Open thread May 6, 2016 Dan Crawford | May 6, 2016 7:36 am Tags: open thread Comments (19) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
I have a hard time understanding why people don’t get this.
“But now ask yourself: What happened in 1965? Well, not only did Johnson win in a landslide but Democrats found themselves possessing historic majorities in the House and Senate. And they proceeded to enact a burst of progressive legislation in 1965-’66 that stands alongside 1933-’34 and 1861-’62 as the biggest legislative leaps forward in American history.
Big change comes from big majorities
It’s no coincidence that these three Congresses produced the biggest spurts of legislation. At the beginning of Abraham Lincoln’s term in office, Southern representatives and senators (overwhelmingly Democrats) had literally walked out in order to support a violent rebellion for the purpose of entrenching slavery.
That left Republicans with giant majorities, and they used them to enact major legislation.
The Depression bequeathed FDR enormous majorities in 1933-’34, and, again, he used them. In 1964, enormous majorities were built on the combination of an economic boom, the emotions around John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and Goldwater’s extremism. And Johnson used them.
Another big burst of legislating happened in 2009-’10, where, again, Democrats had big majorities. Those early Obama years weren’t quite as productive as the sheer numbers might have forecast because Mitch McConnell’s determined use of the filibuster both reduced Democrats’ effective margin in the Senate and generally slowed the pace of legislating. But a lot still got done.
This is the basic reality of the 2016 election — the amount of progressive stuff Clinton gets done is going to be driven more by the shape of Congress than by the content of her platform.”
What does Clinton *want* to get done? What will she get done?
Small increase in taxes on rich. Small increase in government spending and investment. She’s made no comments on monetary policy.
I doubt Hillary will get more done than Obama. Obama’s stimulus wasn’t big enough. He turned to deficit reduction too quickly. He wants to pass the TPP corporate trade deal. Hillary doesn’t want to get more done.
The problem with corporate Democrats is that they don’t *want* to deliver and need to be purged from the party.
What has helped lead to the rise of Trumpism? The worst recovery on record. Yes the austerity Republicans forced on the economy is largely responsible, but Obama could have tried to do more.
Obama’s Fed tightened prematurely.
Most like the Democrats will retake the Senate. Will they deliver for the Bernie voters. I doubt it very much.
The only hope is that the Fed doesn’t kill the economy and the economy and tight labor markets deliver and help government budgets.
Purge the centrist (or corporatist if you prefer) Democrats from the party and enjoy climbing out of the rubble of the country for the foreseeable future. Doubtful if there are any phoenixes rising out of those ashes.
The failures of Obama were not McConnel. Red dog dems hurt the 99% more.
May 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM
The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
By Nate Silver
” As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both. “
“Red dog dems hurt the 99% more.”
Got an example of that?
Lieberman and the “public option” cut out of ACA.
“enjoy climbing out of the rubble of the country for the foreseeable future.”
That’s what we’re doing now thanks to what corporate Democrats have delivered: stagnant wages and rising inequality equals growing Trumpism. Maybe certain are living comfortably at the moment, are afraid of change and don’t want to rock the boat, but then there were comfortable people in Weimar Germany as well.
We have crises with a potential Piketty death spiral and global climate change. The corporate Democrats approach of go slow or stall, stall, stall in exchange for campaign donations isn’t going to work.
We need citizens to get involved. We need a political revolution. The cynics and pessimists say it’s impossible. Then we’re screwed. The establishment pundits also said Trump would never get the nomination. Shows how much they know.
Lieberman was not a Democrat. HE was an independent that endorsed and campaigned for McCain
Lieberman was Gore’s running mate in 2000.
But people like EMichael blame Nader for Gore’s loss even though Gore couldn’t even win his home state Tennessee.
The Democrats better not blow this like how Gore blew it.
Don’t Blow This by Alex Pareene
The independents better not help Trump win.
Do we really need democrats like Senator Mark Warner?
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner Urges the Rich to Challenge Populist Anger (Video)
Trump support is only different from a lot of Clinton support in the areas of racism, and social immorality.
Clinton attracts the well off self identifying liberal who oppose Trumps middle class supports who want to burn witches as religious freedom.
Both are jealous of their socio-economic state.
The people with grievances are watching GoT.
As of today there are three choices, Trump, Clinton or Sanders. This is not rocket science and it is a no brainer to choose Trump. He will be what is best for what this country to bring forth many positive changes for our country. Sanders would make many changes but in differ ways to address disparities in wealth hoarding. Clinton will give you more of the same that we are all currently tired of not getting…
” it is a no brainer to choose Trump”
You are using “no brainer” as an adjective when in this sentence it is clearly an adverb.
Re:Joe Lieberman, he became an independent after progressive interests in Connecticut sought to replace him with one of their own in the Democratic primary and succeeded. He then ran as an independent and won. Up to then, he had been a lifelong Democrat. Bernie, of course, has been an independent his entire career and “became” a Democrat in order to take advantage of the party structure to run for President. Now he doesn’t seem to care for the party structure.
Too many neolibs in the dem. party, not enough Connecticut’s.
You prefer the Liebermans of the world? Interesting.