The Case For A Populist Challenger In The Democratic Primaries - Robert L. Borosage/HuffPo

[WillyT]

X-Posted From GD:


The Case for a Populist Challenger in the Democratic Primaries
Robert L. Borosage - HuffPo
Posted: 02/18/2015 12:14 pm EST Updated: 02/18/2015 12:59 pm EST

<snip>

A raft of reasons are floated for why someone should challenge the prohibitive favorite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries, most of them spurious. Yes, polls show Democrats want a contest, not a coronation for their presidential nomination. The press and talking heads also yearn for a contest, if only to have something to cover. But this doesn't justify a run.

Contrary to many pundits, Hillary (first name used as shorthand to distinguish her from her husband) doesn't need a primary contest to get her campaign in shape. She's already been central to three presidential campaigns, as underdog, incumbent and, disastrously, overwhelming favorite. She has every high-priced operative in the party. If she doesn't know how to put together a campaign by now, an upstart challenger won't help.

Some suggest a challenger could move Hillary to the left, as if Hillary Inc. were a bloated ocean liner needing a plucky tugboat to put it on the right path. But the Clintons are experienced pros when it comes to running more populist than they govern. Hillary found her populist pitch in 2008, when it was too late to save her. She's knee-deep in pollsters and message meisters. She won't need a challenger to teach her the lines.

There are two compelling reasons for a populist challenger to get in the Democratic primaries: a fundamental debate about the direction of the country has only just begun and must be expanded, and a growing populist movement would benefit from a populist challenge to Hillary.

The Deep Divide

This isn't conventional wisdom. Matt Yglesias argues that Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the nomination not because of name recognition or the Clinton money machine but because no large ideological divisions separate Democrats. New Dems have embraced the social liberalism they once dreaded. Foreign policy differences are minimal. All Democrats sing from Obama's populist songbook. All favor raising the minimum wage, pay equity, investment in infrastructure, bank regulation. Crowdpac, measuring contributors, concludes there isn't much space to Hillary's left.

New York Senator Charles Schumer maintains that the "differences among Democrats are small compared to the chasm on the Republican side." Democrats, he asserts, are united on "fundamental issues," like the minimum wage, pay equity, and paying for college.

The New York Times, reporting that Hillary met privately with Senator Elizabeth Warren, says she's "intent on developing an economic platform that can speak to her party's populist wing and excite working class voters without alienating allies in the business community."

All this understates the deep divide between the party establishment and the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Yes, all agree -- finally -- that this economy works only for the few and not the many. But the debate about what that means and what must be done to change it has only just begun, and already the differences are immense.

The center of the party...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-case-for-a-populist-c_b_6706264.html

[antigop]

1. "The mainstream media highlight the horse race and the polls, even early,...."

The mainstream media highlight the horse race and the polls, even early, when they are at best meaningless indications of name recognition. "Gotcha" moments and slip-ups get more coverage than platforms. The candidates adopt poll-tested stump speeches and canned answers designed to appeal to what they believe their listeners want.

[Thinkingabout]

2. If Hillary went much further left she would be hanging out with Bernie and for me

It would put too far left. Since Hillary and Warren are rated the same don't see how Warren is going to pull Hillary left, in fact, Hillary has been where she is on the chart and the one pulled to the left is Warren. Check the issues, it is plain to see.

[sabrina 1]

8. Sorry, that simply isn't true. First, Hillary is a Hawk, there is no war the neocons want that she

doesn't warmly embrace. See the disaster in Libya, eg. She has boasted publicly about our 'proxy wars'. See, it's a more 'brilliant' way to invade and kill people to get your 'allies', see dictators like the Saudis, Quatar and Bahrain eg, to 'work' for you so 'we don't need boots on the ground'. Or more correctly, because the world now views the US as a brutal Imperial power and do not want them 'helping to create Democracy 'like Iraq'.

