Op-Ed What does the current establishment Democrats stand for?

[opinterph]

For your information and perusal.

Here’s the full document from its original source:

PROBLEMS UNSOLVED AND A NATION DIVIDED
The State of U.S. Competitiveness 2016
Including findings from Harvard Business School's 2016 surveys on U.S. competitiveness​

(September 2016)​

 

[opinterph]

I note that the Harvard Study was published about the same time as the annual Census Bureau Report: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015. Accordingly, the Study did not have the benefit of using 2015 numbers.

Below are two charts depicting US Median Household Income:

From the Harvard Study:

Including 2015 data:

(I added a purple circle over the last data point shown for 2014 on the Harvard chart.)​

 

[opinterph]

Since unemployment is at a long term low, it is reasonable to assume that the median income is higher as well.

Lower unemployment exerts very little pressure on wages, though it is perhaps somewhat more likely to positively affect workers who earn below the median wage.

Are Wages and the Unemployment Rate Correlated? (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; December 2014)​

 

[TX-Beau]

Pro-business like pro-deregulation, pro-wealth concentration, pro-corporate welfare, pro-Wall Street among others?

Please. Not really interested in bogus propaganda talking points anymore. You want to be hated, knock yourself out. Fact is that the majority of the Dems, are not Progressives and never have been, and if you want to invoke FDR, he did most of what he did with the support of the Jim Crow South - you willing to make that trade off?

Time to stop pretending, the only way to pull the Democratic Party left is to run for the School Board, the State Houses, Governor-ships, and everything local, to volunteer and donate and register voters. Time to stop pretending that there is no difference between the Republicans and The Democrats, because that just isn't true anymore.

Progressives need to stop shitting on the South, and we need to stop pretending that people are going to agree with us just because, and if they don't, it's somehow the fault of Hillary's stinky cooter. YOU and I may want free college, but most of the country DOES NOT. How are you going to change that if all you have to offer is some tired screed about the DNC?

You aren't. Time to grow up and start talking to people instead of shouting at them.

 

[TX-Beau]

Don't expect any help from the whiners pretending to be Progressives, they aren't interested in doing any of the work, they just want to complain.

 

[TX-Beau]

No, liberals believe that excess strength encourages military adventurism.

G.W. Bush is "Exhibit A".

Actually traditionally Liberals believe that Military strength is necessary because if we can't defend our liberties, we don't actually have them. The question about military adventurism fragmented the left over Vietnam, and (prepare yourself Ben) the founders of the Neo-Com movement were a bunch of Liberals who argued for it.

The traditional Liberal position on the military is strength in service of defense. These days though most people calling themselves Liberals don't have much to say on the issue. I personally am very much in favor of a strong military, while I am not in favor of corporate graft and "regime change" or putting it, and the lives of people who defend us all on the line because some testosterone poisoned idiot has a small penis and a Rambo complex.

I also believe we owe every support and opportunity to people who stood between us and danger. Healthcare, education, whatever, we should be there for them, because they were there for us.

 

[Stardreamer]

So I guess this is the thread to bring this question, what do you think of the new Democrat messaging this week?

the Democrats unveiled their much-hyped 2018 agenda designed to win over working-class voters, ditching an emphasis on attacking an unpopular president in favor of a new agenda focused on the economy while passing over the social issues that have sometimes defined the party.


Trump is not mentioned once in the messaging documents.
It’s the clearest sign yet that congressional Democrats want to discard last year’s campaign playbook, which revolved largely around attacking Trump. Instead, they favor a 2018 theme designed to address the financial insecurities of working-class voters.

Their “Better Deal” campaign focuses on pocketbook issues such as creating jobs, training a modern-day workforce and lowering the cost of essential items like prescription drugs and secondary education.

It also proposes aggressive new efforts to rein in corporate power, particularly large mergers and anti-competitive actions that harm consumers and workers alike.

New Dem message doesn’t mention Trump

 

[eastofeden]

The new message is smart because it is a done deal with anyone who is already dead set on voting anti Trump as it stands

They don't need to convince them to vote against Trump.....

...so the energy and time and message is better spent outlining their plan instead of attacking him. The guy is so good at attacking himself..he is doing that part for them....

I also like how Schumer put Clinton in the past yesterday...the right way I might add

I also think it is smart to downplay the social issues...even the GLBT one.

We haven't exactly turned out to be great or even good allies for the people who helped us anyway. It is better they not stick out their neck for us because we damn sure don't have their backs.

 

[opinterph]

New Dem message doesn’t mention Trump

The message doesn’t mention Trump directly, but what’s the name of this new agenda?

Ever heard such a term before?

 

[opinterph]

… what do you think of the new Democrat messaging this week?

I think it is an appropriate starting message as we approach the midterms. It provides fertile soil. Let’s see who shows up around harvest time.

Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to take control of the House.

 

[Stardreamer]

I think it is an appropriate starting message as we approach the midterms. It provides fertile soil. Let’s see who shows up around harvest time.

Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to take control of the House.

Hell of a lot better than "Have you seen the other guys?" LOL

 

[Julian89]

I note that the Harvard Study was published about the same time as the annual Census Bureau Report: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015. Accordingly, the Study did not have the benefit of using 2015 numbers.

Below are two charts depicting US Median Household Income:

From the Harvard Study:

Including 2015 data:

(I added a purple circle over the last data point shown for 2014 on the Harvard chart.)​

I wish the Census would have also use a similar inforgraphic to see places where median house hold income have risen or again still have decreased

I believe places whose median household income have declined significantly for many years have voted for the Deplorable-in-Chief.

