Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I certainly wouldn't suggest that we emulate the Republican approach to government in most things (and that includes an unwillingness to ever compromise). However, the Democratic Party does often have an unfortunate tendency to cave before the fight has begun, and that's something that needs to change.

And I do agree that more liberal candidates are electable. Its not that I think we need a Clinton to win the general election. But we do need the elements of the party that supported her, and if someone like her should get the nomination, then they're still a better alternative than Trump by far.

Which isn't to say that we can't advance more liberal and progressive candidates in the primaries, of course. And I think that such candidates will have a better shot next time around. 2016 was an odd year in that their was this overwhelming presumption going in that it was Clinton's time, that she was inevitable... with those parts of the Liberal/Democratic/Progressive voting base who weren't behind her all gravitating to Sanders as the alternative. It wasn't a very open field. Clinton had a huge advantage going in, everyone else gravitated to Bernie Sanders (but with the party machinery still stuck in its Clinton inevitability mindset, it wasn't enough), and anyone else either didn't bother to run or got shut out very early on (Gov. O'Malley, for one, really deserved more attention and support than he got).

Maybe if Warren or Biden ran it would have been a more open field, but they didn't.

I'm hoping that 2020 will be a more competitive field.

[The Romulan Republic]

I will also add that, while she was certainly not as progressive as I might have preferred on some policy issues, Hillary Clinton was also a problematic candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with policy. She is an intensely polarizing figure with an extraordinary amount of political and personal baggage, against whom the Republicans had been preparing to run for literally decades. Not all of that is her fault, certainly, but it presented nonetheless obstacles that other candidates would not have faced, and the advantages conferred by her name recognition and political connections and experience were ultimately not enough to overcome that. Clinton had enormous problems that were peculiar to Clinton, and I'm not sure how much can be inferred about another candidate's electability, or lack thereof, from her.

One thing I would say, though, that I think is widely applicable- Clinton lacked much personal charisma, or ability to inspire any emotions other than distrust or dislike in the parts of the electorate that were not already her base. We need a candidate who can connect with voters on an emotional level, and I'd be willing to concede quite a bit on policy (though not on the fundamental issues such as legal equality, the integrity of the legal and democratic processes, or the maintenance of the social safety net) in order to get a candidate who has that in spades.

[Flagg]

I do not "want to build up more politicians like" Clinton. Nothing that I have posted, if read honestly and with an open mind, would lead naturally to that conclusion.

Fair enough.

What I am saying is that we should try to get strong progressive candidates in the primaries, but that victory may ultimately depend on making some compromises and working with people who are not die-hard progressives. That's all.

Obama's platform (maybe not the reality) was pretty damned liberal compared to HRC. Even Sanders gave Clinton way more trouble than he should have. The Democratic electorate seems more than willing to stack behind more liberal candidates.

Yes, so tomorrow we wake up with President Purely Progressive who wants to do everything you described. How does he do it?
Take single payer healthcare. Aside from the blue dog drug-co dickrider brigade who will almost certainly help the GlOP kill any bill in committee. So if the stuff that's a no-go with shitstains in the "progressive Democratic Party" how the hell does it get past the Republicans?

Good thing FDR never had to fight partisan battles during his push for the New Deal.

How is "they'd have to fight tooth and nail to represent the will of their electorate and possibly lose even if they gave it everything" somehow this huge mountain not even worth attempting to climb? You fight. Win or lose. You fight. Republicans have never stopped fighting as far as I've seen and they've lost big and they've won big. That's admirable on a certain level.

EDIT: I'd also love to see this and then the Democrats have the balls to drag the opposition through the mug and finally label them as the "fuck the people" portion of the government I know they are.

Dude, America was not even close to being as polarized as it is now. Pointing to FDR as a model for today is like pointing to Abraham Lincoln as a model for 1936.

[His Divine Shadow]

You know... that kind of talk only pisses off the people you want on your side, you think you are reaching out a hand or something, but you're really just driving the wedge in deeper.