And she is a Wall St insider. Funded by them, she is not likely to do anything to upset the ill-gotten power they have gained over this country. Not likely to reverse DEREGULATION which helped GIVE them that power.

Every other issue of importance is affected by these two major issues.

Warren is vastly different in her stand on Wall St, unafraid to ask why 'any corrupt Wall St Bankers are not in JAIL'?

I don't think attempting to compare the two favorably is going to solve Hillary's problem with the 'left' wing of the party or Independents.

[Thinkingabout]

9. It is exactly the truth. You can bring up some differences but you know they stand together on

The chart. Hillary has been there for years, Warren has joined her. You don't like Hillary's defense thoughts and I don't like Warren's lack of defending this country. Warren isn't dumb on deciding not to run for president knowing there would be decisions required of a president but not a Senator. I give Warren credit for knowing what she wants to deal with.

[sabrina 1]

12. The differences are so glaring there really is no point in arguing over it frankly. THIS forum is to

try to figure out what to do about the fact that the people no longer have any choice in who is going to represent them.

There was some progress made in the last mid terms, when voters chose to start rebuilding at the local level. Progressive issues were placed on ballots and WON. Progressive candidates were supported and WON. While Third Wayers fell by the wayside.

It's going to take a long time to rebuild this party and take it out of the hands of the 'Centrists/Third Way/DLC deregulators, Wall St and War supporters, privatizers of SS etc.

But the process HAS begun after more than a decade of 'holding noses' and only making matters worse.

We have some great Democrats to support. The Party Leadership and Wall St of course won't support them, see NJ eg, but the VOTERS can, as they proved in the mid terms.

People are no longer interested really in the same old arguments about this Wall St candidate or the other one.

Those days are gone for a lot of people.

The Dem party belongs to the Working Class, to the elderly, minorities, iow, the most vulnerable. It has been taken over by by multi billionaires who are so out of touch with the voters, they actually think THEY know what is best for us.

Warren IS better staying in the Senate. She has already made progress by being perfectly HONEST about things Hillary dare not speak about.

Not everyone thinks the WH is the end all and be all of politics.

I, eg, am far more interested in restructuring Congress and the Senate to replace those who do not represent the people with Progressive Democrats. Once that is accomplished, Congress can make sure that even if a Repub wins the WH, he cannot get an agenda that is not beneficial to the PEOPLE first, passed.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Be careful when you start talking about Wall Street connections, this is where they get funding.

Warren has made her statement on getting funds from Wall Street and though Bernie talks a big talk he is still meeting with lobbyists from the energy, tobacco and oil industries. Hillary also has her connections with Wall Street.

As far reforming the The Third Way and centrist but let me remind you, we may not be interested in reforming and we vote.

[sabrina 1]

14. WE vote, everyone here votes. The Third Way DOES know this which is why they are working so hard

to try to discredit Warren eg. See this group for proof of their fear of Warren, which totally backfired as they should have expected, only proving how out of touch they are with the voters. Especially DEM voters, such as this group and so many others like it that have sprung up over the past number of years.

As far as Wall St donations, that is who funds the Third Way Think Tank.

If they want to spend money on a Progressive Dem, let them. If they think it will shut that person up, they better look somewhere other than Warren or Sanders.

But IF that happens, you can be sure, people would view them the same way they view other politicians who sold out for donations.

We got over being 'loyal' to those who are not loyal to us. Did that, it did nothing to help the people.

You may not be interested in reforming, but WE are and WE vote too.

[Thinkingabout]

15. I am not crying and complaining about money donated to our candidates and I am not crying

About Wall Street owning the candidates. I have pointed out many times the 90% does not have the funds to support Democrat candidates. Don't talk about one candidate with Wall Street connections when we know it is wide spread. I am not trying to discredit Warren, she is doing a fine job in confronting the financial industries and leading the way on regulations, she understands the financial industry. Likewise stop with the discrediting of Hillary and saying she is owned by Wall Street. Corporations gives to different candidates and lots of times candidates opposing each other, why you may ask, they want to have their bases covered.

