Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

I am not all that enthusiastic over Beto. He is, obviously, a GREAT fund raiser. All that being said he also lost his battle with the most hated member of the senate and, I think I saw a poll where Cruz actually won the title of most hated politician in America.

So, I am not against Beto but, I continue to wonder. I am also not against Pelosi but she, as one of the party leaders, watched whilst the Republicans took, I think, over 80% of the state legislatures. Seems to me a bit strange. There is, apparently, a group within the Democratic party which is bravely supporting people who are, basically, losers. I don't even think they are the same group but, rather, two groups, within the Democratic party, who are loudly voicing their support for, basically, losers.

I had serious questions whether the Dems would win big in 2018 and they did. I am simply pointing out that I seem to be really expert in worrying over nothing. That being the case my concerns above might also fit into that category too. I just hope that the Dems take a deep breath, and figuratively hold each other's hands whilst pounding out strategy and planks that make sense and appeal to the vast majority of those tending towards the Dems and away from the Party of Jackass.

Beto's a pretty face. Sometimes that's all it takes. There was never a chance in Hell that Beto could have beaten Cruz. The polls said it from the very start. Beto didn't win the election, but he beat the odds. He turned a race that NO Democrat could win into a photo finish barnburner. That's what raised all the eyebrows.

He could do the same thing in 2020, and maybe even win. But progressives will run massive negative campaigns against him because he isn't politically pure enough and drag out Jill Stein again. Republicans will label him a socialist and Russia will fan the flames on social media...

Jeff,

Well you have me up a stump. If you are siding with 'the Party', and perhaps that's what has me confused, Then I wish it was about being a Hillary defeat syndrome' problem. That is, if you mean 'Democratic Party' by the DNC and it's multiple fund raising and campaign committees?
If your talking decisions taken by the party then I would give that a second thought. Your saying that the party gets to decide who we get to vote for and are happy with the structures/barriers they have in place? Part of that would be double dealing during the primary campaign.

If so, then whats it all about?

Is it about winning? Then I would have to bring up the slow motion wipeout over the last few cycles. Or the ceding of major regions of the country that have assured us a republican senate for years to come.

Is it about giving up a battle today to win a long term decisive victory? That slow and steady arc of progress?.... We don't have that long. By most measures the needles are moving in the wrong direction on all the dials.
Is there some success with the leadership that I've overlooked that balances some of these negative gains over the decades?

Smart? Is it smart to allow a candidate into the race but have only done so after it was decided by party leadership who the winner should be and worked to accomplish that? It's not democracy and possibly not legal but it is something. Criminally stupid comes to mind. Why would you put on that performance? It's insulting to a large swath of your base and alienates who knows how many. Is that hyperbole? I dunno, I think it was a big pile of arrogance,incompetence, and corruption. They sure as heck heven't made it rain for a LOT of people. Donors maybe... The wrong kind for third worlders and underextracted but that's a differant kind of rain (death).
If they thought of it as a farce that would help to burnish Clinton's resume, who the hell are they to decide?

Progress? Name it cause most progress is going in the wrong direction. Against popular opinio, in many cases. Might be that primary thing. Manchin is on the senate energy committee and a ranking member is he not. Cortez's 'New Green Deal' committee will be recommendation only, with no subpoena power. A big majority of voters want to see something happen. Next stop: environmmental ecocide? What will the party decide?! Stay tuned because you can't always get what you want-for most people anyways.

Sanders was not a democrat?.... Then why was he allowed to run as such? His vote in the Senate maybe? He's his own man and if you've seen him over the years then you know he's not for sale. Might account for his popularity over Clinton's resume application. Not saying you weren't watching sanders Jeff, just trying to make a point.

Again, I don't know who you think the Democratic Party is and maybe I've misunderstood what you wanted to frame in your argument. I'll always be happy to argue against a neoliberal democratic candidate or a corrupted funding apparatus with you. You did get me off the bench after all. Might be some groaning about that but we are talking politics after all so....


Another perspective on Sanders running. By the guy from the front: Matt Taibbi's op-ed

Yes, I've BEEN talking about "The Democratic Party as administered by the DNC", because in the end, like it or not, we're stuck with them as the arbiters of who gets the Dem money.

I didn't say that I like it, or that you have to like it.
I'm just filing my observations.

And believe me when I say that I wanted Sanders to win.
In the end it was as if he ran a valiant race, "with the parking brake on", because if you have to play ball with the DNC to get DNC money, he handicapped himself.

I'm not disputing your perceptions of the Democratic Party as a desirable party vehicle, I'm calling balls and strikes.
If you want to term the DNC as a bunch of immoral bums, you won't hear much protest from me. I have to stand in line at the DMV like everyone else, so I curse them roundly...but I need that driver's license.

