Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48
  1. #1
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default The Democratic Party after Obama

    As Barack Obama prepares to leave the White House, where will the Democrats go when they hand over the White House in January 2017?

    On one level, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, so while the Democrats have lost the White House, their electoral base is still solid, and loyal, setting aside those 'floating voters' who voted Clinton because they could not vote for Trump. On another level, the two main candidates -Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders- were both from an older generation than Obama, Sanders was not even a Democrat, and for all her skills and experience, Clinton lacked vision, and had baggage that voters believed contained too many skeletons.
    Could the Democrats have won with a different candidate? Is this the end of an era, or merely a rude interruption by people who feel left out of the benefits of living in a rich country?

    Crucially, do the Democrats have a response to what is being called the 'Populist surge'?

    The UK's exit from the European Union and the Trump victory are being seen as a trend next Spring that will send Marine le Pen to the Presidency of France, that will elect Geert Wilders as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, while the two centrist parties in Germany may see their vote eroded by the extremist Alternativ fur Deutschland. It is also being seen as a trend that opposes the 'mega-deals' on trade that are negotiated between states and blocs of states apparently for the benefit of 'corporate interests' rather than, as Trump might put it, 'the little guy'; it is being seen as a reaction against that element of globalisation that enabled industry to send its production lines from the US to China, and to bank its profits in Headquarters based in the lowest tax demanding state rather than back in the USA. It is also being seen as a 'resurgent' nationalism, an anti-immigrant movement that loathes 'political correctness' and multi-culturalism.

    John Authers, writing in the Financial Times the day after Trump's electon victory, argued that the Obama presidency delayed popular reaction to the financial crash of 2008, and that what ended in 2008 was the neo-liberal consensus that had been shaped in the US by Ronald Reagan, and in Europe by Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl and Felipe Gonzalez.
    One can argue that having failed to win more than two terms in the White House since the 1960s, with William Clinton the Democrats shifted to the 'centre ground' established by Reagan and Bush, and maintained the neo-liberal agenda, much as the British Labour Party to win an election under Tony Blair ditched all the policies, indeed the identity of the party so closely associated with failure, to become a clone of the Thatcher government.

    But is it the case that the Clintons -William and Hillary- and their party are 'paying the price' for this neo-liberal agenda, given that since 1980 it is Conservatives not liberals who have presided over most of the globalisation being blamed for the de-industrialisation of America? I think there has been a profund misunderstanding of what has happened, crystallised in Trump's repetitive argument that it is the trade deals that have gone wrong and must be re-negotiated, for I would argue that it is technological change and the liberalisation of financial markets that has shredded jobs and led to a deep divide between the super-rich and everyone else. And I just don't see how Trump can 're-patriate' jobs from China to the USA, and certainly not in the volume he wants.

    Does the Trump victory negate everything the Obama Presidency achieved and sought to achieve, demolishing the Democrats record on the economy, leaving them as the party of identity politics with the very agenda of immigration and multi-culturalism that the 'God, Family and Country' 'populists' despise? The irony here is that over the next 25 years the 'angry White Americans' who we are told are Trump's core supporters, will be eclipsed in numbers by the next wave of 'New Americans' who will be mostly Hispanic and Asian in origin, yet this does not guarantee a victory for the Democrats, who lost Florida it appears because Cuban Americans did not support Obama's policy on Cuba.

    I don't think the Democrats are in a crisis in the way that the British Labour Party is. They are two very different parties anyway, and the Democrats have an electoral opportunity to pounce in the mid-terms in 2018 that Labour does not have, having been wiped out in Scotland. But I do worry that the Democrats will be seen as a party of identity politics rather than a party of economic sound management, and that unless a new generation steps forward to address the needs of the country and the major changes taking place, they could become the new 'left behinds' in American politics.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.

  2. #2
    Platinum Poster flabbybody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Queens, NYC
    Posts
    8,373

