what will happen (those of us who are glib, or those of us who are not).

But it's my best guess

Stasis serves bureaucrats.

Obama is starting to talk up Warren:

Cover of Huffpost:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e010c0ae4b0b2520d0ef107

I like him. Just wouldn't call him part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. If he had progressive ideas, he wasn't really embracing them.

All of those mentioned above where progressive for their time. But asked for purity or could pass a purity test themselves.

First, what the self-styled “progressive left” calls center isn’t “center” at all. THERE’s the ones that are defeating “progressives and progressive ideal” through their own divisive and derisive rhetoric and load of steaming piles of false equivalencies.

Second, the OP was 100% spot on... EVERY single name in that list was establishment by any stretch of the definition.

but I fully expect they will.

Argue away, if you must. Or pound away if that feels better.

I'll do neither.

They like the predictable and the familiar. They like words like "bullshit."

This whole discussion was launched by a desire to unify, but the driving wedge was tossed by the opinion piece itself.

Focus on where we would like the party to go, and how to get there. Staying put and "established" is accepting rising global temperatures and increased concentrations of power. Staying put is Republican. If you want to be a Democrat, then take note that most of the leading Democrats are flat-out progressive and don't want a dead planet.

claim he's not part of the "establishment"?

accuses others.

I’m not sorry that this post is correct and others are stirring up shit.

the "establishment" isn't so pure himself.

What is "so sad" is BS and his divisive tactics against Progressive Dems who he calls "establishment" as an insult.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

...enacted 99% of the nationwide Progressive policies in America in the past hundred years, and there have been hundreds of them, including organized labor laws, minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, the voting rights act, and on and on. To say that advocating for them is to try to justify why we as a party should defeat progressives or progressive ideas is ridiculous.

--FDR did more to move the country left than any other politician in America's history while pulling America out of a crippling Depression and helping America win a World War against the worst evil modern history has ever seen.

--Truman continued all of FDRs policies and helped finish the War.

--Kennedy's cool head prevented America from plunging into nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis when all his generals wanted a military strike on Cuba--a strike that would have caused Cuba to launch its missiles. His imperative to land a man on the moon created the space age in America and the technology developed from it helped to create microcircuitry, personal computers, the internet, and smartphones.

--LBJ made sure the Voting Rights Act got passed and launched his war on poverty.

--Carter brought integrity back to the White House after Nixon, including selling his peanut farm so that he would have no conflicts of interest and would not violate the emoluments clause in the constitution. He turned around many Conservative policies, refused to engage in a large scale war with the USSR in Afghanistan but instead authorized giving weapons to the Afghans. The incredibly expensive Afghanistan war helped bankrupt the USSR and lead to its demise. He refused to go to war with Iran after they took American hostages but instead negotiated with them. The negotiations were successful, but the Iranians, still angry that Carter had let the Shah of Iran into the US for medical treatment, deliberately waited until Reagan's Inauguration day to release the hostages after the negotiations were finished.

--Clinton scaled back the military, raised taxes on the rich, created NAFTA so that Mexicans in Mexico could grow crops and sell them in the U.S. without trade barriers, thus minimizing the need for many poor Mexicans to have to sneak into the U.S. to work. His economic policies created a massive amount of jobs, raised the standard of living for many poor Americans, and created one of the greatest economic booms in history that funded the creation of the internet. In the end, his economic policies lead to a balanced budget. Clinton's policies helped Black Americans so much that he was nicknamed "The First Black President"

--President Obama, the first actual Black President, introduced scores of progressive policies including the Lily Ledbetter Act and the ACA, all while pulling America out of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

The presidents named lived and breathed Progressive polices.

In 1675, Isaac Newton wrote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

Every Progressive Democrat who sees farther today is standing on the shoulders of these giants.

You wrote the following:

"this is just justification from the center about why we - as a party - should defeat progressives and progressive ideas."

advocate for the "establishment" because their careers are benefitting from it?

I love all our "establishment Dems" that BS is always dragging on.

They are the true progressives.. BS just talks about it.

When BS says he will take on the "establishment" Dems..
.. what he is saying is that he is taking on the party that has been a the forefront of Women's rights, Civil rights, and LGBTQ rights.

From FDR pulling us out of the Great Depression to Bill Clinton vastly improving the economy to Barack Obama pulling us out of the Great Recession. However, if you are implying that any of us are somehow on someone's payroll, I sincerely doubt it. If I, for example, were on Joe Biden's payroll, I would probably have very little time to spend on DU. I'd probably spend most of my time doing things like scheduling events, calling reporters, writing up press releases, and picking up Joe's dry cleaning.

know. I hear that's a pretty lucrative "career" as well. See how that works? Baseless accusations like yours cut both ways.

Are too stupid to realize that the “establishment” that they condemn are likewise benefitting from it.

Social security? Came from the “establishment”
Medicare/medicade? Came from the “establishment”
The supermarkets we buy stuff from every day? Made possible by the “establishment”
The automobiles with all the advances and safety standards they follow? Yep, “establishment.”
The intricate highway and transportation system we all enjoy? Yep.
The medications and medical procedures that almost everyone over the age of 40 likely owes their lives to at some point? Yep.

Is there a lot of room for improvement? Sure as fuck is.
But the question I have are why are so many dumbasses so hellbound on destroying the “establishment” that has, in large part, brought us so far?

You know who else likes destroying the “establishment”?? Donald Fucking Trump. I want to fix it, keep on advancing it, not destroy it.

So yes, this “Biden supporter” is an “establishment” lover, and like every single other woman, man, and child living in the modernized parts of the globe, does indeed benefit from the “establishment”. Difference is, I’m not like the BS and Trump supporters more interested in destroying it.

that any period of disorder will cause the people to want order again, and could lead to authoritarianism. It's a huge risk they don't even seem to consider.

The word "Establishment" is meaningless in the context you express it. It means whatever it meant at the time -- not what it means now.

Your laud FDR but call bullshit on the candidates who press for Rooseveltian policies.

The word "Establishment" is meaningless in the context you express it. It means whatever it meant at the time -- not what it means now.

Who and what do you think constitutes the Democratic establishment and is that establishment of constant general composition over the past 100 years?

to defeat progressives and progressive ideas. Many of the mainstream Democrats mentioned would have done far more if republicans hadn't obstructed their efforts.

What many people like to call "mainstream Democrats" are actually progressives, who are pragmatic enough to actually get things done.


When we elect a president, we are electing more than a package of policies, we are electing someone who can maneuver the swamp in DC and come up with solutions for the American people, while engaging in diplomacy worldwide and being commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

If voters want progressive policies enacted, then they need to put more focus on their congressional representatives, governors, and state legislatures. That is where real change usually happens. Then a Democratic president will do the will of the people by signing those policies into law.

....talking about how Sanders' ideas were similar to FDR's!

You are correct.

who spent more than 40 years as a Republican, working her way through top schools in academia till she landed a professorship at Harvard, the epitome of establishment universities.

There is no contradiction between being part of the Establishment, and being a progressive, as Warren and FDR himself prove.

They've been at soul of the Democratic party for decades as history shows.

The arrogance of today's 'progressives' claiming the purty crap is exactly why your candidates turn me off.

This is justification for voting for ANY Democrat. Even a moderate will move the country forward and to the left.

I and a good number of real democrats are working in the real world to turn Texas blue. After the 2010 election, the GOP had 101 seats in the Texas house and the Democrats had only 49. In 2018, we flipped 12 seats and now only need 9 more seats to take control of the Texas house. I am working on the campaign to flip two state house seats. In 2018, we flipped two congressional districts (Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred). The DCCC is targeting 6 congressional districts and I just donated to Colin and two of the targeted seats. It is a long shot, but the DSCC thinks that MJ Hegar can beat Cornyn and I just donated to MJ.