Its the truth.

I apologize if it came off as poorly worded or tactless, but what else am I supposed to say? Any cooperation requires some common ground, and if someone's starting position is that the Democrats are the enemy, and that compromise with anyone who's not a die-hard progressive is unacceptable... where do you go from that?

Again, The FeniX just accused me of trying to promote Hillary-type candidates simply because I argued that it might be necessary to sometimes compromise with and work with that part of the party in order to stop Trump. If someone like me, who supported Bernie Sanders until June, is accused of backing the establishment against progressives because I suggest that beating Trump is more important than spiting the Centre, in what way am I the one who is being divisive here?

Edit: The simple truth is that the no-compromise progressives are not a large enough block at present (even were they not internally divided) to win the White House on their own. Maybe they will be in a generation, if they don't walk away from the political process now, but they are not at present.

That leaves essentially two options in an election: Find some common ground with other factions who, even if they do not agree with you on everything, at least agree with you on basic things like legal equality, democracy, due process, and the existence of taxation and a social safety net; or wage an endless series of futile crusades as the world sinks further into fascism and the Left sinks further into political irrelevancy.

The simple truth is that the democratic party has been completely in tow to the corporate side for multiple election cycles and diminshing the legitimate grievances of progressives and trying to convince them to yet again, to vote democratic, in the hopes of some change that never comes, isn't gonna work.

It's gone too far, the boy has cried wolf too many times now. Calls for unity are gonna fall on deaf ears from now on. You might have stood a chance had Keth Ellison been elected DNC chair, but instead he was replaced with Perez. I mean Keith Ellison wasn't perfect, but he was something.

But no they can't give even an inch... So they won't get an inch in return anymore. They can go lose on their own in the future. The tactic of trying to shame people into voting democratic has stopped working.

[Flagg]

What, aside from voting (if even that), have you whiners done to help make the Democrats more like you want them to be? Put your money where your mouths are. I can guarantee you that if every mewling pussy shitting all over the Democrats while gleefully ignoring the fact that nothing is getting done because the Republican Party equates compromise with treason and is guilty of every negative the Democrats are accused of times 10 actually got politically involved and volunteered for things like voter turnout and registration, the party would move more in the direction you want it to.

And knock it off with this "they shouldn't expect us to vote for them just because the Republican candidate is a raving racist lunatic pedophile rapist" bullshit. They goddamned well should expect that because not doing so doesn't harm the Democrats, it harms everyone in this entire country.

[His Divine Shadow]

Haha enjoy 8 more years.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

[Flagg]

Haha enjoy 8 more years.

That's what I thought. All hat, no cattle.

[His Divine Shadow]

Please, the progressives did get out and voted for obama, first time in a landslide victory through a grassroots movement that then got buried by the corporates. I already linked that earlier.

The progressives have put their money where their mouth is, they have compromised time and again and they have gotten betrayed every single time they have done so. It's time for the centrists to compromise, but they couldn't not even an inch...

I'm an outside observer from europe and that's my perspective.

EDIT: And it's not just an american phenomenon. I reccomend to basically watch and read anything Mark Blyth has said and written.

[Flagg]

Please, the progressives did get out and voted for obama, first time in a landslide victory through a grassroots movement that then got buried by the corporates. I already linked that earlier.

The progressives have put their money where their mouth is, they have compromised time and again and they have gotten betrayed every single time they have done so. It's time for the centrists to compromise, but they couldn't not even an inch...

I'm an outside observer from europe and that's my perspective.

EDIT: And it's not just an american phenomenon. I reccomend to basically watch and read anything Mark Blyth has said and written.

