Moderator: The Slider
The Democrats are interesting. My take is they always seem to hang together because they are united by The Cause. But the current party doesn't have much leadership. It will be interesting to see if someone steps up or the party factionalizes like the Republicans have been for years.DeathScythe wrote:Obama was supposed to be Bernie Sanders. I voted Obama in 08, and thought that was what I was going to get. What I got was not that. He failed to deliver on a lot of promises to the left. I think his legacy is going to be as the catalyst that began the left's version of the Tea Party. And we don't know what's going to happen yet. Will the Democratic Party fall apart, supplanted by a new third party? Will it remain, but taken over by socialists and other radicals? We will have to see, but this will have been a process started by Obama and accelerated by Hillary.
I hope you're right.DeathScythe wrote:Bush Jr. I absolutely hated him for so many reasons as a teenager. His flaws were numerous, but what stands out to me is the hyper interventionism and the religious fundamentalism. I think he will go down in history as the last president elected by courting the evangelical vote.
Clinton is the president who definitely turned me to the Right. As you say, he was mired in scandal after scandal. So I started associating the Democrats with bad government. (I know better now.) I think the Democrats look back to Clinton with nostalgia simply because the 90s were pretty good for a lot of Americans while a Democrat was in the White House, before Bush ruined it all.DeathScythe wrote:Clinton I was largely politically unaware during these years, but even a kid like me knew he was mired in scandal after scandal. As an adult, I know him as the Democrat who set back gay rights for political gain, and implemented NAFTA. There's a lot of nostalgia for him among leftists and its absolute baffling. Rose colored glasses.
DeathScythe wrote:I'm leaning to fractionalization at this point. Hillary supporters are now lashing out against Bernie again. We would be ripe for a third party if that were a thing that were possible. That was one of my positives for Trump, but now that he's true blue Republican we probably won't be seeing any change to the two party system.
The loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election exacerbated a pre-existing fracture inside the Democrat party. The far-left Bernie Sanders wing became more angry with the establishment Hillary Clinton wing. The reaction was not dissimilar to the same thing that happened in the Republican party in 2008 and 2009 that gave rise to the Tea Party.
Immediately following the 2016 election defeat, and with massive anger amid donors who had contributed billions to the campaign effort, the Clinton-Wing led by David Brock, went into damage control and organized a meeting with the intent on re-branding their efforts. [SEE HERE] Meanwhile the more progressive wing, the group that actually has a larger grassroots following, decided upon a different course. That’s where Cenk Uygur comes in.
In the 2018 race the DNC was forced to ride the progressive dragon. Nancy Pelosi and the Clinton/Brock crowd knew their rise to regain political power would not be possible without the grassroots Bernie leftists. The Cenk Uygur, Saikat Chakrabarti, recruitment was left alone to keep the fracture from becoming toxic. The ideological issue of party leadership -vs- grassroots extremists still exists; we see the dynamic playing out daily.
Yes, into this foray the Saikat Chakrabarti (Bernie-wing) 2017 operation to recruit primary candidates to challenge the Pelosi/Clinton-wing was the dynamic that brought forth Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Take any recent college graduate who is interested in politics and has a reasonably attractive social profile and you can get an AOC.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests