Home | About | Donate

Following Ossoff Loss, Democrats Urged to Embrace 'Bold Progressive Vision'


#1

Following Ossoff Loss, Democrats Urged to Embrace 'Bold Progressive Vision'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

On the heels of Democrat Jon Ossoff's narrow loss to Republican Karen Handel in the high-profile Georgia special election on Tuesday, many commentators are pinning the defeat on Democrats' glaring lack of an inspiring and ambitious progressive agenda.

"Democrats can excite their base and also win over voters who are frustrated with both parties with a vision to transform our nation into one that serves the many and not a powerful few."
—The Working Families Party


#2

A progressive agenda would be helpful in a number of districts but not in the one that Ossoff lost. This is a district that appears to have switched from Democratic to Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed civil rights legislation. Both center left and progressive Democrats preach against racism which probably would not play well in this district. The Republicans have embraced racism ever since they adopted a southern strategy. The Democrats best chance of winning is in districts where the issue of racism is less important and tolerance of people of various races and ethnic background is accepted. The country is divided into a group that thinks who were are basically is a white Christian country and a group that thinks who we are a country equally for everybody regardless of race and ethnicity.


#3

Well, Hillary's loss didn't wake up Dems to fact that they are the no-message, no-changes, do-nothing party that can't get elected. Maybe their recent losses (and the accompanying commentaries) will finally pull the sleep from their eyes. I won't hold my breath...


#4

Old guard Dems don't want to be an alternative to the Repubs. What the Dems really want is for the Democratic Party to exchange places with the Republican Party in the sense that they would then be the ones to receive the big money contributions and wield more corporate influence. The Dems feel deprived by having to rely on the working and middle class voters. Dems would much rather prefer to receive their economic blessings from the oligarchy like the Repubs do.

So it isn't that the Dems should embrace a 'Bold Progressive Vision' as much as it is that the Dems should stop embracing the Repubs 'Regressive Lack of Vision'!


#5

The problem is we have two corporate, pro-capitalist parties; socialism is the only solution (though I have little confidence that we'll find our way as a species).


#6

Hello Jake Johnson and Everyone, The democratic party has a great idea. Lets become the neo Whig Party. They will get what they deserve. With their demise I hope that a new liberal and progressive party emerges!!!!!!! Otherwise there will be HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!! I believe that the latter is the odds on favorite!!!!!!


#7

Democrats aren't interested in serving the public; they are the servants of Elites/wealthy
and act only in the interests of money and right wing power and more so every day.

These are people who were put in power to serve their masters - not us.


#8

Two, even so, Democrats cannot take any race for granted—and if they want to win these tight races, they must do more than just be anti-Trump and spend millions of dollars. They must put forward a bold progressive vision for our country, running on core Democratic values."

That's the problem. No one knows what the hell core Democratic values are, anymore. Voters don't. The Party sure doesn't, other than keeping the donor money train rolling.

What you see with the Ossoff campaign is what you'll see in 2018 and 2020. The Democrats will be focusing on battling it out with the Republicans in wealthy conservative suburbs. Progressive values don't sell there. The Dems will stay center right and perhaps even lurch farther to the right to tap into this source of money via Fallon's "the path to retaking the House...runs through the Panera Breads of America."

Progressives and liberals need to bury the dead donkey, once and for all and get serious about an alternative. Way overdue.


#9

How many times will liberals say "they (the DNC) just don't get it" before they look themselves in the mirror and say, "WE don't get it."? Maybe the party really doesn't care all that much about being the majority party. Maybe its power structure is more concerned with continuing to get funds from Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex than it is with controlling Congress, or a majority of state legislatures or governorships?


#10

The people in charge of the Democratic Party have been in charge as the party has utterly collapsed. They don’t see the party as a vehicle for progressive change because if that were the case, they’d have to not only stop taking bribes from their big money donors, they’d have to actually take them on. The Democratic Party is their means of getting nice articles in dinosaur papers, nice gigs at propaganda mills that some call think tanks, their means of getting on TV and getting nice speaking fees. Handing the party over to others takes away their piggy bank, and they clearly don’t care that their party has collapsed, is getting killed by a minority party with deeply unpopular ideas or that their party is now as unpopular as Trump is nationally, or that voters have said that they feel that the party doesn’t understand them. They want to keep everything in place, because that means their position in the power structure remains, and if everything falls to hell, oh well. They’ll profit all they can along the way.