You know why the corporatist wing wins every time now, dumbass? It's called "fundraising". This issue is so much larger than the inner workings of one political party, it comes down to the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS. I have zero doubt that a Democrat president, corporatist or not, would appoint a justice that would swing the court leftward and pull the handle to flush that ruling right down the toilet to join Dredd Scott and then hopefully would be joined by the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

Oh, except that the Republicans blocked a SCOTUS appointment by Obama for over a year. And when asked when they would fill the seat they, like everyone else (including President Pussygrabber), thought there was no way in hell that Clinton would lose to a sentient pile of pig shit, flat out said that they didn't see the need to fill the absent seat for at least the next 4 years, if ever. Of course when Donnie Douchebag got out the Nazi vote and managed to win, the Democrats said the same thing and Bitch McCuntal, possessing no shame, acted like it was beyond the pale.

See, that's the real issue. You have one party in a 2-party system that has not acted in good faith for 6 years, and shows no sign of doing so any time soon.

So yeah, the Democrats have been chugging corporate dick like it's Gatorade, but if they didn't, the cash flow would be cut off completely and instead of getting the vast majority of of corporate contributions, the Republicans would get it all. And since money is speech, the Democrats would whisper, and the Republicans would be screaming into a bullhorn.

So again, it comes down to picking the corporate whore, or the corporate sponsored fecal matter wanting to get rid of pretty much every regulation left.

[His Divine Shadow]

You can write a books worth on how people should vote for the lesser evil... But people are gonna stay at home unless you can come up with something better.

It's also not true that they need corporate money to win, the 2008 obama campaign showed that when it won against Clinton and then the republicans.

I mean assuming what you say is right, that the democrats must continue to be bought by big interests to continue existing... that won't lead to more people holding their noses and voting D, it will just lead them to stay home. The current bunch can't even lie well like Obama did.

[Flagg]

You can write a books worth on how people should vote for the lesser evil... But people are gonna stay at home unless you can come up with something better.

It's also not true that they need corporate money to win, the 2008 obama campaign showed that when it won against Clinton and then the republicans.

I mean assuming what you say is right, that the democrats must continue to be bought by big interests to continue existing... that won't lead to more people holding their noses and voting D, it will just lead them to stay home. The current bunch can't even lie well like Obama did.

2008 was before Citizens United.

The fact is, we have a catch-22 that can't even begin starting to be fixed until Democrats take back both houses of Congress. That will stop the bills sent to President Pussygrabber for him to rubber stamp. But my fear is that Democtratic LackofSpinitus will reoccur and the usual "Democrats give an inch, Republicans take a mile with help from the Blue-Dogs (apologies for the insult to dogs)".

[Patroklos]

Oh, except that the Republicans blocked a SCOTUS appointment by Obama for over a year.

Watch your talking point creep...

On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. The Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on this nomination made during the last year of Obama's presidency, insisting that the next elected president should fill the vacancy. The refusal of Senate Republicans to consider the nomination remains a source of controversy, with some Democrats and other critics saying the seat on the Court Garland was nominated to take was stolen.[1][2][3] His nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress.

The gist of what you want to say loses nothing by not exaggerating.

[SCRawl]

Flagg's content-free flame in response to a sharply-worded correction has been removed. Posts which are free of content will not be tolerated in the N&P forum.

[Napoleon the Clown]

It amazes me that anybody thinks it's viable for the DNC to keep expecting tribute before they'll fucking listen to someone. "You haven't voted for us before, why the fuck should we care what you want?" I'm so very inspired.

Quite simply, a party cannot bank on getting votes by being a less vile than their opponent. A candidate is never, ever "owed" support or votes. They've gotta earn the support and votes. The mentality I've seen out of Democrats (their employees and, to a lesser extent, registered Democrat voters) is that a Democrat candidate (pick an office) should get the moderate and left vote simply because they are a Democrat. If you want the Democrats to consider your positions, you've gotta register as a Democrat or they'll ignore you because you haven't scratched their back. And it is not an uncommon perception that even if you support the Democratic party, register to it, pay tribute, all of that... They'll just stab you in the back anyway. Why would someone want to register to a party they have no reason to believe will even represent them? Many liberal/progressive voters believe that the Democratic party takes that "represent" thing, lops off the first three letters, and then they've got their opinion of people who don't want oligarchs in office.