Bernie running again? Not unless it includes a plan to make the DNC his bitch and hew them over to his side and his way of seeing things. I love the guy but this isn't Dungeons and Dragons, it's POTUS politics.

Are you saying that no one can fight the forces of Doctor Evil and His Flaming Propagandists and that Jill Stein is invincible?
I guess there's no point in ANYONE running then.

No...seriously. We should have bitch-slapped that stupid Putin-cow right from the get go and frankly, the Republican "SOCIALIST" tag is worn out. They overused it last time.

If that's the hill they choose to die on, we should make them die on it instead of circling wide and giving them snacks.

What are the balls and what are the strikes Jeff?
Actually, it doesn't matter. There are independant and growing alternative funding sources that are helping to run progressives up and down ballots.
Your arguing for the status quo. Fine. Or your observing and reporting I guess. My 35 years of observing the slow rightward drift of the Democratic Party has left me convinced of the statement that it no longer represents it's traditions but simply a sink hole for progressive energy or socialist ideas to disappear down for its donor class.
If this past week is any indication, by sidelining progressive causes, the party will continue its tradition of punching left while pleasing its donor class.
It's to be expected. I can't recall any progressive cause being accomplish from the party without pressure coming from outside. Someone else may be able to provide an example but I'm stumped. This current Democratic Party is so wedded to donor money I dont know if it's reachable anymore.
In the end, and listening to the climate scientists that's happenning now and no longer an abstract thing, we observed party norms and rules as they crafted them.

The Democratic Party is wedded to donor money - just as the Republicans are wedded to donor money. If you don't have the big bucks you win NOTHING! Beto, the apparent champion of the progressives got a lot of money but he was also a tireless worker and proudly went into every village and hamlet in the district he was running in and shook every hand he could find.

The trick, obviously, is to take care of the money thing. When the Dems take over the house they should pass a bill stating; "Money is not speech and speech is not money". I think everybody but donors and craven politicians would argue this one which is another plus for this one. I also suspect that if both houses pass such a thing that big money and craven politicians will take it to the Supremes. Again, them that actually believes that money is speech, etc. if the anti-donor class prepares a war chest to disallow the donor folk the ability to demonize I think everything might get interesting?

My thought, basically, is that the demonizers are very good at what they do and its REALLY time to fight back!

If the speech thing gets done then the other leg needs to be severed, ie. "corporations and organizations are NOT individuals and should not be treated as such."

Couldn't agree more, JGW, couldn't agree more.

Having worked recently on this very issue and had to collect signatures I can personally assure that you don't have to think about it anymore. Just know that for every day I spent collecting signatures, on any given day on the street, after asking people if they would enjoy talking about religion or politics (with a smile!) and letten em know what it's about. Chiefly passing an amendment to get money out of politics. You can do about 25 a day and out of those asked, 23 were in strong support while 2-3 would abstain from getting involved. Cut across demographics like a dozer! Income, political affiliation, you name it.

Here's the rub for me.

It ain't gunna happen. Or not from the top any ways.
It will have to come from the bottom. Neighbor to neighbor. I mentioned the history of any achievement for freedom having always come from pressure being applied from the bottom up. Some after much devastation, such as the civil war.
But this is Pelosi were talking about and my earlier fears of her doing a challenge head fake to get re-elected as leader have been well founded by her actions this week.
Coming up a bit short of campaign finance reform is the 'Green New Deal' plan as championed by Cortez and, by many on the left figuring, lead as well.
After all, this has been a signature progressive idea that had been championed by Sanders. It's currently polling at 81-82% approval. As far as I know, it still is a major rallying cause for progressives, environmentalists, engineers, biologists, economist and any other credentialed 'ists' you care to list.
Really, what can be more important than a livable earth with the ability to have organized society?
Pelosi? I'm guessing it's safe to say she's got other things on her mind. Cortez didn't get any position on the committee as far as I know and the left is pissed. Why the hell not?!
A lesser committee rank with no supbeona power, just the ability to make recommendations. Pelosi chose to appoint a congresswoman named Kathy Castor (I kid you knot) of FL. Know idea who she is but maybe Gregor knows.
One of the BIG goals of any committee member, by the progressives, was that they recieve NO fossil fuel campaign money. A position the party embraced for a minute in 2017, until Perez reversed it.
Castor's public comment on fossil fuel donations can be read here: Pelosi gal Castor

The left is pissed and the progressive caucus is fuming. It's my hope they make Pelosi pay with a pound of flesh down the line. Scuttle a tax give away she has in mind to bring some corporate interest 'on board' some neoliberal clap trap grand bargain etc...

Castor seems to be legit. She's in the Tampa Bay area and has the backing of the Tampa Bay Times.

Link

She's not even sworn in yet. AOC has a bright future in Washington but committee seats aren't usually given to newcomers.

This is just the beginning of the Green New Deal, with a little luck and enough votes to stay in power Democrats can make it happen.