Skip to main content

View Diary: You See Where This is Headed, Right? (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If Dems thought long-term, we wouldn't be in this (24+ / 0-)

    fix.  Thinking beyond the next cycle is fundamentally antithetical to party "leadership."  As per Charles Pierce:

    As I've been pounding on my little tin drum for a few days now, unless you define peril as not winning the presidency, I don't think the GOP is in that much trouble. (And, twice in 20 years now, we've seen how deftly they can disrupt the administrations of the people who beat them.) They've locked up the House for the foreseeable future. They're getting all kinds of laws past in the states that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. They've stacked the courts to the point where the DC circuit can rule against recess appointments, and where it looks like the teeth of the Voting Rights Act are about to be pulled. The entire economic debate is being fought out on ground only a smidge to the left of their own choosing. Sensible gun control turns out to be DOA, at least in part because Democratic politicians are afraid of mighty Republican ad buys in contestable states. Campaign finance is a a dead parrot, and the system in situ is vastly to their advantage. Real action on climate change is utterly stalled.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:27:22 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The leadership is thinking long term (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, Dallasdoc

      They know the coming demographic changes. They know they may lose 2014, but unless the GOP changes on race issues, which is pretty unlikely, the Dems will win in 2020, a route most likely. With the same DLC leadership in charge because the progressives are overwhelmed by all the folks who were in the party for social issues alone will support whatever the DLC wants to push.

      2016 is going to be a brutal fight in the party.

      Start identifying folks to move up if we want some progressive voice.

      •  It took $100mm to be a viable '08 candidate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ScienceMom, kck, bronte17

        Any candidate will have to have raised more than that ($200 mm ?) by end of 2015 in order to be a viable candidate in 2016.  The 2 viable 2008 candidates raised large chunks of their initial ante from FIRE, and the same precept will hold for 2016.

        FIRE dictated our primary choices last time we had a contested nomination, and they'll have the same privilege next time.  I was out there for Carter in '76, Ted K in '80, Mondale in '84, Paul Simon in '88, Harkin in '92, Bradley in '00, Dean in '04, and Edwards then Obama in '08.  I am under no illusions as to how the game is played at this point.  

        In '08 we had a choice between a W/F Yale Law grad who grew up in Chicagoland and raised big $ from FIRE and a B/M Harvard Law grad who spent his adulthood in Chicagoland and raised big $ from FIRE.  I expect to see us offered similar options in '16.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:22:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site