Screaming and attempting to shame people who decide to not vote (D) because they do not believe Democrats will actually put sincere effort into the things said voter supports will never get you that vote. The vote will go to a third-party candidate so the person has a clean conscience. Saying how this will let X terrible candidate win and how many people it's going to hurt is unlikely to sway that voter, because quite often they see your candidate as being pernicious as well. They view the situation as a choice between a severe heart attack or incurable cancer. Both could easily be lethal, it's just a question of how quickly.

[The Romulan Republic]

No one here is denying, as far as I can see, that the Democratic Party leadership needs to be more progressive, less beholden to Wall Street.

The only thing that I am arguing for is that those who claim to be progressives will have to be willing to work with, and yes, possibly even vote for, people who don't hold views as far Left as their own if they want to actually win elections at the national level rather than remain a politically ineffectual fringe in a Republican-controlled nation. That you will have more influence if you at least have a seat at the big table than you will if you say "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

And that not voting, or voting for people who have no chance of winning (or even worse, voting for Trump), without regard for the consequences to millions of real people, simply to spite the DNC or have the satisfaction of maintaining ones' perceived ideological purity, is both profoundly selfish and remarkably self-destructive.

If you object to that characterization, then please explain to me why you feel that abetting the descent of American into neo-fascism, either by direct support or inaction, is a fair price to pay for undermining the DNC.

Should it be a choice between Democrats and Republicans? No. But the fact is that it is, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Small, "pure" fringes don't win national elections. You win them by uniting a bunch of factions under a common banner, which means everyone has to give something. The Centrists have to. And so do you.

If you wanted to win outside the Democratic Party, then you'd need to either mobilize a huge number of people who normally don't vote on your side (despite being a small faction with little hope of victory), or you'd have to compromise with people on the actual far Right (which the DNC establishment is not).

Moreover, the Democratic Party is not, as some here have presented it, a homogenous block all working to advance a single corporate agenda. It has strong progressive elements, they've gotten stronger, and they're only likely to get stronger still in the future. Unless impatience and spite causes the progressives to walk away and squander what influence they might have had.

I'm not asking you to vote Democrat because the DNC leadership is entitled to it. I'm asking you to vote Democrat because it is the best way, at present, to help the country while protecting your own influence and self-interest.

[TheFeniX]

Dude, America was not even close to being as polarized as it is now. Pointing to FDR as a model for today is like pointing to Abraham Lincoln as a model for 1936.

I don't know what went on in the interim with a moderator getting involved, so I don't know if I should or should not respond, but I'll throw this out there:

I'm no historian, but I don't see this. There was a whole hell of a lot of partisanship throughout the 20th century. Government and corporate thugs clashing with strikers. Hell, the war against unions in general. People were getting hanged for their skin color. White people in support of civil rights were hanged or shot along side them. Huge fissures in the parties as Southern Democrats rebelled against racial progressives, which happened over a relatively long period. There were shots fired over protests and blow-back against the hippies. The big push towards "old fashioned family values" was in full force later on and conservatism flourish under the threat of the Hammer and Sickle. It wasn't until (in my poor recollection) around the 80s that the Republicans and Democrats started working together. Under Clinton, they pushed a whole lot of bipartisan bills and things only got rocky over a couple blow-jobs.

Then 9/11 happened.

As partisan as politics have become, a lot of that is pushed by the voting habits of people who GREW UP when fountains were still labelled "colored/white" and nuclear war was imminent. Yes, there's voters ready to replace them, but not enough to continue this bickering. Not unless the Democrats continue to fold on every issue and continue to lose seats because losing is bad enough, but losing when you aren't even fighting is worse.

