[mikema63]

On an amusing note many liberal cities have suddenly found themselves fighting for local autonomy while Republican state governments have been trying to strip it away.

The Republicans really aren't any better about local governance, both sides only moralize that type of thing when it benefits them.

[One Degree]

On an amusing note many liberal cities have suddenly found themselves fighting for local autonomy while Republican state governments have been trying to strip it away.

The Republicans really aren't any better about local governance, both sides only moralize that type of thing when it benefits them.

Yes, I have found this very ironic also. It shows neither party has any real platform other than winning.

[blackjack21]

The sad truth is there are no effective alternatives left for the Democratic Party in its current incarnation. The Dems are no longer a political party in any meaningful sense. The party exists only to feed its addiction to the smack doled out by its FIRE sector constituency. Anyone or anything that stands between them and their supply will be mercilessly crushed. They have no actual plan for winning elections or helping people. They are content with the status quo - indeed dependent on it.

You aren't the only person with that viewpoint: The Democrats Have Chosen Defeat

With Perez, the Democrats indicated they will be abandoning their extreme left-wing base and, in so doing, relegating themselves to being the party of entrenched, wealthy special interests and preferred minority groups. The interests of workers have been abandoned. What’s more, the DNC leadership essentially have done what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi indicated they would do: abandon the party’s socialist and social democratic wing. In essence, the Democrats have chosen to take their already small base of supporters and make it even smaller.

The elite know why Trump won, and they don't care.

Hillary won the nomination anyway. In so doing, the Democrats killed the base’s morale. The Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012 proved that when a party denies its base a presidential nominee it can get behind, the opposition will likely win (particularly if it has a candidate worth rallying around).

And Obama, like Trump, had very little political experience and no significant legislative accomplishments.

The country has operated on the basic governing paradigm FDR implemented with the New Deal for more than a couple generations. The populist reaction in the United States (at least the kind that wins elections) is a response to the recent failures of the U.S. socio-political and economic systems. Since this system has been dominated and defined by the Democrats and this New Deal paradigm for so long, it is highly unlikely that the populist urges of Americans will move to the Left.

The demographics of the welfare state have to get addressed. Additionally, Keynesianism is a nationalist economic idea. When China gains more from a US fiscal and monetary stimulus than the US, you know you have a problem. You can't have free trade with tons of outsourcing and Social Security and Medicare funded by the jobs you are now outsourcing to other countries. I said this before Trump was a political phenomenon. Now, it's becoming a political reality, and not just my cranky theories.

By abandoning both the working class and the socialist elements of the Democratic base (a majority of the Bernie Sanders voters), the Democrats have become a party without enough voters to be effective.

Abandoning the working class is what killed them. In some senses, this could be put at Bill Clinton's feet, as he signed NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN status for China, etc. In my thread, "Trump calls it like it is; the establishment can't take it", the point other than immigration that I said was significant about Trump was trade. Working class people heard his call. It's somewhat surprising that the Democrats still can't hear the cries of the working class.

A genuine left populism is not possible within the Dem Party structure.

It may be, but you have to be committed. The Tea Party dates to 2008-2009. However, some frustrations were evident earlier. I left the Republicans in 2006, because of McCain-Kennedy. The media tried to spin a lot of us leaving with Iraq War fatique, which wasn't altogether true.

The lesser evil is no longer capable of winning elections or talking to its constituents - all it can do is drag its feet and cling desperately to its failing worldview.

That's the bigger problem, and that doesn't change until there is a real effort to change leadership. Boehner quit. We didn't beat him politically. We beat him personally. He simply couldn't take it anymore. We did beat people like Eric Kantor though. I can see why Schumer won't step aside, but Pelosi has been beaten for awhile now, and she simply isn't a viable leader anymore.

The seeds of discontent sowed by the Alt Left is what LOST us the election, as they felt perfectly happy colluding with the Trump people in order to discredit the only viable candidate.

Quetzlcoatl didn't lose the election for Hillary. The problem is that the party structure decided that she was the ONLY viable candidate. However, they've been foisting people on the electorate. The TV show 24 was seeding the public to accept a black president, just as Madam Secretary was seeding the public to accept the first woman president. The novelty of Barack Obama wore off really quickly in his second term. "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now!" Not smart.