It always appears to me there is conflict between the far left and centrists, Third Way, etc. It seems we are for increases in wages, not happy with the disparity between executives and workers, are for women to have the right to choose, are for education and health care, etc, let us work hard on these issues, help the working families which will do lots to improve our lives. The continuous negative out put is not going to work. If you want to pull the wagon forward for working families, grab on to the rope and don't throw stones at those who are pulling.

[Phlem]

16. !?!

Which rope would that be. Because the rope a dope has been around a while and I'm not touching that.

[Thinkingabout]

17. The rope pulling the wagon, huh

[Phlem]

18. So WTF is in the wagon cause that shit hasn't helped since

Bill Clinton.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Guess you did not read the post.

[Phlem]

20. oh please, I read the fricking post.

You still don't make sense.

[Thinkingabout]

21. I could not make sense out of your questions.

[rhett o rick]

22. You acknowledge the gap between the Conservative Third Way and the Left (you say "the Far Left"

like that makes is somehow fanatical, you know, being "far&quot .

So please tell us on which issues you disagree with the "Far Left".

Fracking?
The TPP?
XL Pipeline?
The Patriot Act?
Indefinite Detention?
Torture?
Social Security?
Single Payer Health Insurance?
LBGT rights?

Or add your own.

[Thinkingabout]

23. I believe in the NSA and the work they do

I believe we as people are responsible for our safety and recognize the need to take action when it is needed,
I do not believe in torture disallowed by the Geneva convention,
I believe in rights equal for all, ergo, same sex marriage
I believe in Civil Rights,
I believe in truths and not the spin I hear too often,
I believe in Americans making a living wage,
I believe in a national health care,
I believe in Social Securities and the need for reforming to insure many years in the future.

I read often of Hillary going further left and she is already left, not as far as Bernie which is too far for me. I hear complaints about centrists, centrists are not bad.

[rhett o rick]

24. I asked which issues you disagreed with the Far Left.

I don't speak for the Crazy-Assed Far Left Extremists, but:

I also think the NSA is important. HOWEVER, I think it very, very naive and dangerous not to have safeguards in place to ensure they don't overstep their authority and violate the Constitution. (There I go, crazy-assed Lefty)

I agree with you on torture but would go a step farther and say that when we have people that break the law and commit torture that they should be punished. Really, is that crazy?

I agree that everyone should have equal rights. The poor as well as the WEALTHY. Goldman-Sachs doesn't agree.

Of course I agree with finding truths. That goes w/o saying.

I agree with a living wage for all.

With regard to national health care, I want single payer or Medicare for all. Does that agree with what you want?

I agree with making SS secure, but I say that the cap should be raised in lieu of cutting benefits. Do you agree?

Sincerely, thank you for responding. I have asked that question many, many times and you are the first to answer. It looks like you are not too far off from the stands of the Crazy-Assed Far Left. Do you agree? Maybe they aren't so bad after all.

[whereisjustice]

29. "I believe in the NSA..." holy shit, sounds like religious faith - do you have any oversight

from a civilian government agency that can attest that your faith in NSA is justified?

Or are you just wrapping yourself in a flag as a tear drop of false pride trickles down your chin?

[rhett o rick]

31. First of all I would like you to define "too far left". What does someone that fits that

believe in that you oppose?

Second, H. Clinton isn't any farther left than Nixon. She is a war hawk. She enthusiastically helped George Bush for cripes sake. She is not on the left. How about economically? How far left is she? Will she tax the wealthy? Tax corporations? I doubt it.

How about the Patriot Act. Will she work to see it's repealed? Will she stop the NSA's domestic spying? How about drone killing? I am going to go out on a limb and say she will not agree with the left on any of these issues.

Since you use the term "too far left" as a pejorative, what do they want that you don't agree with?

[Phlem]

3. And here I thought the far left used to be called

Communism. Apparently it has been redefined to include people who support working families especially those that are against wall street, the third way and the 1 %. Economic and social fairness = Far left.

Bernie and Warren are awesome!

[WillyT]

4. Yeah... Remember When We Were Pro-Labor, Safety Net, Health Care, etc...

I think I detest the "NEW Democrats"...

[Phlem]

5. yep. This notion that pervades dialogue that Democrats are not

Democrats because all they focus on are economics. (Seriously, someone said that to me)

My question, How are you supposed to enjoy the rest when your starving to death.

I remember "I'm a New Democrat" in Obama's acceptance speech and that was the red flag for me. I'll be listening for that when a Democrat get's elected to president again.

[rhett o rick]

25. I agree exactly. I have said similar things. How can you enjoy social freedoms standing in soup

lines. Also, if we lose our democracy, the social gains will be lost in minutes.

The New Democrats that want so despairingly to the status quo must have no feeling for the millions that struggle to feed themselves and children. In the nation 22% of our children live in poverty and 45% live in low income households. How can the New Democrats that worship at the alter of Wall Street not feel empathy. In my community over 50% of the children are not food secure. In the summer, when free school lunches stop, our foodbank provides kid friendly extra food for families with children. I want to get a New Democrat by the ear and force them to see the gratitude of the children that get that little extra food.

The New Democrats don't deserve to be able to use the name Democrat.

[Phlem]

26. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[rhett o rick]

27. Thanks. As you can tell, I am very passion about feed the nations children. nm

[nxylas]

7. Which was the plan all along

Redefine the spectrum of "acceptable" opinion from Ted Cruz all the way to Hillary Clinton.

[MisterP]

6. Mr. building-collapse Yglesias?

[sabrina 1]

11. Yglesias is a Third Way product, a Centrist who started out on DK. They used to 'introduce' these

Centrist 'bloggers' on forums like DK. Initially appearing to just be 'like everyone else' but then you noticed, they were getting 'special' treatment for the owners of these blogs.

Never could stand him even when I thought he WAS just another blogger.

A lot of deception went into the preparation of taking over Liberal forums and infesting them with Third Way/Centrists like Yglesias. He is just one of many we 'met' a decade ago. They were promoted and pushed and they deliver the 'message' they are supposed to deliver.

Wish I hadn't been there, in a way, to watch it all develop. Though I doubt I would feel any differently about people like Yglesias and Kos et al.

[sabrina 1]

9. Having a challenger to simply try to 'drag Hillary to the Left' should not be a goal. A challenger

to beat her is what we need. She cannot be dragged away from her Third Way policies, other than to pretend, if they can find the words to 'give impressions' that she is FOR something the Left wants.

Campaign rhetoric isn't going to work for her. Her words will be deliberately confusing on issues her major donors view as important to THEM when they conflict with the views of the Left.

We've already heard some of those confused statements and are not likely to buy them so either she needs to be HONEST and tell us where she really stands, on War on Wall St, on SS, on Education etc without all the think tanks telling her what to say.

Big Money buys the Presidency now. Since that is not in doubt and we know that Big Money will never back a real Progressive Left Leaning Dem like FDR, the question is, 'how do we WIN under these circumstances'?

Should we just give up on the WH races and focus on Congress?

Is the problem insurmountable iow?

[rhett o rick]

28. Saying that a progressive primary challenger will drag HRC to the Left is absurd at best.

It's beyond naive. A progressive challenger might make HRC pretend to be progressive, but after she gets elected, why would she continue to pretend. Learn from Obama. As a primary challenger he ran as very progressive and HRC didn't budge. And after Obama became president he didn't even wait until after inauguration day to dump the Left. Obama pretended to be progressive but I don't think HRC has it in her to be progressive.

Again, I want to thank you sabrina, for your tireless fight against the Third Way/DLC/New Democrats.

[whereisjustice]

30. Hillary will be appropriately corporate in order to please the "independents" eom