Democrats face an identity crisis 2 / 21 © Patrick Breen/The Arizona Republic via AP Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at Central High School on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2016, in Phoenix. CLEVELAND — The roaring crowds and displays of Democratic unity around Hillary Clinton as the campaign ends have obscured a bumpier reality: Whatever happens Tuesday, Democrats face a struggle to define themselves. The divisions in the party may be less dramatic than the parallel fight among Republicans, but Democrats have schisms both ideological and generational. That suggests a dour potential for Clinton even as she moves closer toward victory in Tuesday's election: Her presidency could be caught between Republicans who will have less reason than ever to cooperate and a corps of Democrats reluctant to compromise, both sides playing to opposite bases. To win the party's nomination, Clinton had to move to the left to placate Democrats attracted to her challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Their differences have been papered over in the general election, and most of his supporters have fallen in line, but Clinton's intentions remain suspect to many on the party's left. Sanders has made clear that he will not hesitate to take on a President Clinton, a posture in which he may have company from another Clinton campaign stalwart, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Republicans already have talked of blocking potential Clinton initiatives, with several GOP senators going so far as to suggest they might try to prevent any Supreme Court confirmations for the entirety of the next four-year presidential term. That sort of dilemma for the new president would be familiar historically: Presidents who succeed an incumbent of their own party repeatedly have come to grief as a result of similar crossfires. George H.W. Bush, Harry Truman and William Howard Taft all provide examples. The successor president inherits all of the issues that the predecessor couldn't resolve and typically faces pressure from within the party to go further than ever in pursuit of its demands. Ambition that has been pent up for years inevitably seeks an outlet to shift the party's direction. In the case of Democrats, they already this year have demonstrated increasingly leftward views. That's especially true among young voters, who are less pragmatic than their elders, apparently more favorable toward activist government and inclined to see more centrist politicians such as Clinton as lacking principle. The generational shift is not only among voters but among the party's leaders. Vice President Joe Biden and Senate leader Harry Reid are retiring, and other leaders are, if still powerful, aging. Most of them, like Clinton, came of age when Democrats were failing in big-ticket races and found that compromise gave them a bigger audience. "Clinton herself represents a holdover from a prior generation of Democratic leaders," Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan said. By running for president, "she prevented a new generation from emerging after Obama. At some point, the party has to turn the page and start to define what a post-Clinton, post-Obama era looks like. It's not clear what that is." The coming redefinition echoes battles in the 1980s between establishment Democrats and younger, more liberal ones. A succession of presidential losses forced a reckoning that in 1992 led to a compromise of sorts: the nomination and eventual election of a younger but more moderate Democrat, Bill Clinton, who pushed the party to the center. That move secured two terms for him. But it ushered in a period of governing that backfired on his wife in her current campaign. Sanders bludgeoned Clinton during the primaries with two measures pushed in the 1990s — changes that toughened the criminal justice system and limited welfare — which in today's Democratic environment seem wrongheaded to many voters. Clinton also had difficulty in the primaries from another holdover of that era — her insistence that her proposals hew to the budget. Her worry over deficits prompted Clinton to initially sign on to a narrower college tuition proposal than Sanders had. The comparison made her seem less enthusiastic about that issue, which ranked high among the concerns of Sanders' youthful and liberal followers. Likewise, she declined in the primaries to sign on to Sanders' call for a $15 minimum wage nationwide, preferring to advocate a smaller national increase with the rest of the level left to the states. Clinton has since altered many of her plans to move closer to Sanders and his supporters. She now boasts at events that her college tuition program was crafted by the two of them. But doubts about her convictions die hard, as was evident Saturday when a student introducing Sanders at a pro-Clinton campaign event in Iowa took the opportunity to blister her. The student, identified by the Iowa State Daily as Kaleb Vanfosson, the former president of the Students for Bernie club, told the audience that Trump was a "part-time reality TV show star and full-time bigot" who didn't care about student debt. "Unfortunately Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," he then added. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires." Soon, he was escorted offstage...
The democrats' "identity crisis" appears to revolve around whether they turn our country into Belgium or Venezuela. The republicans' is a basic question of math. The party establishment seems to be convinced that a winning strategy is to vastly increase the number of hispanics voting and sell out their base to increase their share of the hispanic vote from 30% all the way up to maybe 40%. It's not like the rest of us have an alternative...or do we?
When asked whether we should scrap the D party and make a new one, or try to resuscitate it, I was pleasantly surprised at how many just said throw it in the waste basket. It may take one more election cycle to see it for what it is, but imo the D party is no longer about the lower working people that most of all need strong [private] unions, but about the professional people in cities. The Limousine or Corporate Democrats can have their party. Good luck with it. TYT at Haaavaahd
If politicos were really using their heads, they'd strongly curry the vote of Hispanics and blacks... as they mostly vote as a block... together large enough to carry any election. Then, curry the woman vote. With those three strongly on your side, nothing anyone else does or says* will make any difference. The Republicans see that the black vote is already "in the bag" for the Dems, so the only thing left is to try to get the Hispanic vote in their column. Is that what America was supposed to be all about? (Hint: HELL NO!) *other groups will be split 50-50 or 45-55-ish, including the women who are basically divided 50-50 on abortion... offsetting each other.
You made the mistake of rolling over to Hillary when she stole the nomination from Bernie. And a second time, by nominating a career criminal. Bernies fatal mistake was the decision to give Hillary a pass on the emails. It's more natural for Bernie and Trump supporters to converge. And HIllary/Neocon wing to converge.
I think democrats need to stand for something, other than insiders getting rich. What they choose to stand for will determine their future. I don't see the Sanders/Warren philosophy as appealing to anyone but diehards, but I could be wrong. If they don't screw it up, which is certainly very possible, the republicans have successfully transitioned from a corporatist/globalist/neocon party of limited appeal to a populist/nationalistic/alt-right vision that seems to resonate with middle America.
You know how you can tell when a person or a media outlet is clueless? Ask them why Clinton lost the election, and if they tell you it's anyone of a million things that isn't their own arrogance and out of touch with their constituents, Bingo!
I can tell when somebody is clueless when they are still talking about an election that took place a week ago.