The Democratic Party after Obama

[fred41]

...or with less public baggage.

That.
Very few, if any, politicians are going to be beyond reproach, but Mrs. Clinton's perfect day in the sun would've been before all the paid speeches, and the foundation ...and so on. I think that when it came to experience, she was eminently qualified.
...and let's face it...she should still have been able to beat Trump.
But I honestly don't think she would have beat 'some' of the other Republican candidates...early polling (yeah, I know...worth nothing really) bears that out.

[blackchubby38]

That.
Very few, if any, politicians are going to be beyond reproach, but Mrs. Clinton's perfect day in the sun would've been before all the paid speeches, and the foundation ...and so on. I think that when it came to experience, she was eminently qualified.
...and let's face it...she should still have been able to beat Trump.
But I honestly don't think she would have beat 'some' of the other Republican candidates...early polling (yeah, I know...worth nothing really) bears that out.

She probably could have survived the paid speeches and the foundation. But if she would have done the responsible thing and not what was convenient for her when it came to the her email server, it would have a made huge difference with many who didn't consider her trustworthy.

[fred41]

She probably could have survived the paid speeches and the foundation. But if she would have done the responsible thing and not what was convenient for her when it came to the her email server, it would have a made huge difference with many who didn't consider her trustworthy.

The stories making the internet news rounds about Top Aide Cheryl Mills not wanting her to run because of this, suggests you may be correct...but the reason we know about this is WikiLeaks...the same reason we have an idea of what she said at the paid speeches.
But she can't really blame WikiLeaks...she just shouldn't have done all those things if she knew she was going to run again.

[Stavros]

As for free trade v. protectionism, it's a very complex subject. I generally think protectionism is harmful in the long-run, unless it's a way of allowing American industries with better employment packages to compete with countries that do not have those standards.

Taking this in with your other comments, the Trans Pacific Partnership offers a good example of a trade deal that contains both positive and negative features in which, the fairly balanced analysis below argues-
Most of the gains in income would go to workers making more than $88,000 a year. Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality in high-wage countries by promoting cheaper goods from low-wage countries.
That would be especially true of the TPP because it protects patents and copyrights. Therefore, the higher-paid owners of the intellectual property would receive more of the income gains.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-t...ership-3305581

But note too that TTP would protect in some cases improve workers rights, it would remove tariffs on exports that US producers would benefit from, and it would bind together countries with a market of 793 million people producing 40% of the world's GDP and 26% of its trade. It seems to me that what the Brexit fanatics want when they want an end to these deals so associated with globalization is a form of economic apartheid in which separate development -in which companies, entrepreneurs and corporations negotiate on their own- replaces state involvement. I think this is a mis-guided romantic view of the world economy where most capital assets and natural resources are owned by states and not private capital.

My point that I should have emphasised is that the Democrats have to offer more than a haven for minorities and offer a coherent alternative economic programme to the one we believe Trump with Republican backing will propose. In the short term, if the USA ditches TPP it means that TPP will just go ahead without the USA, which not only damages the economic prospects of Americans firms and workers, it damages the reputation of the USA which will not be part of a major trading bloc and potentially give China the very promotion in the Pacific you would think the USA would want to prevent. As the link shows, there are weaknesses in TPP which, as with the European TTIP contains the Investor-State Dispute Mechanism which enables corporations in TPP more rights to sue the government of another member than its own citizens have. To drop out of TPP would send a message to the whole of the Pacific region including China (which is not in TPP) that says - We don't care.

The longer term is harder, because if it is true that the 'neo-liberal' regime that held from the 1980s to 2008 has ended, what coherent alternative is there, and one which incorporates the challenges of automation and the 'smart economy' in which profits can be generated without manufacturing or traditional methods as with Amazon, the world's largest retailer without a shop -but which does have the internet?
In the UK the left in the form of the Labour Party has no coherent alternative, other than a return to the failed strategies of the past in which the state takes over industry and in effect, subsidises everything, and an obsession with anti-globalization which with Bernie Sanders lame vision offers workers a crucifixion when they need salvation without being strung up to die in pain. That the left is so opposed to a global economic expansion that has lifted millions out of poverty and put cheap clothes on their back is a mystery, not least because unless they are still wedded to Socialism in One Country the international character of socialism ought to lead to its embrace, as indeed at least one well-known European Trotskyist has argued (Toni Negri, in the book Empire [2000] co-written with Michael Hardt).
The political right appears to be confused with free market capitalists like Liam Fox arguing for the state to withdraw in favour of private capital, for the UK in this sense to 'go it alone' and take its chances in the global market, while Trump has threatened to use state power to shut the US out of the global economy raising tariff barriers and forcing US firms to produce at home. Neither can be right.

But, where we do agree is that income inequality is right there in the middle of this, but as Rawls argued for the fair re-distribution of wealth and profits, something that became anathema to the Reagan-Thatcher vision, so that essential concept of fairness needs to be restored, but finding the mechanism to achieve it will be hard, as it may require tax increases across the board, higher interest rates, and a stricter regulation of banking than has been put in place since 2008, though voters may not in fact object to such measures if they are explained properly.
And, the Democrats have to be united on the programme, and have someone who generates confidence in the future to win the votes they need.

[blackchubby38]

There were two shows that I wanted to check out after the events of last Tuesday night given the fact that both hosts spent the better part of a year ripping Trump. Real Time with Bill Maher and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

If anybody wants to know why Hillary lost the Election and why Democrats will lose again in 4 years if they continue to make the same mistakes, check out Real Time.

If anybody wants to know what they can do over the next 4 years, check out Last Week Tonight.

I also thought that former Pennsylvania governor Ed Randall did a very good job at explaining why the Democrats lost in an interview he gave on CNBC yesterday.

[Vladimir Putin]

The Democrats should try to win back working-class voters and not support trade deals that lead to jobs getting outsourced. I'm not keen on the party appealing to the Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein wing. We're not Europe and the free tuition thing is a bad sell.

[blackchubby38]

The Democrats should try to win back working-class voters and not support trade deals that lead to jobs getting outsourced. I'm not keen on the party appealing to the Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein wing. We're not Europe and the free tuition thing is a bad sell.

I don't believe in the free tuition thing either. But something needs to be done to help make college more affordable for those who are interested in going.

[blackchubby38]

If the Democrats are serious about showing that they understand why they lost this election, they would make Rep. Tim Ryan (OH) the house minority leader over Nancy Pelosi. He is one of the few that I have seen that gets it.

[blackchubby38]

If the Democrats are serious about showing that they understand why they lost this election, they would make Rep. Tim Ryan (OH) the house minority leader over Nancy Pelosi. He is one of the few that I have seen that gets it.

And of course the Democrats don't do the right thing. Pelosi has been re-elected house minority leader. Have fun losing more seats in Congress idiots.

[Stavros]

The reports I have seen in the press urging Michelle Obama to run in 2020 are another sign of desperation. No reflection on her powers as a motivational speaker, but there must be other candidates, or we may end up in 2020 with Chelsea Clinton facing off Ivanka Trump. Are the best and brightest no longer entering politics?