Home | About | Donate

Pro-Clinton Probe of 2016 Reveals That, Yes, Democrats Have a 'Wall Street Problem'


#1

Pro-Clinton Probe of 2016 Reveals That, Yes, Democrats Have a 'Wall Street Problem'

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Underscoring previous assessments that the Democratic establishment, including the party's 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has "a Wall Street problem," new polling and focus group data shows that Democrats are perceived as woefully out of touch when it comes to the economy.


#3

But Russia.

My observation: either the D-party is incapable of honestly assessing their problems with voters due to inertia and stupidity, or they'd prefer to keep the Wall St. gravy train running right on time.

Neither is good.


#5

In other words, the Democratic Party is not going to change its stripes. Instead it will depend upon the "Trump is a Monster" meme that worked so well for them in 2016.

At this rate the Democrats will not only lose in 2020, but will lose in 2018 mid terms as well.

WAKE UP DEMOCRATIC PARTY and return to your roots: the working people of the Country.


#6

:grinning:


#8

Mind boggling how mind scrambled Obama-Trump and drop off voters thought Trump and the GOP would actually be less elitist than Clinton and the Democrats. I'm harshly critical of the neoliberalism and neoconservatism of Clinton and the Democrats, but anyone who is paying attention just a little bit knows that Clinton and the Democrats are way, way better on domestic policy than the GOP. How anyone could think that Trump and the GOP would somehow benefit the poor, working, or middle classes, better than Clinton and the Democrats, and that he wouldn't simply continue U.S. warring abroad, even making it worse, is foolishness. However, these are fools created by the natural disadvantages set against them by neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy. The only chance the Democrats have to stanch our collective bleed, and wholesale change voter perception of them, is to go full out "New Deal" and "Great Society". Anything less, and we're all going to continue losing out to 1% interests, including the voters who unthinkingly buy into faux populist ideologues somehow at the obvious expense of their own 99% interests, like, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and any other commonwealth issues and programs.


#9

No one can tolerate an "intellectual" that is a hypocrite. That is why Democratic leaders are so hated. If you are anti-intellectual, talk media loves you and you can say or do anything. By turning its back on the labor movement, the Democratic Party committed suicide. Republicans know the importance of their right flank. Democrats killed their left flank and are now like a hologram. Big tent, my butt.


#10

How does this all go when my retirement is depending on Wall Street? I don't get it at all.


#11

Millions of women do not agree.


#12

Thank you. I totally don't get why anyone votes repub.


#13

The current power center of the Democratic Party certainly does engage in corporate servitude, counts that servitude as its primary function, and this amounts to a Wall Street problem. Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton are in that club.

That said, anyone, and especially previous Obama voters, who voted for Trump have a serious logic problem.

Oh yes, the billionaire corporate tax cut proposing, job outsourcing, union busting, racist, misogynist, MIC buildup proposing fascist jerk was going to work for "the people".


#14

It is because the Republicans are better con artists than the Democrats.
Both of the Republican and Democratic Parties have sold their souls to Wall Street and neither party cares about the working class any more. (The Democratic Party used to.) But the Republican Party SAYS it is going to help the working class. Of course they are lying, but millions believe their lies.

There is a simple solution:
The Democratic Party could return to its roots.
The Democratic Party could listen to the message from Bernie Sanders.
But the Democratic Party is so dependent upon Wall Street and the 1% for their fundraising, that they never will.
And so the Democratic Party will continue to lose elections.
And the Republican Party will strengthen its stranglehold on the Country.


#15

Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Glad someone made bank telling the emperors what they've already been told by the very people who told them to eff off during the cycle.

But I guess it's never official until a highly paid consultant says it is.

LEV is losing it's ability to keep this huge contradiction together. As soon as people figure out that they need to leverage votes for policy (another 'Duuhhhh!'), the scam might end sooner rather than later.


#16

And Wasserman-Schultz as a runnng mate!!
Go Blue!!
Women in the White House!!
That will solve everything!!


#17

I am sick and tired of hearing that the Democrats lost the White House (and everything else) because of "voters' perceptions" as if it were just a "messaging" problem. What a crock of BS.

Obama had 8 years to deliver, or just even try to deliver, on his many promises. He was, for instance, going to "revisit NAFTA". He felt the hurt of all those who had lost their jobs as a consequence. What did he do? Revisit NAFTA? Not for a second. Instead he spent lots of time and energy pushing TTP and TTIP, trade deals modelled after NAFTA. That's a problem no amount of "messaging" is going to solve. It's not a matter of "perception" - it's a fact that can't be lied away. We're not that stupid.

And then there's immigration. Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any president before him, more than all presidents combined up to 1997, and nearly half of them had no criminal record. He split up families, put women and children in squalid over crowded detention centers. Sure, he made some high profile efforts benefitting a few, but what did he do for the masses?

If the Dems really want to take a look a why some Obama voters voted for Trump - or didn't vote at all, or went Green or Libertarian - look at all of Obama's broken promises. Those are facts.

And then there's "the most transparent presidency ever" ..

You can lie to us only so many times before we catch on we're being conned ..


#18

So much for Russia and Comey being the reason she lost. As many of us have been saying for years now the Democrats are nothing more than Republican lite, so much so, the public the leading Dems are more attached to the rich and powerful than the Republican party. For those of you out there who still believe Bernie wouldn't have beaten Trump you still think that now after Obama's own pac proved us right. Obama is indeed getting his payday for serving his masters on Wall Street, there's no doubt about that. To watch Van Jones and Jennifer Granholm sit on Jake Tapper's show and defend this was nothing short of sickening to me. The idea that after 8 years of monstrous losses of Democrats across the entire country and the devastation done to the Democratic brand under his leadership thanks to Obama's feilty to Wall Street these insiders still can't bring themselves to criticize this man. The idea that Obama can somehow lead a party that was decimated under his leadership is just another attempt by the establishment to maintain control over the party they've destroyed. If the Democratic party doesn't get the damage these people have caused after this "autopsy" from Obama's own pac, and they don't make a drastic change in another direction, which is what Bernie's candidacy was all about, then they deserve the continued drubbing they'll get, and the country will be worse off for it. The era of the Clintons, Obama, the DLC, the Third Way Democrats, and the New Democratic network of pilfering this party for their own personal gain is OVER!!!


#19

I agree.

The Dems have failed to face up to the moral imperative of our time: our current neoliberal, expansionist, militarist, and environmentally-destructive economic and politic order fundamentally does not work for most people nor for the plant, and it must be changed. Top tax rates must rise, loopholes must close, monopolies must be broken up, robust government programs must invest these revenues in making our people and the planet stronger and healthier, and power must be shared more equitably.

In short, the Democratic leadership must face the fact that most of the major economic policies pursued by Presidents Clinton and Obama made society worse for most people--or at best, didn't benefit them. The Dems must stand for some deep moral principles, and to do that, they must tell Big Money that things must change, and they must change those things, despite all the screaming and temper tantrums that will follow from the investor class.


#20

For that to happen, you'd need some people with deep moral principles to head the DNC; but, by the looks of things, fat chance of that.


#21

The problem is that the Dems are the neoliberal wing of the capitalist Duopoly Party. They are essentially owned by a different (though sometimes the same) bunch of plutocrats and oligarchs. Witness Nancy Pelosi's recent speech to a bunch of billionaire Dem contributors recently:

Jaffe may be worth the effort. (even though he's a lawyer: :grin:


#22

I agree 100%. Any doubt after reading this story that Bernie would've kicked Trumps rear end in the election. None at all.


#23

As a woman, I'm with the Dems all the way.