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Good read Stavros. We're scared shitless in New York right about now. I'm pinning a lot of hope on our new Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. He's not an obstructionist by nature, and has personally known Trump for years. But most of the sausage that becomes law will have to pass his potential filibuster.
    There's also the hope that a President Trump will be a very different person than candidate Trump. No doubt deregulation, tax reform, and a better health care platform than Obamacare are issues that need attention.
    It's worth noting that the financial markets' reaction to Trump's victory is closely mirroring BREXIT...initial panic followed by a broad based rally.
    not moving to Canada just yet. My aunt in Toronto had to wait 34 months for her hip replacement. There are no easy answers.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  3. #3
    Silver Poster fred41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Queens, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    It's probably way too early to tell where the Democratic Party should go because in politics, perception and reality are intertwined. A party can have an over-all platform/agenda...but in order to implement that, they still have to win elections.
    ...and so they will simply have to see what a Republican Party under Trump will bring...and, of course, what will happen around the world in the next four years during that tenure...in order to react to it.
    President Obama won in direct response to the war exhaustion and failing economy at the end of the Bush era. His sea of Hope and Change rode right over candidate Clinton because she came out looking like an establishment candidate (another Clinton as opposed to another Bush), and as oft mentioned - a polarizing one, compared to a refreshing younger one with awesome rhetorical skills and a seeming sincerity.
    The Democratic Party probably thought it was now safe to push an establishment candidate again in Hillary Clinton, especially since she has acquired even more experience after wearing some impressive government hats, but apparently that was a mistake...especially since the baggage (perceived or otherwise) didn't go away...it only got bigger. The party probably put too many of their eggs in the wrong basket, but honestly, I don't know who else they should've actually ran. Since the votes were often close, maybe she should've fiddled with who she picked as her running mate...I don't know, it's a lot of speculation.
    ...and a lot of all our speculating turned out to be wrong in the long run anyway. It seemed, at first, luck had turned her way when the angry masses on the right picked Trump (early polling indicated that he was the candidate she should be able to beat) over all the establishment candidates in the Republican Party.
    But it isn't always the messenger, sometimes it's the message.
    ...and I think the new message apparently was "Fuck You !"
    Now to see where, in answer to your question, the Democratic Party (but in reality the Republican Party also...since many there are shaking their heads) can go from here. With a President like this though, who seems to be very hard to control (put away the twitter Donald or no more video games...honestly, he seems like Billy Mummy in that Twilight Zone episode ), we might not have to wait to long to see. God I hope it works out though.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.
    Last edited by fred41; 11-11-2016 at 07:29 PM. Reason: changed location of a parentheses

  4. #4
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    I don’t think Trump is likely to become a different person than he has demonstrated himself to be. But as a politician, he is unformed. His policies are amorphous to non-existent. Were he surrounded by the right people he might be capable of making fair and reasoned decisions. But unfortunately he’s going to surround himself with the likes of Giuliani, Gingrich, Christie (if he’s not in jail), Carson and Palin.

    I wrote a couple of papers a while ago with a colleague who reminds me of Trump. The trick to getting along with him was never to take credit for your own ideas. Let him think he came up with the solutions. The minute I tried to argue with him that we should do things this way or that way I’d get interminable resistance. But if I flattered him, and told him how clever it was of him to think along these lines he’d take the bait and the paper would finally get written. I'm pretty sure that’s one has to handle the Donald.

    The agree with Stavros. Reneging on treaties is not going to bring jobs back to American shores. Perhaps if we start truly paying Americans the slave wages others are getting overseas for doing the mind numbing work (sewing, electronic assembly etc.) that feeds our economy, that will do it - but I don’t think that’s the solution we’re looking for. But the real problem is technology. Because robots are doing the jobs of assembly workers, welders, etc., factories that once hired thousands of people now only hire hundreds.

    The jobs that we do have are service jobs: non-union, no pension, no health insurance, irregular hours. The Healthcare Savings Accounts (Trump’s replacement for Affordable Care) of people who can’t afford to put anything in them are going remain empty.

    Nobody, left or right, yet as a solution to the problems posed by advancing technology. But the right doesn’t even recognize that having such a lopsided economy is a problem. They think if we worked hard enough and wanted it bad enough we could all join the top one percent of one percent - never mind the mathematical impossibility. Math and science can take a hike, and along with women, Muslims, blacks and Hispanics.

    I thought I had something to say...but now I’m just ranting. Haven’t gotten over the fact that our president elect is a xenophobic, egocentric buffoon.

    One word on the demonstrations against Trump. I don’t see the point of them. For an American citizen to say, “Trump’s not my president,” entails “That’s not my Constitution.” The demonstrators DO have every right to protest, but I just think they’re doing exactly what we criticized Trump and his supporters for threatening to do should they lose.


    3 out of 3 members liked this post.
    Last edited by trish; 11-11-2016 at 07:46 PM.
    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  5. #5
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    I agree that we have to accept the result, but I think there is room to discuss what sorts of protests do not challenge the legitimacy of Donald's win but rather his proposed policies. I think many of the things he has proposed will violate people's civil liberties. So there is room to strongly indicate that he will be fought by the masses if he does not uphold our constitution. Donald Trump indicated that if he lost he would accuse Democrats of fraud and rigging, which is a very different sort of accusation and would be disastrous to the democratic process.

    The loss to Donald Trump was a wake up call that there are a lot of people in swing states who feel alienated. But Donald Trump also risks further alienating people and his rule can mobilize the public. I think it was a perfect storm for Republicans, as we had a very divisive Democratic candidate, mostly due to misogyny, and a candidate who was able to exploit that sentiment because he had no shame and encouraged others not be ashamed of their prejudices either.

    But I don't think any of this indicates that the Democrats need to drastically re-vamp their platform. Republicans won by a small margin. Is there a way to win over some of the people in the midwest who would benefit from Democratic policies? I think there is...and I think people will be primed for that message if Donald fails to deliver. But we need to try to encourage people to focus on the issues that matter rather than being sucked into a cult of personality type of election.