I can assure you that if Warren or sanders is the nominee, Texas will not be a battleground state and we will not flip the seats that I am working on. Neither sanders nor Warren are competitive in Texas and these candidates would kill down ballot races. Taking away insurance from 160 million voters will be an issue that trump can use.

NT

If we make Bernie Sanders president then he’ll be the Establishment in that sense, and I’m fine with that.

...an idea which Bernie Sanders references.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Along with Planned Parenthood....

I have never failed to vote for the Democratic nominee since the first presidential election I was eligible to vote for in 1980.

But our government has shifted to the right and favors the wealthy. Maintaining the status quo is not good enough. Howerever voting for our nominee is must.

why the hell even have primaries? There is a major DIVIDE right now between corporate Dems and progressive Dems, or call them what you will, and now is the correct time to look into that DIVIDE so we can each choose.

In the general, we all vote democratic, nevertheless, neither we or our candidates are all cut from the same cloth.

No snow for us. Yay!!!!
Hola mi amiga.

& Aloha!

nevertheless, your candidate does not exhibit the qualities necessary fo face the monumental obstacles of the coming decade.

about him.. that's just a worthless meme.

We Want to WIN and With JOE BIDEN!

Link to tweet

All of the Bernie bashing is understandable... fear of that simple fact.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

I'm really surprised at how little some here seem to know about Democratic Party history.

Uh, that is the exact purpose of the primary exercise. A natural division occurs prior to the primaries; that’s how it works and that is the stage we are in now. We need to make sure we all intend to stand together afterward. That’s the battle royal we must all support as one. Just my humble view.

Stop being squeamish about the inevitable clash of opinions within a group as large as the Democratic party. This is exactly the time to air our views on a wide variety of issues and to discuss possible solutions.

We'll unite in good time, when one candidate wins the primaries. Until then, I see the debate between different factions of the party to be a healthy activity, a natural part of the democratic process.

is being "squeamish".

We care about our Democracy.. we Want to WIN.. we Want a Uniter not a Divider.

even Carter eras, was a LOT different than being an Establishment Democrat now, or, for that matter, the last 20 years

Establishment Democrat of the earlier administration were the equivalent of Progressive Democrats now.

document to be respected and honored.

And how is "non-establishment" or "revolutionary" bei g defined?

What's divisive, IMO, is attacking candidates using either label. Instead, we should be discussing the issues and ideas they are proposing and their qualifications in experience, temperament, and character.

Bernie and Elizabeth have experience in elected positions. Warren has a great deal of financial knowlege. Both Warren and Sanders have bold new ideas.

Biden has the most experience of all the candidates and a great deal of foreign policy knowledge. He does not take the bold positions that Sanders and Warren do.

Klobuchar's positions are closer to Biden's that to Sanders or Warren. She has elected experience. She speaks in a bold voice, but opposes the bold positions of BS and EW.

Buttigieg has military experience that he promotes, has elected experience, opposes the boldness if the BS & EW ideas.

Yang offers some input and knowledge on technology. The one economic idea he has promoted is definitely a bold one.

There is more to each of them than I have mentioned, but it is possible to discard divisive labels snd discuss the pros and cons of their ideas and experience.

As for FDR being "establishment" I think the people of his time as president considered him and his policies and ideas ss . bold, radical, and revolutionary. R's still hate him for that today. (LOL and tough luck, ) FDR's "radical" ideas are now mainstream liberal, but they sure were not in his time.

Like anything the Democratic Party is a pendulum, it's not stagnant and sometimes needs to start swinging further left again.

Sanders is only as divisive as FDR was.

ourselves if we start tossing labels at each other like hurlng rocks out of a slingshot.

We cannot afford to create such animosity over primary candidates that we.csrry over hostility and resentment into the general. We've been down that path already and will get the same result if we do it again.

We are a liberal party. We have diverse ideas and people. We can all discuss ideas internally without trying to destroy those who disagree with us. Labels and arguments about who is most liberal, mainstream, establishment, etc. do not help us come together in some sort of agreement in the end. We present the people and ideas and let the voters choose.