I find it comical though that people like Neera Tanden think they are part of the damn “resistance”, whatever the hell that is with people like her running to the front of the parade. She and people like her are also being resisted, and they are also obstacles to progressive change, just different obstacles than the right wing. There’s a reason why they don’t get behind the most popular politician in the country and why they don’t back popular policies. If they did that, bye bye to the donors they voted to accept money from on the day they tapped Perez to lead the party. At what point does the left just abandon that party, realizing that it is not at all a vehicle of progressive change and possibly cannot be reformed? Cause voting for them simply because they aren’t as bad as a rotten and unpopular minority party long ago stopped making any sense to people outside their small bubble.


#11

And stop portraying each foray into red states and districts that offers a Dem challenger as a 'test' of the progressive democratic anti-Trump agenda, and strength--I think it's unwise, and stupid. Media may do it anyway, but we don't have to.


#12

This is a stupid article, sorry. Here's what won this deep red district for Republicans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/20/georgias-lesson-all-politics-is-tribal/

Scary liberals/progressives want to do terrible things, tax you to do them, and Ossoff is one of them. Switch Ossoff to Bernie Sanders and it would have been the same. Handel had no real agenda except to say that as did the dark money millions spent to promulgate that message. In a plus Republican district, where there are just more Republicans, that's all they need to do.

Republicans have built a consistent, reliable voting block that doesn't hyper analyze every political failing of a candidate. They win in their districts.


#13

Sorry, but Ossoff certainly had a message. If you mean that Ossoff would have won with a further-left message, then you are mistaken - he would only have lost by a greater margin. Such is the current state of most of the USA, unfortunately.


#14

The problem is that the there are no shortcuts to progress and a lot of people are mistaken if they think that politicians like Bernie Sanders can win, nor should be expected to win, in most parts of the US. A long, generational effort to steer the conversation to the left is needed - just as the Right did after their defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964. The problem is - the right gets enormous support from the wealthy to run an unparalleled indoctrination system. The left is never going to have such resources.


#15

Any person who opposes medicare for all deserves to lose.


#16

We have to get out of the defeatist mode of celebrating narrow defeats as victories.
If a seat is lost by one vote or by a million, the whole seat still goes to the victor.
We have to get over that last hump and actually start winning!
We cannot complain about lack of assistance from the President with his maneuvers fit for a spoiled child.


#17

Well, then we're doomed, because we don't have time for a generational effort, particularly with regard to the climate.


#18

The DLC democrats, despite their abject failure in the last twenty years, are still selling the same false narrative. They want everybody to believe that it was crossover republican moderates that first elected Slick Willy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Clinton won in 92 because nearly seventeen percent of the electorate abandoned the Republican Party for the wacky libretarian Perot. If Perot hadn't run, GHW Bush would have won a landslide, probably 55 to 45 and the Clinton myth that has steered the Democratic Party to the Right may never have been birthed.
The democrats still hang their hats on the lie of 92. However, what they have really done is hang themselves.


#19

Since Trump's inauguration there have been three congressional races that I know of where the Republican candidate defeated the Democratic candidate. Yes, the Democrats are not that great but who in their right mind can vote for a Republican given their agenda to destroy everything they can for the middle class and poor people. If nothing else, you would think people would make a protest vote against Trump and all he has done to damage the US. But no - these are die hards. Frankly, the US is full of reactionary people who appear to be almost messianic and in a fundamentalist role. Many are outright racist, many are white supremacists even though they would deny that label, many deny science and truth. They are the same people who were out there for the lynchings or supporting the Salem witch trials or serving on all-white juries of black defendants. They hate. Their idea of leadership is Trump, Sheriff's Joe Arpaio or David Clarke. They love the most extreme backwards ways. To them - why clean up Flint's water - it's just a bunch of poor blacks. It doesn't matter that the war in Iraq was based on lies and deceptions. It was great for them - no matter the loss of young American lives and many, many innocent Iraqis. They refuse instruction in the truth but grovel in the fantasy right wing world.

I remember when one Sergeant who had worked in Abu Ghraib prison and testified to the abuses came back to his Maryland hometown and he was treated as an enemy because he told the truth. They hate with a passion other truth tellers like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning. One book comes to mind, Scott Peck's "People of the Lie." How many of those do we find in the US?


#20

In '92 we had two criminals running against an honest so-called wacky libertarian. Too bad Ross didn't win. We know all about Slick Willie's misdeeds but Poppy's evil has been hidden. Read " Family of Secrets" to know about Poppy. Gee, wonder why Poppy never sued Russ Baker for libel ?