@Unabashed Liberal I believe the primaries are going to be very important in the coming campaigns. We have the opportunity to reject the establishment candidates. I think those who Demexited last year should reregister so that they could have some effect on primaries in the states with closed primaries; unfortunately, too late for New York. I hear that the Dems are flushed with candidates for the coming campaigns and many are Sanders followers.

#5 #5 #5

what's unfolding as just the opposite of 'getting away from' identity politics (IP). If anything, according to many Dem talking heads on teevee, there will be a ramping up of IP prior to both the 2018 and 2020 election cycles.

At the minimum, I believe that we can expect to see 2-3 African-American Presidential candidates, in order to bring out 'the Base.' Of course, Harris's run will be a 'twofer,' since it satisfies the 'first woman President' criteria, as well. Also, heard earlier today (on CNN) that Bernie is likely to run in order to bring the other major demographic group (that Dems need) into the fold--college students.

(When I've got more time, I'll post some of the stats from the Alabama race--they were astounding. Of course, the DNC sunk a million dollars on GOTV, alone, per Tom Perez. Plus, they used Bernie's network from his Presidential run.)

Anyhoo, more than ever, I expect Dems to continue to throw working class folks--whites, anyway--under the bus. Remember, since WJC's presidency, Democrats have increasingly been beholden to their donor class, and to the ever-expanding and noveau riche Millionaire/Professional Class.

Lately, I've begun to think that the latter has a greater hold over the Party, than even their major fundraisers. And that could be even more toxic, since their numbers are in the millions, not in the hundreds, like the US billionaire class. (I'm not so much referring to folks worth a few million. My reference is to those who, like many of our lawmakers, have a net worth in the tens and hundreds of millions. That number has increased dramatically over the past two decades.)

I've seen more and more articles sounding the alarm about this phenomena, over the past year or so. It's about time. I have to believe that the 99% Meme must truly please a lot of rich lawmakers--like Mark Warner (D) and Nancy Pelosi (D), to even more wealthy lawmakers, such as Darrell Issa (R) and Michael McCaul (R). Of course, for years, there was former Dem Senator John Kerry, not only wealthy in his own right, he was married to a heir to the Heinz fortune--a billionairess.

(Warner's worth is between 75-200 million; Pelosi's worth between 42 and 202 million; Issa and McCaul are both worth approximately 350 million; Kerry's wife's worth was/is one billion.)

Also, I've read quite a bit about Dems running candidates who 'fit the bill' for each individual district. Sounds like a page right out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook!

IOW, suppose folks should get ready to see a lot more Conservadems elected, and a rightward tilt of the Dem Party--if they do succeed in taking back the House and/or Senate in 2018.

Have a good one!

[Edited: Deleted 'd'; corrected worth of Warner and Pelosi, to include the range; corrected worth of Issa and McCaul--neither worth over 350 million; corrected spelling of Darrell Issa's first name--left out second 'l'.]

Mollie

---

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"Purity test"??
I've come to flag that phrase, like many others, as a tool of neoliberalism in order to shut down intelligent conversation. When someone disagrees with you, their issues are not lesser than yours. The lines that they draw are not inferior to yours. They are not being "pure" when they honor those lines. Rather, they are acting with principle.
--SnappleBC

@Unabashed Liberal and it's bleak. The only thing that could alter it is if the bubbles the economy are running on start bursting. If there is another Obama like response I think that could shift the focus back to domestic concerns big time. The Fed has no room to move. The republicans only have tax cuts for the rich, cuts for the social programs,and the dems can't go anywhere on identity politics and agree with the r's on so much. The only remedies that haven't been tried are those of the left. Bernie showed there's a need for that.

#5 #5 #5

what's unfolding as just the opposite of 'getting away from' identity politics (IP). If anything, according to many Dem talking heads on teevee, there will be a ramping up of IP prior to both the 2018 and 2020 election cycles.

At the minimum, I believe that we can expect to see 2-3 African-American Presidential candidates, in order to bring out 'the Base.' Of course, Harris's run will be a 'twofer,' since it satisfies the 'first woman President' criteria, as well. Also, heard earlier today (on CNN) that Bernie is likely to run in order to bring the other major demographic group (that Dems need) into the fold--college students.