The only thing that I am arguing for is that those who claim to be progressives will have to be willing to work with, and yes, possibly even vote for, people who don't hold views as far Left as their own if they want to actually win elections at the national level rather than remain a politically ineffectual fringe in a Republican-controlled nation. That you will have more influence if you at least have a seat at the big table than you will if you say "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

So, I vote for Clinton who sells me out with shit like NAFTA? But that's really just me taking a cheap-shot. Let me move on:

And that not voting, or voting for people who have no chance of winning (or even worse, voting for Trump), without regard for the consequences to millions of real people, simply to spite the DNC or have the satisfaction of maintaining ones' perceived ideological purity, is both profoundly selfish and remarkably self-destructive.

The problem is: that's exactly what just happened and has been happening for more than a few years. Obama and many other Democrats (this was talked about in the linked video) say their message is fine, we just have to go out there and inform people of it. The next problem is: their message mirrors that of Republicans at a base level: "More money for me, fuck you." They just add "have some social services."

Even if this problem is overblown, it doesn't change that the people who believe that are still allowed to vote (or not to). You don't change their mind by saying "Cmon guys! do the same thing we just did and we PROMISE at some point in the future we'll stop fucking you over."

They aren't buying it, so Democrats are going to have to start selling something different or at least slap on a new coat of paint. Otherwise, considering the numbers they put up, they're going to have to bet on the Republican party going down in flames. It's not a BAD bet as it happened in and around 2008 and Trump seems like he could crash and burn the party harder than GW ever did.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, that's my point. Why should Democrats compromise on issues that Republicans will bring up as some dire threat anyway? Did Obama get Gun control legislation passed? No, to the point that people on the goddamned terrorist watch list can still buy them and now President Pussygrabber wants to make it easier/possible for the severely mentally disturbed to buy them, too.

The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.

If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move farther left, then move farther left. If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move right, fuck it let's move right. If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move left on some issues of great importance and right on other issues, fine!

This is, for example, WHY Republicans can successfully scream "THEY'LL TAKE YOUR GUNS," because many Americans have not forgotten 90s-era gun control laws and the gun control laws still being passed on the state level in blue states. Republicans are for gun ownership rights, so we needed to be against them, and now we've got millions of rural voters convinced, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that the Democrats are the party of conspiring to set up tyrannical oppressive government by removing the people's ability to resist.

This is why Republicans can scream "Hillary's in bed with Wall Street" without it being a complete joke that backfires on them as they richly deserve. Because the general electorate knows damn well that Obama explicitly declared at the start of his first term that there was a clash between Wall Street and Main Street. And, bluntly, he chose Wall Street. That was not a popular stance. It seemed like a good idea to Obama at the time, I'm sure, but it backfired rather badly for us.

The point here is, we're not fighting for compromise with "the Republicans," as in "the few thousand elected Republican politicians in the country." We're compromising with the voters. Not just Republican voters, not just Democratic voters. ANY voters. Literally any. Every American of basic decency has a right to a say in what policies their government should and should not adopt, and the Democratic Party needs to take a stand that a majority of decent Americans can back. "Donald Trump stinks" is a good place to start building such a stand, but it's not all that we need.

[Lord Insanity]

The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.

If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move farther left, then move farther left. If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move right, fuck it let's move right. If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move left on some issues of great importance and right on other issues, fine!

I agree with this entirely. I know at least half a dozen people that do not vote at all because they honestly believe: "Republicans want to ban abortion. Democrats want to ban guns. You're screwed no matter who you go with so why bother. They are both full of crap."

I would bet good money that if the Democrats as a party would sincerely embrace gun rights they would render the Republican party irrelevant. Ironically that is also probably the fastest way to ever get actual sensible things like universal background checks passed. As it is now we always have those few "liberal" jerks that try to plant the seed of a future ban into the legislation and it promptly gets killed. The party needs to kick those jerks out.

I would bet Republicans could accomplish the same to the Democrats if they dropped the anti-abortion and anti-LGBT crap. I just don't see that as being anywhere near as likely as the Democrats ditching the noose of gun control.