 

[Julian89]

Please. Not really interested in bogus propaganda talking points anymore. You want to be hated, knock yourself out. Fact is that the majority of the Dems, are not Progressives and never have been, and if you want to invoke FDR, he did most of what he did with the support of the Jim Crow South - you willing to make that trade off?

The real trade-off back then according to Senator Chuck Schumer's slip of tongue was:

“For every blue-collar Democrat we will lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two, three moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

So you were fine with that trade-off? The establishment Democratic Party had forsaken its Progressive base to pick-up the so-called moderate Republicans.

Time to stop pretending, the only way to pull the Democratic Party left is to run for the School Board, the State Houses, Governor-ships, and everything local, to volunteer and donate and register voters. Time to stop pretending that there is no difference between the Republicans and The Democrats, because that just isn't true anymore.

I already said the same thing about running Progressives and leaving no counties uncontested. That is why I am supporting Our Revolution. They are running Progressive candidates one county at a time. For more information, please go here: https://ourrevolution.com/

The moment Progressives have occupied and take back the Democratic Party from the Third Way corporatists, the distinction will be clear as crystal.

Progressives need to stop shitting on the South, and we need to stop pretending that people are going to agree with us just because, and if they don't, it's somehow the fault of Hillary's stinky cooter. YOU and I may want free college, but most of the country DOES NOT. How are you going to change that if all you have to offer is some tired screed about the DNC?

It is Progressive icons like Senator Bernie Sanders who is reaching out to the South with his Red States tour. As for Progressive positions, here are what polls said:

Over 60% of Americans back tuition-free college

60% favors expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American

More than six in 10 say corporations, upper-income Americans pay too little

The problem is, why do establishment Democrats aren't able to mobilize these sentiments into policy and implement them especially during the time they were in power?

Well, your guess is as good as mine.

You aren't. Time to grow up and start talking to people instead of shouting at them.

You're the one who is shouting telling us to fall in line and vote for Hillary Clinton which we did. We try to discuss why she lost despite our votes and move on from there, yet we were shouted upon with Russia, Russia, Russia. You had your way and it did not work. Now, it's time to find a new one. #OccupyDNC #OccupyDCCC #OccupyDSCC #OccupyDLCC

 

[Julian89]

So I guess this is the thread to bring this question, what do you think of the new Democrat messaging this week?


New Dem message doesn’t mention Trump

It is a step in the right or perhaps a left direction. But platitudes do not mean anything. I want to see actions. One gesture would be to ban Big Money from the Democratic Party's Apparatuses.

 

[eastofeden]

^^^I wanted Kucinich for all the things you guys claim now you want in all Democrats but there wasn't a leftist tea party like movement (thankfully)...and it is a good thing to ask for...BUT...if you don't understand that all of the players in the game have to be at the table...you won't get anything....

One of the things you guys hated about Clinton the most..her corporate ties..is exactly one of the reasons I liked her. She had an uphill battle any way you look at it...and making friends on Wall Street and in Corporate America gave her leverage....and yes....it gave them leverage too....but that is usually the way ANYTHING moves forward..everyone gets something.....and the thing you get at best is a template from which to work....

It isn't the ideal situation..but in a situation where $$$$ means everything now thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court...you can't just ignore the game board and expect to get anywhere....

I trusted her to remember the legacy she would leave for other women behind her as that is what has motivated her though her entire life IMO....the "power hungry" narrative was so sexist I was shocked anyone actually repeated it.

In 2018...I hope that enough "progressives" remember NOT to throw the baby out with the bathwater. YES...do what you can to get progressives in from the bottom up but DO understand that the take no prisoners approach is counter productive. As we speak...progressives are already helping Republicans in a very real way get rid of Democrats in vulnerable positions. For instance...Heidi Heitkamp...STOP IT!!!

 

[kallipolis]

He who seeks revenge should remember to dig two graves with the added awareness that progress needs time, and patience often lacking.

 

[Kulindahr]

We need to go back to pre-JFK tax rates. Also reduce expenditures for military adventurism that never benefited common Americans but the oligarchic military-industrial complex (MIC).

If we just went back to pre-Bush tax rates and used a dedicated 0.1% tax on financial transactions to pay off the debt and fix our infrastructure, we'd be fine.

 

[Kulindahr]

Lower unemployment exerts very little pressure on wages, though it is perhaps somewhat more likely to positively affect workers who earn below the median wage.

Are Wages and the Unemployment Rate Correlated? (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; December 2014)​

Though the reality at the moment is that incomes are declining or stagnant for those earning the median wage income ($30k) or less. This is why a general median income chart isn't very helpful; we to a serious degree have two economies -- and one isn't doing well.

 

[opinterph]

Though the reality at the moment is that incomes are declining or stagnant for those earning the median wage income ($30k) or less. This is why a general median income chart isn't very helpful; we to a serious degree have two economies -- and one isn't doing well.

US median income is higher than $30k.

What are the two economies?

 

[Kulindahr]

US median income is higher than $30k.

What are the two economies?

Not for wage-earners, it isn't -- over half of wage earners don't make $30k/yr.

The two economies are wage earners and salaried. Income for salaried workers has been rising, especially at the upper end, but income for wage earners has stagnated and even fallen -- definitely fallen in real terms. And the wage-earner economy is growing, thanks to the way GOP policies in a number of states are increasing wage jobs (low-paying ones at that) while salaried jobs are declining.