(When I've got more time, I'll post some of the stats from the Alabama race--they were astounding. Of course, the DNC sunk a million dollars on GOTV, alone, per Tom Perez. Plus, they used Bernie's network from his Presidential run.)

Anyhoo, more than ever, I expect Dems to continue to throw working class folks--whites, anyway--under the bus. Remember, since WJC's presidency, Democrats have increasingly been beholden to their donor class, and to the ever-expanding and noveau riche Millionaire/Professional Class.

Lately, I've begun to think that the latter has a greater hold over the Party, than even their major fundraisers. And that could be even more toxic, since their numbers are in the millions, not in the hundreds, like the US billionaire class. (I'm not so much referring to folks worth a few million. My reference is to those who, like many of our lawmakers, have a net worth in the tens and hundreds of millions. That number has increased dramatically over the past two decades.)

I've seen more and more articles sounding the alarm about this phenomena, over the past year or so. It's about time. I have to believe that the 99% Meme must truly please a lot of rich lawmakers--like Mark Warner (D) and Nancy Pelosi (D), to even more wealthy lawmakers, such as Darrell Issa (R) and Michael McCaul (R). Of course, for years, there was former Dem Senator John Kerry, not only wealthy in his own right, he was married to a heir to the Heinz fortune--a billionairess.

(Warner's worth is between 75-200 million; Pelosi's worth between 42 and 202 million; Issa and McCaul are both worth approximately 350 million; Kerry's wife's worth was/is one billion.)

Also, I've read quite a bit about Dems running candidates who 'fit the bill' for each individual district. Sounds like a page right out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook!

IOW, suppose folks should get ready to see a lot more Conservadems elected, and a rightward tilt of the Dem Party--if they do succeed in taking back the House and/or Senate in 2018.

Have a good one!

[Edited: Deleted 'd'; corrected worth of Warner and Pelosi, to include the range; corrected worth of Issa and McCaul--neither worth over 350 million; corrected spelling of Darrell Issa's first name--left out second 'l'.]

Mollie

---

"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu

"Purity test"??
I've come to flag that phrase, like many others, as a tool of neoliberalism in order to shut down intelligent conversation. When someone disagrees with you, their issues are not lesser than yours. The lines that they draw are not inferior to yours. They are not being "pure" when they honor those lines. Rather, they are acting with principle.
--SnappleBC

@Ellen North

"Well, it would have been nice to have had someone able to point out that bailing out the big banks at public expense and letting homeowners go homeless didn't end racism,"

This could be said about Obama, too

"so, as that progressive liberal she likes to claim to be while in her 'public' persona, why not play the freaking role when she was actually in public office as a public servant?"

How people can overlook the things that they did is beyond my comprehension. Their supporters are making up a history that is far from the reality of what they really did.

#6

... Hillary asked the crowd if "breaking up the big banks would end racism, would raising the minimum wage end sexism, would passing universal health end....?" Each time the crowd said "NO!, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time." ...

Well, it would have been nice to have had someone able to point out that bailing out the big banks at public expense and letting homeowners go homeless didn't end racism,

not enforcing living wages didn't end sexism

and not passing universal health care 'saved' public money for more welfare for the wealthiest

and more attacks on other people's countries,

so that more citizens suffered and died, and will do so at higher rates

both in America for continued lack of health care in 'the richest country on Earth'

and in other people's countries as a result of moar 'war' (droning and bombing civilians is actually mass long-distance murder, not war, btw, Mrs. Clinton,) profiteering,

so, as that progressive liberal she likes to claim to be while in her 'public' persona, why not play the freaking role when she was actually in public office as a public servant?

Oh, right, she'd never have gained hundreds of millions in bribes and pay-offs doing that, apart from the billions passing through the Fundation.

Imagine the Clintons having to make do with only one house! Unthinkable!

The millions of impoverished and homeless within America as a result of policies such as those the Clintons supported and support just need to be kept out of sight and mind until attrition takes them; they are not among Those Who Matter, who are worth Real Money to her.

And if she has any chance of gaining influence to use and another political position to abuse in actively further draining the public for her billionaire/trillionaire? clientelle's increased wealth, she can hold out her hand to beg money from the latter and get stuffed with more herself.

After all, she and Bill are well over retirement age and can't possibly afford to do so until they've got that first trillion socked away themselves.