Kolumnistička i ostala lupetanja

In the case of Sanders, a democratic socialist who seldom describes himself as a “liberal,” the general unreliability of these conventional categories seems even more conspicuous. A large chunk of Iowa and New Hampshire voters, at any rate, seem to think that there’s nothing especially immoderate about a candidate who stands for universal health care, a living wage, and free tuition at public universities.

Certainly, to project what a Sanders-Clinton race might look like after the early states, we need a much more textured portrait of Bernie’s coalition than the experts have given us so far. In Iowa and in New Hampshire  —  as in Vermont, a Republican state when he first won statewide in 1990  —  Bernie’s appeal does not seem limited to “liberals.”

William Murderface wrote:Setih se, Majkl faking Tomaski. Dizel-liberalizam.

https://newrepublic.com/article/142372/elitism-liberalisms-biggest-problem

"Ja sam potomak Gavrila Principa. Majka Gavrila Principa i moj pradeda su rođeni brat i sestra", rekao je Cane. 

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:jebote sunce, oće li ovo ikad da odumre

NYT op-ed

neka dva hilari bota wrote:
Back to the Center, Democrats

The path back to power for the Democratic Party today, as it was in the 1990s, is unquestionably to move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left, whose policies and ideas have weakened the party.


In the early 1990s, the Democrats relied on identity politics, promoted equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity and looked to find a government solution for every problem. After years of leftward drift by the Democrats culminated in Republican control of the House under Speaker Newt Gingrich, President Bill Clinton moved the party back to the center in 1995 by supporting a balanced budget, welfare reform, a crime bill that called for providing 100,000 new police officers and a step-by-step approach to broadening health care. Mr. Clinton won a resounding re-election victory in 1996 and Democrats were back.

But the last few years of the Obama administration and the 2016 primary season once again created a rush to the left. Identity politics, class warfare and big government all made comebacks. Candidates inspired by Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and a host of well-funded groups have embraced sharply leftist ideas. But the results at the voting booth have been anything but positive: Democrats lost over 1,000 legislative seats across the country and control of both houses of Congress during the Obama years. And in special elections for Congress this year, they failed to take back any seats held by Republicans.

Central to the Democrats’ diminishment has been their loss of support among working-class voters, who feel abandoned by the party’s shift away from moderate positions on trade and immigration, from backing police and tough anti-crime measures, from trying to restore manufacturing jobs. They saw the party being mired too often in political correctness, transgender bathroom issues and policies offering more help to undocumented immigrants than to the heartland.

Bigger government handouts won’t win working-class voters back. This is the fallacy of the left, believing that voters just need to be shown how much they are getting in government benefits. In reality, these voters see themselves as being penalized for maintaining the basic values of hard work, religion and family. It’s also not all about guns and abortion. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both won working-class voters despite relatively progressive views on those issues. Today, identity politics and disdain for religion are creating a new social divide that the Democrats need to bridge by embracing free speech on college campuses and respect for Catholics and people of other faiths who feel marginalized within the party.

There are plenty of good issues Democrats should be championing. They need to reject socialist ideas and adopt an agenda of renewed growth, greater protection for American workers and a return to fiscal responsibility. While the old brick-and-mortar economy is being regulated to death, the new tech-driven economy has been given a pass to flout labor laws with unregulated, low-paying gig jobs, to concentrate vast profits and to decimate retailing. Rural areas have been left without adequate broadband and with shrinking opportunities. The opioid crisis has spiraled out of control, killing tens of thousands, while pardons have been given to so-called nonviolent drug offenders. Repairing and expanding infrastructure, a classic Democratic issue, has been hijacked by President Trump — meaning Democrats have a chance to reach across the aisle to show they understand that voters like bipartisanship.

Immigration is also ripe for a solution from the center. Washington should restore the sanctity of America’s borders, create a path to work permits and possibly citizenship, and give up on both building walls and defending sanctuary cities. On trade, Democrats should recognize that they can no longer simultaneously try to be the free-trade party and speak for the working class. They need to support fair trade and oppose manufacturing plants’ moving jobs overseas, by imposing new taxes on such transfers while allowing repatriation of foreign profits. And the party seems to have forgotten that community policing combined with hiring more police officers worked in the ’90s — and it will work again today. It can’t be the party that failed to stop the rising murder rates in cities like Chicago.
Health care is the one area where the Democrats have gained the upper hand and have a coherent message about protecting the working poor from losing coverage. But the Affordable Care Act needs to be adjusted to control costs better, lest employer-sponsored health care become unaffordable. For now, the Democrats are right to hold the line in defending Obamacare in the face of Republican disunity.

Easily lost in today’s divided politics is that only a little more than a quarter of Americans consider themselves liberals, while almost three in four are self-identified moderates or conservatives. Yet moderate viewpoints are being given short shrift in the presidential nominating process. So Democrats should change their rules to eliminate all caucuses in favor of primaries. Caucuses are largely undemocratic because they give disproportionate power to left-leaning activists, making thousands of Democrats in Kansas more influential than millions of people in Florida.

Americans are looking for can-do Democrats in the mold of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton — leaders who rose above partisanship to unify the country, who defended human rights and equality passionately, and who also encouraged economic growth and rising wages. That is the road back to relevance, and the White House, for the Democrats.

The Little Democratic Strategist That Could(n't)
Jul 07

• Branko Marcetic
  

Mark Penn wants Democrats to move to the center. But the only thing the failed strategist is qualified to offer advice on is how to lose.

Коментаришући изјаву председника ДС-а Драгана Шутановца да ће премијерка Ана Брнабић у влади “само хватати Вучићеве белешке”, поручио је да “ако опозиција нема ништа друго да приговори Влади и мандатарки, осим да ће бити послушник Александра Вучића, онда боље да не коментарише”.
“Сматрам да нека врста политичке борбе и приговора политици мора да буде на озбиљнијим темељима”, рекао је Кишјухас, наводећи да му је несналажење либералне јавности у коментарима на избор Ане Брнабић, било “забавно”. Премијерку, каже, пореде са Мирком Цветковићем, и подсећа да он “није пролазио кроз ту врсту топлог зеца, а за њега би се такође могло рећи да је хватао белешке Борису Тадићу”.
Гост Новог дана сматра да избор Ане Брнабић јесте једна врста искорака и да је то што се на челу Владе налази жена мањинске сексуалне оријентације важно, па макар и декларативно. Каже и да би влади Ани Брнабић требало дати времена, па онда на основу резултата оцењивати њен рад.