• very_well_lost@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          You’re, right he did. In 1992.

          As far as I can tell, his political strategy has not evolved even a little over the past 3 decades, as he continues to push unpopular ‘compromise candidates’ and continues to tell people to ‘sit down and shut up’ whenever they suggest maybe the Democrats should chase some reforms that benefit the working class rather than simply appeasing the Wall Street paymasters.

          I don’t know if stubbornly sticking to the same failing strategy for 30 years makes you ‘stupid’, but it certainly doesn’t make you smart.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            To add to that, even though he helped get Clinton elected, Clinton’s main accomplishment was making the Democrats more useless to the people as a result. Third way Democrats have been an abysmal failure from a progress perspective. Some of Clinton’s “main accomplishments” were helping demolish the welfare state, and increasing the incarceration rate.

            Obama, in retrospect, can be viewed as a third-way Democrat as well, and the primary policy accomplishment his presidency produced is a Republican think-tanked, half-measure healthcare policy that was largely a gift to the insurance companies even at the onset and has since been left out in the field to be continually picked at by vultures.

            I was wondering this morning why Democrats don’t seem to really have effective policy think-tanks like the Republicans do and then I thought maybe they just use the same ones.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Policy think-tanks cost money. Since the owner class has all the money, all the think-tanks serve the owner class.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  This:

                  all the think-tanks serve the owner class.

                  and this:

                  There are absolutely democrat leaning think tanks.

                  aren’t the contradiction that you think they are.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Sure, he had a congress of the opposite party for some / most of his terms. You know who else had that? Nearly every president ever elected to office.

                It makes it ever the more important to use what little time you have to push your agenda through, to veto things you disagree with, and sit your court appointees.

                EDIT:

                I also realized I left this “point” unaddressed:

                If you are unaware of what the democratic think tanks are you should address that.

                Dude, I’ve been a bigger political news person for 20+ years than most people bother being. I can name organizations like “the Heritage Foundation” and the “Cato Institute” without a reference. You know why? Because these think-tanks are effective. Note my original comment. I said “effective policy think-tanks”. Would you consider democratic think tanks effective when Obama with a sweeping mandate from the people unlike anything else I’ve seen in my lifetime wound up producing a copycat plan of a Republican governor?

                Sure, they may exist, but if they do they’re not what I’d term “effective” and me looking up their names isn’t going to make them that way.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Think about where Clinton getting elected for the first time falls on that chart, vs. where we are now.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The relevancy it has is his strategy was successful when the US was still riding on the coattails of the New Deal and Great Society and was still perceived as being relatively egalitarian. But as inequality and worker exploitation got worse and worse and worse and worse AND WORSE, electing third-way neoliberal fuckwads doesn’t work quite so well anymore!

    • ploot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Democrats seem to have come up with two strategies so far: either (1) wait and hope someone does something, or (2) play dead and hope someone does something.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      Dude hasn’t been correct about how to win elections since 30 years ago, and hasn’t been correct about policy ever.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t usually take advice from fucking fossils. Sanders is the exception.

      Seriously, Carville is fucking 80, hasn’t he been myopically dictating the direction of this useless fucking party long enough?