Will the Democratic Party collapse if they don't embrace Bernieism?

[RINO Tom]

It's not that simple, but it will collapse (and arguably already has) if it doesn't, ya know, act like a liberal party.

[RINO Tom]

Theyll collapse if they do embrace bernieism. There is no way they would hold onto their urban professional wing by shifting to a full on communist/socialist platform

And there's no way their non-urban-professional wing will vote for a party that doesn't promote progressive economic initiatives, and that group is way bigger.

[RINO Tom]

Theyll collapse if they do embrace bernieism. There is no way they would hold onto their urban professional wing by shifting to a full on communist/socialist platform

And there's no way their non-urban-professional wing will vote for a party that doesn't promote progressive economic initiatives, and that group is way bigger.

If it's way bigger, Sanders would have won.

LOL, no.  Most of Clinton's voters were not "urban professionals," dude.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

And that's where you're wrong.  The vast majority of Democratic voters support higher regulations, single payer health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the social safety net, stronger unions, etc.  It's not your Democratic Party NOW.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

And that's where you're wrong.  The vast majority of Democratic voters support higher regulations, single payer health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the social safety net, stronger unions, etc.  It's not your Democratic Party NOW.

Wrong. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/25/bernie_sanders_single_player_health_care_system_poll.htmlhttps://www.google.com/search?q=support+for+gay+marriage&oq=support+for+gay+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i65j69i57j69i59j0l2.4133j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That link doesn't work, but:

1) 77% of Democrats support raising the minimum wage above $10 (compared to 65% of Independents and 55% of Republicans), and 80% of Democrats support going up to $12 per hour (compared to 54% of Independents and 37% of Republicans).  Almost half (48%) of the party - and surely a plurality once you count for no opinion votes - support raising it to $15.00 (compared to 43% of Independents and 24% of Republicans).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/minimum-wage-poll_us_570ead92e4b08a2d32b8e671

2) 80% of Democrats say that we should redistribute wealth through "HEAVY taxes on the rich," compared with 50% of Independents and 22% of Republicans.  How collectivist!!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx

3) 45% of Republicans want government regulations of the economy reduced, while only 9% want them increased.  Meanwhile, only 9% of Democrats want regulations reduced, while 27% want them increased and 40% want the current regulations protected as they are.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188747/majority-americans-dissatisfied-corporate-influence.aspx

4) As pointed out, 58% in your party want new leadership, and only 31% think the current leadership is representative of actual Democratic voters.  You're outnumbered, fella.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2017/58_of_democrats_say_their_party_needs_new_leadership

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

But the Democratic base supports policies that are WAY closer to Democratic Socialism than the Republican base, which makes your constant deriding of "welfare bums" hilarious.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

Really now...so Hillary Clinton's plan to fund such a program by taxing the wealthy and redistributing to lower income people isn't an example of fiscal liberalism? Wtf is then?

Universal college for everyone is a redistribution to upper middle class people.

Paid for by upper middle class (and richer) people.  Maybe I read you wrong, after all: your idea of the "center" on economics is simply derranged!

[RINO Tom]

Clinton was easier to attack because she's been part of the political establishment for so long. Sanders has always had an "outsider-esque" edge to him. Trump supporters may not like Bernie, but I know most of them don't hate him they way they do Hillary. Economically they're honestly very similar, but it's socially they differ hugely.

If Dems drop the neoliberalism, maybe Bernie's economic policies will swing Obama-Trump voters back to the Democratic side.

Did you just suggest that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were similar economically (in which case, you are insane or don't pay much attention) or that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were similar economically (in which case, you're actually right)?

[RINO Tom]

In terms of winning elections, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether to run more progressive candidates or run more moderate candidates. It all comes down to local conditions when it comes to district-wide or state-wide races. In the special election in GA-06, for instance; Bernie-esque economic populism would not have worked, considering how affluent and traditionally conservative the district as a whole is.

There are also certain states where "establishment" politicians with high name recognition in their state have a strong network among each other and you want to tailor to winning local endorsements from these high-profile figures, who are typically moderate. Virginia is maybe the most extreme example of this, where the recent primaries for the gubernatorial race really exemplified the power of more local endorsements. Northam, the slightly more moderate candidate, was endorsed by Sen. Kaine/Warner and Gov. McAuliffe (not to mention every other Democrat in Virginia's legislature), while Periello, the slightly more progressive candidate, was endorsed by big-name out-of-state figures, like Sen. Sanders/Warren. Guess who won? Northam, by a decent margin.

I would also argue that Clinton's loss in 2016 was hardly an indication of a failure to create popular policy. Instead, I think it was much more of an indication that Democrats need to work on their optics game, and that part of the loss is just attributed to dislike of Clinton specifically. I think another Democrat running on the exact same platform would've likely won the election.

I mean, she pretty much adopted everything Sanders campaigned on.  The idea that Clinton was at all fiscally moderate or the "technocratic alternative" to Trump was ENTIRELY a perception, it had no basis in her stated policies.