If Sanders or Warren win the primary, the others will still be around to have influence and input toward winning the general and influencing the new administration, so long as we remain united as one party.

If Biden wins, the same holds true. Warren and Sanders will still be able to help in the general and influence the administration -- if we remain united under one label as Democrats.

We need to choose the person and direction that are right for this moment and time in history, which is like no other that I have seen in my lifetime. The US and the world were immensely fortunate that we had the right person. for the time in FDR. We had the right person for the time in JFK in handling the Soviets and Cuba. We had the right person in LBJ to get civil rights legislation passed.

What do our times require and who is the right person for it? And once the person is chosen, how can we support that person in the mission if restoring our democracy?

The best way to restore our democracy is to unite behind our candidste with energy, enthusiasm, and a united front.

our Brilliant "establishment" Dems is too Divisive to be a leader.

We need a Uniter!

Anyone who would endorse cenk uygur for Congress is not someone I want in our WH.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

As Democrats we should be united.

as the old saying goes.

Trump is trying to sweep the table clean and set up the system for himself and his crony oligarchs only

Corporatist warmonger. Memories...

Keep trying though.

Attacking the party is not a good way to win votes inside the party

FDR was attacked as a plutocrat, a capitalist, a corporatist, and a war-monger by the populist-socialist left in his day.

We have a proud tradition.

Resist those who seek to knock us down, "re-frame" our history, or try to steal our mantle.

Whenever I see that word applied to the Democratic Party, I know the majority's being smeared by resentful dissident factions that can never prevail in national elections but can never accept failure. Oh, sure, they claim they're reformers who only oppose crooked, business-oriented Democrats, but that's their excuse, not the truth. They oppose everyone not in their faction, no matter what they're doing.

And it has nothing to do with "purity," with wanting better government than anyone else. How could it when integrity is so lacking in their own motives and behavior? Dissident personality comes first, then come the excuses to oppose the large, representative group, which is always created by ruthlessly dishonest demonization.

And from that comes the contempt for democracy and eager support of dirty politics to overset all those bad, corrupted people who never allow dissidents and radicals to win big elections. Bless their bitter little hearts that soar when their leader smears principled candidates and even promises to illicitly take the nomination away from the choice of the majority.

And damned good thing they never win, though that sort will never understand why.

While a primary is and should be a debate of ideas, we can have debates and disagreements about the approach to gaining the goals we all want to see achieved without tearing each other down in the process. We don't have to be so dedicated to our choice of individual nominee that everything else becomes a zero sum game.

We were manipulated by the idea of who was and wasn't an "FDR Democrat" or "true progressive" in 2016 and that type of mindset still seems to be inundating our forums. Just because a candidate takes this or that approach does not make them more or less of a Democrat. Yes we should argue and disagree about the way we think change can happen, but we cannot allow those debates to drive such wedge between us that we refuse to find common ground and unite behind whomever is the nominee in 2020.

I refuse to be manipulated this time. I hope others feel the same.

He took the top marginal tax rate from 20 something percent to about 4 times that.

We are now looking at a 2% raise as class warfare.

How times and things like Fox News can change things.

Maybe it is time for a few new parties. The far right and the dems who say all other dems are not and never were dems at all.

...absolutely...

...but I might add, some more forward than others...

...to me, the term 'Establishment Democrat' is not a static term...

...wouldn't you say 'Establishment Democrats' of the FDR administration were much more Progressive than let's say, 'Establishment Democrats' of the Carter administration?

...shouldn't we rightfully consider how 'conservative' or Progressive a given administration was at a given time?

...being called an 'Establishment Democrat' during FDR's administration might mean you were strongly in favor of government run programs...being called an 'Establishment Democrat' during the Carter or Clinton administration might mean you were more in favor of the private sector...

...by that standard, I don't see Bernie today as an 'Establishment Democrat'...

...I'm with you there...

for our Country than BS ever has.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet