Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. #31
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    The Guardian today publishes a profile of Kamala Harris as a potential Democrat candidate in 2020. The article about her is positive, but many of the comments posted to the article are critical of her association with the Clintons, and her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin over (alleged) legal violations relating to One West, a bank that issued thousands of foreclosures on weak mortgages after the 2008 crash, and which you can read about below.

    She comes across well on tv, but is she the right person for the Democrats as she could be seen as a female version of Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...idate-for-2020

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/...mnuchins-bank/


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  2. #32
    5 Star Poster sukumvit boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    los angeles area
    Posts
    2,241

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    The failure of the Trump administration to pass health care reform coincides with the success of LBJ , 52 years ago ,to pass Medicare .
    Just heard an excellent interview on National Public Radio by Terry Gross with Bill Moyers who was white house press secretary for the Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967 .
    http://www.npr.org/2017/08/03/541278...e-52-years-ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers



  3. #33
    5 Star Poster sukumvit boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    los angeles area
    Posts
    2,241

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    The Guardian today publishes a profile of Kamala Harris as a potential Democrat candidate in 2020. The article about her is positive, but many of the comments posted to the article are critical of her association with the Clintons, and her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin over (alleged) legal violations relating to One West, a bank that issued thousands of foreclosures on weak mortgages after the 2008 crash, and which you can read about below.

    She comes across well on tv, but is she the right person for the Democrats as she could be seen as a female version of Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...idate-for-2020

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/...mnuchins-bank/
    As noted by fred41 earlier , "Few , if any , politicians are going to be beyond reproach". However , the Democrats are probably going to be looking for a 'squeaky clean' candidate and the Mnuchin baggage Harris is carrying will probably disqualify her.
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/democ...g-star-harris/



  4. #34
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by sukumvit boy View Post
    As noted by fred41 earlier , "Few , if any , politicians are going to be beyond reproach". However , the Democrats are probably going to be looking for a 'squeaky clean' candidate and the Mnuchin baggage Harris is carrying will probably disqualify her.
    An interesting article and I wonder if the Sanders Club is taking its cue from the 'surprising' vote for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour in our recent election to argue that the Democrats would also do better if they had a more 'radical' agenda? The two are not comparable, because as well as a larger than usual youth turn out, many voters chose Labour as a 'pro-EU' or 'wish I hadn't voted Leave' party rather then 'Out means out' Tories and in spite of Labour sharing the Tories' commitment to leave, albeit with an ambiguous position on the final terms and whether or not there will be a vote/second referendum.

    'Squeaky clean' is, dare I say it, too much to ask of an American or most other politicians, who often stab someone in the back at some point in their careers in order to have one. Mnuchin may be a weakness, but is it fatal? The problem is not the instant revulsion at the words 'Wall Street' but the fact that the USA needs Wall St to invest in the economy and jobs as well as to pay pensions so rather than attack it, a Blairite 'work with them' position would make more sense, just as long as the Regulation of finances is not relaxed as it was on both sides of the Atlantic from the 1990s up to 2008.

    The point is she comes across as intelligent, caring and politically capable, but as I have said before, I only know her because of the Senate hearings, and thus don't hear much from other potential candidates if they don't make it to UK media. And, notwithstanding Obama, is the Senate enough to be a launching pad for the Presidency?

    Rational and costed policies that will encourage jobs and economic growth are more important than fabulous promises that fool no-one. The USA, like the UK also faces long term problems in skilled labour, which is why even the US, guided to eternal glory by its Pharaoh, is factoring into its immigration policy the option to 'allow in' skilled workers who will benefit the economy, raising the question why aren't your sons and daughters studying chemistry and engineering? How jobs that pay over the minimum wage in depressed areas of the country also poses a long-term problem but as in the UK I don't know what the solution to that is.



  5. #35
    5 Star Poster sukumvit boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    los angeles area
    Posts
    2,241

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Here are some thoughts from the horse's mouth , from "The Democratic Strategist" .
    http://thedemocraticstrategist.org/
    Also a "Salon" article from Robert Reich who sees the American two party system as "finished".
    http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/robe...evolt_partner/



  6. #36
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by sukumvit boy View Post
    Also a "Salon" article from Robert Reich who sees the American two party system as "finished".
    /
    A fatuous article by Robert Reich who was an influential figure in that moment when the Democrats detached themselves from its core base, and who can't or won't take responsibility for it.

    Third party politics in the USA has existed before -Presidents have represented five different political parties, and one merger between Democrats and Republicans (Jefferson) all in the 19th century- but has yet to become strong enough to break the duopoly.
    https://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html

    There is no parallel with the UK, because of the way our party politics developed after the Reform Act of 1832 and progressive reforms to the suffrage expanding the voter base. The emergence of the Labour Party in the first 25 years of the 20th century led to it becoming the major opposition party to the Tories because the Liberal Party contained within it people who were comfortable in either Labour or Conservative parties, and lost its identity at a time when socialism was popular. The Liberal's loss was Labour's gain. But, it was because socialism had existed before the creation of the Labour Party that the party was able to harness an existing base of support -and not just among industrial workers-and translate it into political success. Even when the party lost senior figures in 1981 when they broke away to form the Social Democratic Party, Labour retained its core base and survived while the SDP faded into history.

    The one thing Labour could not do -and has never done- was prevent a mean 30% of working class voters choosing the Conservatives, mostly because Englsh nationalism is associated more with the Tories than Labour, and this is where I think third party politics in the USA has its most telling problem.

    The Republican Party has become the party of American nationalism -but more specifically a 'nationalism' that appears to be biased toward a White and Christian America while the Democrats are now thought of as the MultiCulturalism Party.

    There is here, a desperate contradiction, because while America remains more white and Christian than any other precise denomination, it has also always been multi-cultural, with a strong element that was neither White nor Christian -but White Christians have dominated the politics and economics of the USA and tended to impose their preferences on the rest of society whatever its colour or creed, indeed a sense that some White Christians have, that they may be losing their 'right' to control the agenda -or indeed, that they have already lost it- may explain the polarization that has resulted in the election of a man who simultaneously claims to be defending White Christian America, while attacking the system that maintains them.

    It strikes me that what the recent elections suggest, taking in the TEA Party movement through to the 2016 election, is that resentment has become a powerful political tool, and that what 'White Christian' America both fears and resents, is the challenge to its hegemony that it perceives in the patterns of immigration that they believe is changing America. It is I suppose odd that most immigrants from the south are both White and Christian, almost all of them who are religious being Roman Catholic, like Stephen Bannon, so what is the 'threat'? A decline in English as the 'natural' language of the USA? As often happens when fear and resentment become convenient substitutes for genuine analysis, the privileged class believes that 'newcomers' who have not invested any time, effort or money into the USA are nevertheless instant beneficiaries of its housing, its welfare and its jobs, even if most new immigrants cannot afford a house, are on low-paid jobs the privileged will not do, and don't rely on welfare -regardless, the image takes hold and the fear that they are losing their precious America thus revives previous fears from the 19th and 20th centuries, that American is being taken over by the Chinese, the Irish and, of course, the Jews.

    The Democrats praise what the Republicans condemn yet both are seen to have been the authors of the current problems in employment and wages. But, if there is some logic in the argument that if neither party is addressing the problem, then a new party can and should, that doesn't confront the organization and ideology issues that come with it. For a third party to emerge and to be a success, which means capturing Congress where real policy is made, it needs an organization -funded by substantial amounts of money- in 50 states, and a clearly stated set of policies and ideas that appeal to voters in 50 states. It also needs credible leaders and speakers who can transmit the message. You could think of a situation where well-known Democrats and Republicans disillusioned with the sectarian interests of their parties form the new party, but would they then be seen as promoting their own careers, as traitors for abandoning the parties that gave them a career?

    It does not help if one party is seen as Nationalist and the other Multicultural, and these two divisions may be a superficial reading on my part, but what would a new party look and sound like, and who is to be part of it? It looks to me like you are stuck with a two party system unless this present administration succeeds in eroding the confidence in democratic politics to the extent that the divisions in America become consolidated geographically as well ideologically, producing permanent atrophy in Congress. The desire to break the system that has failed may be strong, but who can be confident that a better system will replace what you have now?


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    I should have linked this article from The Hill which argues that neither Democrats or Republicans truly represent American voters but that the 'system' is rigged to prevent or make it hard for a third party to emerge and challenge the duopoly-

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...heres-the-real


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  8. #38
    filghy2 Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,162

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Another factor the article doesn't mention that tends to preserve the existing duopoly is the nature of the voting system. For instance, the 'winner takes all' system that applies in the US electoral college (apart from a couple of states) means that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is not only likely to be wasted, but also makes it more likely that the candidate of the opposite political persuasion will win because it splits the left or right-leaning vote. The same applies to the 'first past the post' system in the UK parliament. I don't fully understand the voting systems used in the US HoR and Senate, but I believe it's generally either 'first past the post' or a two-round system where the two candidates with the most votes in the first round then have a second-round runoff election.

    The voting system that is most favourable to independents and minor parties is proportional representation. For instance, this is used in the Australian Senate, where independents and minor parties almost always hold the balance of power. A common criticism of PR is that it leads to gridlock and minority views having disproportionate influence. Given recent history in the US, however, it's hard to see how things can get worse on that score. The upside is that the ruling party is forced to compromise to pass legislation and more extreme measures tend to get moderated.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by filghy2 View Post
    The voting system that is most favourable to independents and minor parties is proportional representation. For instance, this is used in the Australian Senate, where independents and minor parties almost always hold the balance of power. A common criticism of PR is that it leads to gridlock and minority views having disproportionate influence. Given recent history in the US, however, it's hard to see how things can get worse on that score. The upside is that the ruling party is forced to compromise to pass legislation and more extreme measures tend to get moderated.
    Before the EU Referendum there was another one in the UK, in 2011, which rejected proposals to replace 'First past the post' (or Single Member Simple Plurality). The arguments you make on the power PR gives to small parties is the most potent because it raises the question why should a party with such little support across the country have so decisive an influence on policy? I understand the argument that PR is a more faithful representation of what voters want, but in most cases they end up with a party in government most of them did not vote for.
    Compromise never used to be a problem, it was been a staple feature of US politics at one time. I think the deeper problem is that the divisions in US society have been reinforced by the increasingly sectarian nature of party politics, with the problem being that if this is a reflection of society at large it makes it harder to mend those divisions, particularly when parties exploit them.

    At the moment the Republicans after barely six months are looking for a new candidate to run for them in 2020 which raises the question -which party actually supports this President? And, if he were to form a new party himself now, would that break the mould and re-elect him in 2020? I understand Reince Priebus on behalf of the Republican Party made the new President swear an oath of loyalty to the party either just before or just after the Inauguration, an extraordinary thing to have happened and one that the new President may have resented. But he did declare in the first tv debate in the party nomination phase that if not selected he would consider running as an independent against the party.

    Your other remarks on the reason why third parties fail are spot on.



  10. #40
    filghy2 Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,162

    Default Re: The Democratic Party after Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    The arguments you make on the power PR gives to small parties is the most potent because it raises the question why should a party with such little support across the country have so decisive an influence on policy? I understand the argument that PR is a more faithful representation of what voters want, but in most cases they end up with a party in government most of them did not vote for.
    I know many people make this argument, but I'm not sure it's right. The point is that minor parties can only have influence when their vote is combined with one of the major parties. Under PR, this would signify that parties representing more than 50% of the electorate support that position.

    Voting systems are a very tricky issue, however. The late economist Kenneth Arrow once demonstrated that, given a choice between 3 or more alternatives, it is impossible to devise any voting system that will simultaneously satisfy a set of basic criteria for fairness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%...bility_theorem



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
  •