But let's not buy into a narrative where they were ever there to help the little guy. Neither were the GOP.

Welfare serves the interests of the wealthy. However, it's crushing the tax base with outsourcing. If the poor buy products made in Mexico or China, that's where the middle class' tax dollars go. So in a global economy, FDR's welfare state either collapses or the US will have to erect some trade barriers.

I completely disagree. The only possible outcome of a Bernie like movement outside of the democratic party is utter failure. Life long democrats will not jump ship and the third party movement will be crushed by the divided vote. To even try to run a third party candidate left of the democratic party is folly.

That isn't the case in other countries. It just forces the creation of coalition governments. Historically, it hasn't been the case in the United States since the collapse of the Whigs in the 19th Century and the short-lived Bull Moose party. If they can take state house seats and more congressional seats it might be possible. Sanders spent a long time in the house, but he's strong enough to hold a Senate seat.

The protestors should absolutely attend Republican Town Halls. I was at one the other day and the republican congresswoman looked like a deer in the headlights. What she saw was the end of her political career staring her in the face. What she took away was that she should not sign a lease in Washington beyond 2018.

If she acquiesces to the Democrats, it will be the end of her political career. None of this existed before the election, because there was no such resistance. It's been organized by Soros to appear large, but it wasn't enough to put Hillary Clinton into the White House or give the House and Senate to the Democrats. The Senate may see the Republicans gain ground in 2018. Any sober analyst realizes this, because the Democrats have to defend 25 seats, and the Republicans only 7.

The focus should be on getting democrats elected to state offices and governorships. That way they can stop the gerrymandering nonsense that has put the republicans on top. (It won't work but it is the best shot.)

They need more time in the woodshed. They have been playing a brutal identity politics game for a long time now, and they failed big time in this election at a time when they were supremely over confidant. If the Republicans become the white people's party, they will dominate politics. What's more dangerous is the Democrats have failed inner-city blacks. Asians are increasingly a ripe target for the Republicans too, as Asians are disaffected by affirmative action that disfavors them over blacks and Hispanics. Ripping on white people was perhaps the dumbest of all possible strategies in a country that is still 70% white.

Most Say Democrats Hurt Themselves With Anti-Trump Strategy

The aim should be to organize at the grass roots, and run left populist candidates. If it can be done with a Democratic Party label of convenience, fine, but expect ferocious pushback from party regulars.

The Democrats are as tied in with the banking system as Republicans. With all the mortgage fraud, Obama didn't prosecute hardly anyone. That has the electorate livid. They have to address education and structural unemployment, especially in the black community. Hillary could not reproduce Obama's coalition.

The 'mostly good people' who run the Democratic Party have a demonstrated antagonism to the interests of the working class that goes way beyond making compromises.

That's exactly it. I'm in the top 1%, and even I'm astonished at the hostility, particularly toward working class whites.

You are correct that we shouldn't try to "influence" these people. They have made clear who they are loyal to, and we won't be able to outbid their constituents.

That should provide you with a lot of comfort. Trump's win should too, but not because you necessarily agree with him. Rather, that he won against all odds while spending about 1/10th of what Hillary spent. That's the most amazing part of the last two years, and the most under-reported part of it. Why is it under-reported? Who owns the Washington Post? Jeff Bezos. Who owns MSNBC? Bill Gates and NBC. The elites got spanked in this election. Drlee will yammer on about how we need to get rid of Citizens United. The fact of the matter is that unlimited money did not mean the establishment would be politically viable. It only meant that they wasted over a billion dollars on Hillary Clinton's campaign.

[quetzalcoatl]

That's exactly it. I'm in the top 1%, and even I'm astonished at the hostility, particularly toward working class whites.

I'm not surprised. I remember very well Wall Street workers raining down McDonalds applications on OWS demonstrators. This degree of arrogance from the privileged should never surprise anyone.