[Tvpnbb]

I would bet Republicans could accomplish the same to the Democrats if they dropped the anti-abortion and anti-LGBT crap.

I'm not so sure about that, at least not with the anti-abortion part. Thing is, the amount of single-issue anti-gun voters is small - those who want to ban guns or severely restrict gun rights are generally progressives who want to do those things alongside the wider progressive agenda, and therefore would be more likely to grudgingly accept conceding defeat on that front if they were persuaded that it would make it easier to pursue progressive policies in other areas. On the other hand, the amount of single-issue pro-gun voters is rather large, and relatively many of those would probably be at least willing to consider the Democrats if they dropped the gun issue.

Supporting abortion however is a red line to many voters. Remember, opposition to it is driven by the religious right, and they really consider themselves to be "pro-life" - OPPOSING THE HORRIBLE BIG GUBMINT BABY GENOCIDE FOR JESUS! If the Republicans suddenly embraced abortion many of these could easily abandon the party completely. Kinda like if Democrats suddenly started opposing gay marriage.

Support for LGBT rights probably wouldn't be as significant of a red line as support for it is growing even among religious groups and the fundies likely don't oppose it quite as viscerally (because not HORRIBLE BABY MURDER). Still the Christian Right remains a major part of the Republican coalition and while it's power has diminished losing it would be painful for them.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, that's my point. Why should Democrats compromise on issues that Republicans will bring up as some dire threat anyway? Did Obama get Gun control legislation passed? No, to the point that people on the goddamned terrorist watch list can still buy them and now President Pussygrabber wants to make it easier/possible for the severely mentally disturbed to buy them, too.

The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.

What exactly are the core values of the Democratic Party?

[Napoleon the Clown]

<snip stuff I largely agree with>

Yeah, it is ineffective to refuse to vote Democrat just because they aren't "pure" enough. It's illogical as all hell. But people are illogical as hell. My ultimate point is that Democratic leadership (to varying extents, based on which Democrat we're talking about) doesn't want to listen to someone who hasn't already registered as a Democrat, and a lot of their hired salespeople express a similar view. The Democratic party, especially the leadership, is going to have to be willing to court votes from people who will vote Green or stay home if the DNC refuses to field candidates that these voters want.

The unfortunate thing is, the Democratic party can't rely on "But look how horrible the Republicans are!" as a way to get votes. If they keep showing themselves to be beholden to rich fuckers and corporations, they're going to lose out on a lot of votes from people who are goddamned sick to death of rich fuckers and corporations running the show. If the Republican party weren't so actively harmful, maliciously so in some cases, I'd be much less inclined to vote for Democrats because the party's leadership has expressed disdain for anyone who doesn't want to register as a Democrat and swear fealty. The party leadership, quite simply, behaves as though they are owed votes, that they can simply expect them to come in because (D) isn't as bad as (R).

Party leadership seriously needs to pay attention to perception, because when it comes down to it perception is the single most important factor in getting elected. Whether or not that perception is based off truth or lies, perception is what gets people to support you, oppose you, or just not bother.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course perception matters. But so does the reality of the situation. All factions need to be willing to give something. The Centre to the Left, and the Left to the Centre.

But another thing that people seem to be overlooking is that the 2020 primary won't necessarily be a repeat of 2016. Everyone here seems to be more or less assuming it'll be a polarized fight between Clinton-style Centrists and Bernie-style progressives (and I'll allow that I may be somewhat guilty of that myself). But as I said before, 2016 was a very narrow field due to Clinton's presence as the presumptive nominee from the get-go, and the opposition to her coalescing around Bernie.

I expect, and certainly hope, that 2020 will be a more open and varied field.

