Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 10:20 AM Jan 2017

There will be a bloodletting in the Democratic Party

I'm not sure the headline matches the article all that well. There will be a bloodletting, only if ordinary votes decide they are fed up enough to primary the worst offenders. But I think he is correct in that the Senate Democrats, in particular, are proceeding as if this is business as usual. They mistakenly think they will be punished for obstruction. I disagree; I think their voters will turn out massively (even in the mid-terms) if they show some gumption, even if it is largely symbolic.

http://theweek.com/articles/676013/there-bloodletting-democratic-party

Democrats are stuck in an antiquated, genteel model of how the Senate is supposed to operate. The president needs to staff his cabinet, and so back in the day, unless somebody was really terrible, the norm was that he should basically get to pick who he wants. And indeed, when Obama first took office, he got reasonable deference — though Senate Republicans did block Judd Gregg, and Tom Daschle had to withdraw due to ethics violations not one-hundredth the size of those of Treasury nominee Steven Mnuchin.

But for the most part, Republicans mounted total procedural obstruction to Democrats and President Obama, and it only worsened as his presidency passed. The goal, as then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in 2010, was to "deny President Obama a second term." They filibustered nearly every bill, even ones that would go through 100-0, simply to gum up the calendar and eat up precious floor time. They filibustered nearly every judicial nominee (until Senate Democrats scaled back the filibuster), to keep liberals out of the courts — and last year, when Antonin Scalia died, Senate Republicans refused to even consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee for an entire year, in hopes that Trump would be able to fill the seat. That has literally never happened before.

This has been a nihilistic, will-to-power struggle for years now, and obviously so. Republicans now control the whole government due to happenstance and the idiotic Electoral College, but they're not moderating their policies to the slightest degree out of some sense of decorum. Instead, they're going to ram through their agenda as fast as possible, and try their utmost to disenfranchise enough liberals and rig the election procedures such that America becomes a permanent one-party state.


18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

hadEnuf

(2,150 posts)
1. It's time for a total revamp of the Democratic Party. For real.
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 10:32 AM
Jan 2017

Enough is enough. The people that are, and have been leading the party are simply not equipped to handle what the RW is doing.

We do not have any "wartime" leadership at all, and it is crystal clear that the GOP and the RW have declared total war on anyone Democratic, Progressive, Liberal, etc..

2. I would think
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 10:42 AM
Jan 2017

that Democrats, and some Republicans has best grow a backbone, stand up to Trump, or there will be a blood-letting in the midterms like America has NEVER SEEN. The time to choose sides now, and there are only two sides to choose from. Those who support the great orange menace, and those who oppose him and his plan for America...this reality crosses party lines, and will cross party lines in 2018.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
4. Time will tell.
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 11:22 AM
Jan 2017

It's only been a week, even if it feels like a year. I have my doubts about Republicans' willingness to oppose Trump so far. They seem to be falling in line, no matter what they say. Democrats seem to be doing somewhat better. I think it is important to keep the pressure on, to keep calling our reps, no matter which party they belong to.

global1

(25,168 posts)
3. Which Dem Senators Are Vulnerable In The Next Election?.....
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 10:50 AM
Jan 2017

I suggest we watch the very closly between now and then.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
5. I think the ones in red states.
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 11:24 AM
Jan 2017

Manchin (whom I expect to switch parties eventually, but we'll see), Tester (which is why I think they should confirm Zinke, who is probably the least bad person for Interior, but also would be the strongest opponent for Tester). And probably some others.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
15. Claire McCaskill
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 03:46 PM
Jan 2017

Nothing good would come of a primary. She's as liberal as we're likely to get in MO. Republicans swept the executive branch last November. She is very vulnerable and a primary would do nothing but damage.

irisblue

(32,829 posts)
18. Sherrod Brown will have a very hard battle to retain his seat
Mon Jan 30, 2017, 12:23 AM
Jan 2017

He is the only Dem @ a state level. The state party is not well organized or funded due to years of poor leadership. I think he will play safer then bolder in the Senate, unless the trumpians burn down the republicans. I will still work for him in his 2018 campaign.

FSogol

(45,360 posts)
7. I really have to guffaw at posters/writers who look at the country & decide the Democratic party is
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 01:58 PM
Jan 2017

the problem.

Response to FSogol (Reply #7)

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
9. Bernie got it right: cooperate only if Republicans do something that truly helps average people
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 07:43 PM
Jan 2017

Democratic politicians, especially in the senate, seem to go bipartisan on all the wrong things.

Likewise, if you don't stand up for what the base of your party elected you to do, why should swing voters think you will fight for them?

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
11. I think that's true
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 12:27 PM
Jan 2017

Expect that most things the Republicans offer will be attached to something so much worse.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
13. effectively it means don't cooperate at all except for Trump not wanting to start a war with Russia
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 02:47 PM
Jan 2017

although he cancels that out with trying to start one with China.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
10. The DLC strategy sort of worked while Reaganism was ascendant, but the 2008 crash killed Reaganism
Fri Jan 27, 2017, 07:44 PM
Jan 2017

DLCers kept going like it was 1992.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
17. That's not what this is and you know it.
Sat Jan 28, 2017, 07:38 PM
Jan 2017

It's about them lacking spines and pretending it's business as usual. This is not normal. We all complained when they did the same thing under Bush, but this is many times worse.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»There will be a bloodlett...