That should provide you with a lot of comfort. Trump's win should too, but not because you necessarily agree with him. Rather, that he won against all odds while spending about 1/10th of what Hillary spent. That's the most amazing part of the last two years, and the most under-reported part of it. Why is it under-reported? Who owns the Washington Post? Jeff Bezos. Who owns MSNBC? Bill Gates and NBC. The elites got spanked in this election. Drlee will yammer on about how we need to get rid of Citizens United. The fact of the matter is that unlimited money did not mean the establishment would be politically viable. It only meant that they wasted over a billion dollars on Hillary Clinton's campaign.

There are parts of Trump's strategy that are transferable and parts that are not. Future candidates can't count on massive free airtime like Trump got - certainly not at state elections which are the most critical. I distinguish between 3 different elements at work in the trump phenomenon:

1) an emerging attractor around which many disaffected elements in society are coalescing.
2) a Trump insurgency, which feeds off 1).
3) the actual Trump administration, which is only tangentially related to 1) & 2).

If Trump can address the concerns which led to the insurgency he will be successful. In essence, this means an increased degree of economic security for the working class. If he fails, the emerging new collective intelligence will shift away from Trump.

As for left populism, it is without organization or effective leadership. Whether it can be a factor in the future remains to be seen. It is sorely needed to counter the least appetizing aspects of the insurgency in its current form.

Two related issues.
*The sterility of centrism as a political philosophy in a society undergoing a phase transition.
*The inevitability of insurgency. The existing Deep State liberalism appears powerful but it is dying, as it loses active communication (acutally rejects communication) with its periphery.

[mikema63]

Alright so a lot of this seems to be tied up in the DNC chair race as some example that the Democratic party will never ever listen to it's populist faction. However I do not see how beyond the fact that Ellison lost you could really come to this conclusion.

He lost by 35 votes, He got 46% of the vote where the people voting were all party insiders. He was supported by people like Chuck Shumer who is hardly considered anti establishment. They are also bending over backwards to the point of creating an entirely new position to include him anyway.

From what I can tell the Progressive wing influenced quite a lot of party insiders and have been receiving concessions ever since the convention. Bernie sanders lost the primary and keith ellison barely lost a vote of insider party members and so your declaring that populists have been completely and utterly defeated and that they can never ever influence anyone in the party?

The populist wing has more power now than it's had in a long time, it was basically an impotent and powerless wing of the party just a few years ago. Now it nearly got one of it's people head of the DNC and has those party people so concerned that they are creating new positions just to cater to them. If you abandon the party now you are snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. The populist faction will be fractured by the split, all the ground gained will be lost, and those that leave wont find anymore power outside the party than they could find while in it.

[Drlee]

None of this existed before the election, because there was no such resistance. It's been organized by Soros to appear large, but it wasn't enough to put Hillary Clinton into the White House or give the House and Senate to the Democrats.

What a load of shit. Soros is not YOUR problem. He is just another pipsqueak. There most certainly was a resistance before the election. His name was Bernie Sanders. You seem to have missed him while you were sucking up to Trump.

[Truth To Power]

I remember very well Wall Street workers raining down McDonalds applications on OWS demonstrators.

Their "Let them eat cake," moment.

This degree of arrogance from the privileged should never surprise anyone.

Indeed. The privileged decry the "entitled" recipients of poverty relief and other government programs for those lower on the pyramid -- the 99% -- yet cannot comprehend that they are themselves orders of magnitude more entitled.

If Trump can address the concerns which led to the insurgency he will be successful.

He has no interest in doing so, and certainly the Republicans have none.

In essence, this means an increased degree of economic security for the working class.

Trump's only concern is for the financial interests of the privileged.

If he fails, the emerging new collective intelligence will shift away from Trump.

Trump is nothing -- has never been anything -- but a brand: a childish, conceited, reality-show self-promoter.

As for left populism, it is without organization or effective leadership. Whether it can be a factor in the future remains to be seen. It is sorely needed to counter the least appetizing aspects of the insurgency in its current form.

Until the left starts thinking about justice rather than countervailing privilege, it will not be able to put together a winning political movement. If you don't have the money on your side -- and by definition, the 1% have the money on their side -- you had better have right on your side.