[Flagg]

Yeah, that's my point. Why should Democrats compromise on issues that Republicans will bring up as some dire threat anyway? Did Obama get Gun control legislation passed? No, to the point that people on the goddamned terrorist watch list can still buy them and now President Pussygrabber wants to make it easier/possible for the severely mentally disturbed to buy them, too.

The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.

If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move farther left, then move farther left. If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move right, fuck it let's move right. If the people as a whole want the Democrats to move left on some issues of great importance and right on other issues, fine!

This is, for example, WHY Republicans can successfully scream "THEY'LL TAKE YOUR GUNS," because many Americans have not forgotten 90s-era gun control laws and the gun control laws still being passed on the state level in blue states. Republicans are for gun ownership rights, so we needed to be against them, and now we've got millions of rural voters convinced, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that the Democrats are the party of conspiring to set up tyrannical oppressive government by removing the people's ability to resist.

This is why Republicans can scream "Hillary's in bed with Wall Street" without it being a complete joke that backfires on them as they richly deserve. Because the general electorate knows damn well that Obama explicitly declared at the start of his first term that there was a clash between Wall Street and Main Street. And, bluntly, he chose Wall Street. That was not a popular stance. It seemed like a good idea to Obama at the time, I'm sure, but it backfired rather badly for us.

The point here is, we're not fighting for compromise with "the Republicans," as in "the few thousand elected Republican politicians in the country." We're compromising with the voters. Not just Republican voters, not just Democratic voters. ANY voters. Literally any. Every American of basic decency has a right to a say in what policies their government should and should not adopt, and the Democratic Party needs to take a stand that a majority of decent Americans can back. "Donald Trump stinks" is a good place to start building such a stand, but it's not all that we need.

I really wish it worked that way, I really do. But concentrating on more than 3 issues at a time isn't really possible given our 24 hour news cycle that might as well be scripted.

Let me give you an example of the Democrats coming out more or less in favor of a popular position: Marijuana decriminalization and full on legalization. No, Hillary Clinton didn't come out in favor of it on a national level (any more than Obama did for marriage equality in 2008) but on the state level in a bunch of states there were referendums to legalize recreational use of marijuana and in those states the Democrats were largely for it. Was there a debate question about that asked? Was it widely covered outside of those states? No, of course not. It was the usual "God, Guns, and Gays" with the "gays" aspect focusing on the trans community.

[Flagg]

Dude, America was not even close to being as polarized as it is now. Pointing to FDR as a model for today is like pointing to Abraham Lincoln as a model for 1936.

I don't know what went on in the interim with a moderator getting involved, so I don't know if I should or should not respond, but I'll throw this out there:

I'm no historian, but I don't see this. There was a whole hell of a lot of partisanship throughout the 20th century. Government and corporate thugs clashing with strikers. Hell, the war against unions in general. People were getting hanged for their skin color. White people in support of civil rights were hanged or shot along side them. Huge fissures in the parties as Southern Democrats rebelled against racial progressives, which happened over a relatively long period. There were shots fired over protests and blow-back against the hippies. The big push towards "old fashioned family values" was in full force later on and conservatism flourish under the threat of the Hammer and Sickle. It wasn't until (in my poor recollection) around the 80s that the Republicans and Democrats started working together. Under Clinton, they pushed a whole lot of bipartisan bills and things only got rocky over a couple blow-jobs.

Then 9/11 happened.

As partisan as politics have become, a lot of that is pushed by the voting habits of people who GREW UP when fountains were still labelled "colored/white" and nuclear war was imminent. Yes, there's voters ready to replace them, but not enough to continue this bickering. Not unless the Democrats continue to fold on every issue and continue to lose seats because losing is bad enough, but losing when you aren't even fighting is worse.

What does any of that have to do with FDR, who died in 1945? The only way the changes put in by FDR were even possible is because you had Hoover who wanted to rely on the same invisible hand of the free market that gave us the Great Depression and FDR who wanted to do something. And the only thing that truly got us out of it was WW2. Everything you're talking abut is post-war when FDR was already worm food.