    There is a reason that it's difficult for either party to retain power for too long, as each new administration creates masses of disappointed people who feel their views are not adequately represented. The demographics in this country do not indicate that Donald can do what he pleases without mobilizing people who maybe weren't as engaged as they might have been. We take it on the chin, hope he doesn't do too much damage, and work on our presentation!


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.

  6. #6
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    I think there is a bit of a trap for us, because there are some on the far right who keep proclaiming that they're tired of us pretending to be morally superior and accusing them of bigotry. But we can only remedy that to the extend that we accuse people who aren't guilty of bigotry of being bigots. I'm not sure what else there is to do since we can't simply concede on some things. Hopefully there is a reasonable mass of people we can appeal to (by being less snide? I plead guilty and can make that effort) in the center, who feel left out but are ready to accept others and stand up for their rights.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    939

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    As the Florida results were coming in Tuesday night, something in the back of mind was telling me that Obama's decision on Cuba was coming into play. While I totally understand the suffering that the Cuban people (both here and in the country itself) have gone through, the time had come to normalize relations with Cuba. The over 50 year old policy that was in place had failed and probably did more harm to Cuba than good. So I don't what know Cuban Americans want the United States to do. We tried regime change there and it literally blew up in our faces.

    Having said that, while I think the Trump presidency was inevitable, I think Hillary could have probably done more to make sure she did win it.



  8. #8
    Silver Poster fred41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Queens, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by blackchubby38 View Post
    Having said that, while I think the Trump presidency was inevitable, I think Hillary could have probably done more to make sure she did win it.
    Many think so...she lost her base in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (she didn't even bother campaigning in Wisconsin at all)...states that Trump actively courted and campaigned in.

    Look how close those States came in between the two :
    http://www.politico.com/2016-electio.../map/president

    ...usually a percentage point and even less than that in Michigan so far.


    Last edited by fred41; 11-12-2016 at 12:38 AM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    939

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by fred41 View Post
    Many think so...she lost her base in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (she didn't even bother campaigning in Wisconsin at all)...states that Trump actively courted and campaigned in.

    Look how close those States came in between the two :
    http://www.politico.com/2016-electio.../map/president

    ...usually a percentage point and even less than that in Michigan so far.
    Now there are two reasons why she didn't bother campaigning in Wisconsin and doing more in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    1. Arrogance in thinking her base in those states were going to show up and vote for her. Which once again, she took an election for granted and thought her presidency was inevitable.

    2. Her health was a lot worse than we all originally thought and she made a tactical decision to conserve her energy by not campaigning as much. If you look during the month of October, she took a few days off from the campaign trail here and there.


    I think we are going have to wait a couple of years when people begin to write the postmortem on her campaign to find out what the answer is. The same goes for how the media and people like Nate Silver got it all wrong.



  10. #10
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by flabbybody View Post
    Good read Stavros. We're scared shitless in New York right about now. I'm pinning a lot of hope on our new Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. He's not an obstructionist by nature, and has personally known Trump for years. But most of the sausage that becomes law will have to pass his potential filibuster.
    There's also the hope that a President Trump will be a very different person than candidate Trump. No doubt deregulation, tax reform, and a better health care platform than Obamacare are issues that need attention.
    It's worth noting that the financial markets' reaction to Trump's victory is closely mirroring BREXIT...initial panic followed by a broad based rally.
    not moving to Canada just yet. My aunt in Toronto had to wait 34 months for her hip replacement. There are no easy answers.
    A pragmatic post, and one that I cannot argue too much with because my weakness lies in not knowing who's who in Washington and thus who might be the most effective challengers to the Trump agenda. Politics now should probably be called the 'art of the deal' in which Trump finds that his challengers in Congress are harder to please because they are not necessarily focused on price and profit, but also principle. Right now it looks like Trump is out of his depth, he looked shell-shocked yesterday as if the responsibility of being 'the man' in the Oval Office was more than he anticipated. This also means he will, I think, be heavily reliant on his team, and thus there is a danger that 'politics as usual' will swamp the Trump and drain away his commitment to some of his policies. There is a reason why it is called the Beltway, and as long as Democrats and Republicans know how to make it work for them, the worst excesses of Trump can be shunted into the long grass. How, if at all, Trump can change it I do not know.

    But, if the Democrats are as obstructive to a Trump administration as the Republicans were for Obama, does this not reinforce the 'populist' complaint that the politicians spend more time attacking each other than working for the good of the country? The party system itself has been the focus of much public anger in this election cycle, and I wonder how both Democrats and Republicans can restore the faith they want the people to have in them, in order to prevent another outsider from challenging their grip on power.



Similar Threads

  1. Democratic politics in a nutshell...
    By Ben in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 08:18 PM
  2. A Democratic Thanksgiving
    By chefmike in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 08:50 PM
  3. BARRACK OBAMA! Democratic Nominee.... Who should be VP?
    By BrendaQG in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 06-01-2008, 03:09 PM
  4. Democratic Party Volunteers Wane (BayArea.com)
    By White_Male_Canada in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2006, 07:19 PM
  5. Republican state senator joins Democratic Party
    By chefmike in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 03:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •