Blue Dogs eye comeback in 2018

Surrealistik said:

She didn't even try; Obama didn't even try. In the end, even the public option was aborted.

Click to expand...

Pelosi's House passed a public option.

Greenbeard said:

Pelosi's House passed a public option.

Click to expand...

Which was ultimately squashed per immense lobbyist pressure, nevermind that a public option tack on to a conservative Heritage Foundation plan isn't particularly stellar to begin with, but admittedly far better than the status quo and the deeply flawed half-measure of ACA that was ultimately passed.

However sure, I'll give her credit for that if nothing else, lacking evidence that the Senate shutdown was coordinated with the backroom blessing of the lower chamber.

I'm a yellow dog for a good reason.

Oreo said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-blue-dogs-eye-2018-comeback-240813

Blue Dog Democrats will attract moderate Republicans--and you can now say bye-bye to the right and left wings of both parties. These are middle of the road politicians, which ruled this country since the 1930's up until the late 70's. They're conservative--hawkish--don't like Russians--and have a heart regarding the American people at the same time.

Click to expand...

First off, this was Hillary Clinton's strategy in 2016 --and she lost with that strategy. There are no moderate Republicans, there are moderate Democrats but they're in such numbers it is difficult to find them.

Secondly, Blue Dog Democrats did not run the country from 1930 up to the late 70's, that's just completely dishonest historical fabrication. The New Deal was made by FDR, and anyone who passed high school history can fill in the rest of details about why the rest of your claim is absurd. The Blue Dog Coalition wasn't started until much later, basically following the Reagan Democrats.

Greenbeard said:

Pelosi's House passed a public option.

Click to expand...

FDR was not, is not, and never will be a BernieBrat ...

Oreo said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-blue-dogs-eye-2018-comeback-240813

Blue Dog Democrats will attract moderate Republicans--and you can now say bye-bye to the right and left wings of both parties. These are middle of the road politicians, which ruled this country since the 1930's up until the late 70's. They're conservative--hawkish--don't like Russians--and have a heart regarding the American people at the same time.

Click to expand...

The blue dogs were a rebranding of the already then existing conservative democrat. They were the democrats who represented much of the south, and were a major part of what formerly made the democrat party the big tent party, the fact they used to represent a large part of the country.

The blue dog coalition died under obama, not sure why they died but I can guess the dnc killed it off by trying to fund and push for social justice causes and candidates over the existing blue dogs, combined with republicans taking over those districts as those districts did not become less conservative, and if their favorite democrat conservative could not cut it, a republican conservative filled his place. Keep in mind though for blue dogs to return and thrive, the democrat party would have to abandon social justice causes as it's major platform and return to being the big tent party.

cpwill said:

Moderate Republicans formed a heavy part of the Trump Base.

It's not really about policy anymore - it's about tribalism and culture

Moderate Democrats signal to their base that they aren't Part Of The Tribe, and it will be easy for Republicans to drive wedge issues into their support by asking cultural questions that would require the Blue Dog to either take an extreme position, or be charged with heresy by their own party.

Click to expand...

They're was talk of Republican moderates forming their own party. These are the never Trump Republican. You're right the Republican party today has abandoned policy to support Trump. Here is a great article on this funny but true:
https://www.mediaite.com/online/all...servativerepublican-but-now-i-realize-im-not/

FieldTheorist said:

First off, this was Hillary Clinton's strategy in 2016 --and she lost with that strategy. There are no moderate Republicans, there are moderate Democrats but they're in such numbers it is difficult to find them.

Secondly, Blue Dog Democrats did not run the country from 1930 up to the late 70's, that's just completely dishonest historical fabrication. The New Deal was made by FDR, and anyone who passed high school history can fill in the rest of details about why the rest of your claim is absurd. The Blue Dog Coalition wasn't started until much later, basically following the Reagan Democrats.

Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton did not lose with that strategy--she beat Sanders by 3,775,437 primary votes, and she beat Donald Trump by 3 million popular votes. Trump won the election on a mere accumulated vote total of 76K votes out of 3 blue states.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

So her strategy wasn't wrong, she simply underestimated the ignorance in this country--and instead of outing the unrealistic campaign promises of Sanders & Trump, she let it go--assuming Americans were smarter than that.

1930's--until the late 70's Democrats owned both houses of congress--and they were blue Dog Democrats. They appealed to the majority in this country which is why they won elections.

beerftw said:

The blue dogs were a rebranding of the already then existing conservative democrat. They were the democrats who represented much of the south, and were a major part of what formerly made the democrat party the big tent party, the fact they used to represent a large part of the country.

The blue dog coalition died under obama, not sure why they died but I can guess the dnc killed it off by trying to fund and push for social justice causes and candidates over the existing blue dogs, combined with republicans taking over those districts as those districts did not become less conservative, and if their favorite democrat conservative could not cut it, a republican conservative filled his place. Keep in mind though for blue dogs to return and thrive, the democrat party would have to abandon social justice causes as it's major platform and return to being the big tent party.

Click to expand...

Agreed--and it's happened to both parties. We have the left and the right wing of both parties (whom are the minority of both parties) trying to take control of the nomination process--and that's why moderate Dems & moderate Republicans have got to stop voting for a candidate because they have an R or D behind their name---and support the moderate candidate regardless of the party affliation behind their names.

Oreo said:

Agreed--and it's happened to both parties. We have the left and the right wing of both parties (whom are the minority of both parties) trying to take control of the nomination process--and that's why moderate Dems & moderate Republicans have got to stop voting for a candidate because they have an R or D behind their name---and support the moderate candidate regardless of the party affliation behind their names.

Click to expand...

Moderate candidates that inspire people are few and far between, most that energize are partisan, which is not bad unless they are too partisan. I am conservative but I would have voted for webb if he had gotten the nomination, he was level headed and right of center, yet not partisan enough to avoid comprimise. Webb ended up dropping out, and it became evident the party threw every wrench they could into the gears to ensure hillary was the nominee. had webb or one of the other candidates been nominated, the race might have ended differently, as trump won by a small vote in states hillary ignored like she thought they were a given.

beerftw said:

The blue dogs were a rebranding of the already then existing conservative democrat. They were the democrats who represented much of the south, and were a major part of what formerly made the democrat party the big tent party, the fact they used to represent a large part of the country.

The blue dog coalition died under obama, not sure why they died but I can guess the dnc killed it off by trying to fund and push for social justice causes and candidates over the existing blue dogs, combined with republicans taking over those districts as those districts did not become less conservative, and if their favorite democrat conservative could not cut it, a republican conservative filled his place. Keep in mind though for blue dogs to return and thrive, the democrat party would have to abandon social justice causes as it's major platform and return to being the big tent party.

Click to expand...

But if they were to do that, how could they claim themselves as liberals or being of the left?

I mean the establishment is already essentially right of centre (or just right if you use the rest of the developed world as a political barometer) 90s Republicans on economic matters. Without social justice issues to shore up their creds, they would literally be Republican lite in every respect.

Oreo said:

So her strategy wasn't wrong, she simply underestimated the ignorance in this country--and instead of outing the unrealistic campaign promises of Sanders & Trump, she let it go--assuming Americans were smarter than that.

1930's--until the late 70's Democrats owned both houses of congress--and they were blue Dog Democrats. They appealed to the majority in this country which is why they won elections.

Click to expand...

Again, on what planet is FDR a blue dog Democrat? There is nothing remotely blue dog about a man who defied the establishment and defied special interests and big money to author and enact the New Deal, and was consequently so popular that term limits were introduced to American democracy by angry and butthurt Republicans such as a very upset Thomas Dewey, still salty and outraged that he lost to the legend who went on to enjoy a fourth term until forcibly and unfortunately retired by cerebral hemorrhage.

Not even JFK in spite of his tax cuts, despite some identifying him as the 'first New Democrat', can be definitively called as much because taxes at the time were still high as a residual consequence of WW2.

As to Clinton's strategy, losing the rust belt or 'blue wall' says it all really. The woman flew over key states she should have campaigned hard in, and coasted on an almost unbroken narrative of how bad Trump was instead of talking about what she planned on doing for the working and middle class. On the flipside, you're at least not blaming Bernie supporters who turned out in support of her in greater percentages than Hillary supporters who voted Obama, so that's a start I guess.

NIMBY said:

FDR was not, is not, and never will be a BernieBrat ...

Click to expand...

FDR was a populist who ran on a campaign of dramatic change and substantive reform in favour of constituents and in opposition to monied interests, and unlike Obama, actually enacted it.

Of all the presidents he's easily the closest thing to Bernie on the Dem side, and is absolutely not and in no way a New or Blue Dog Democrat; he is the diametric opposite to the bought and paid for corporatist Dems that now inhabit Washington today who disgrace his memory and make him turn in his grave. The man was Bernie before Bernie was Bernie.

Oreo said:

Hillary Clinton did not lose with that strategy--she beat Sanders by 3,775,437 primary votes, and she beat Donald Trump by 3 million popular votes.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, that's why the first thing that President Hillary Clinton did was to.... Oh, wait a minute.

Trump won the election on a mere accumulated vote total of 76K votes out of 3 blue states.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

So her strategy wasn't wrong, she simply underestimated the ignorance in this country--and instead of outing the unrealistic campaign promises of Sanders & Trump, she let it go--assuming Americans were smarter than that.

Click to expand...

To repeat what you just told me: First, she didn't appeal to moderates; second, she did appeal to moderates but it was the right strategy to do; third, she did the right strategy and lost because of it.

Honestly, what kind of a response are you looking for here?

1930's--until the late 70's Democrats owned both houses of congress--and they were blue Dog Democrats. They appealed to the majority in this country which is why they won elections.

Click to expand...

You need a lesson in history, so let's start here:


After you're resolved that in the obvious manner, please explain to me in what respects they shared with, say, the 75th Congress --hell, pick your favorite Congressional session from the New Deal era. Explain to me, in clear terms and with evidence, how Blue Dog Democrats were running the show.

Perotista said:

The fix was in. It was in or decided on prior to the 2012 election in a secret meeting between Obama, Bill and Hillary that Hillary would be the Democratic Nominee.

Obama made 'secret deal to support Hillary Clinton's 2016 run in exchange for Bill's support during re-election campaign' | Daily Mail Online

If one looks back, Hillary then had 13 pledged super delegates prior to the year turning 2013 and over 300 by 1 Jan 2015. Long before Sanders decided to run for the Democratic nomination and long before Hillary announced. It's no wonder Sanders got only 48 out of 712 super delegates. Then you have all these reports on a jury rigged democratic party nomination process since last years election.

Hopefully, the democrats won't pick their 2020 nominee four years in advance.

Click to expand...

Agree. With all the hype surrounding Joe Biden these days, I wonder if they are planning the same thing?? They keep going on and on and on during the news about "he is the only one that can bring back the working white class voter." I would think they want younger but maybe not.

pilot16 said:

Agree. With all the hype surrounding Joe Biden these days, I wonder if they are planning the same thing?? They keep going on and on and on during the news about "he is the only one that can bring back the working white class voter." I would think they want younger but maybe not.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the Democrats need a fresh young face. None of the current leaders need apply. Actually if I were a Democrat I would be looking for that fresh young face in flyover country. Not the Northeast or west coast. Think Obama from Illinois, he won easily. Northeast liberal, Hillary Clinton NY, John Kerry Mass, Mike Dukakis Mass, all lost. Fresh face from flyover o****ry, Obama, Bill Cinton Arkansas, Jimmy Carter Georgia, LBJ Texas all won.

The last Democrat from the Northeast who won was JFK back in 1960. But the Northeast was mostly Liberal Republican territory in 1960, remember the old liberal Rockefeller Republicans.

Perotista said:

I agree. I think the Democrats need a fresh young face. None of the current leaders need apply. Actually if I were a Democrat I would be looking for that fresh young face in flyover country. Not the Northeast or west coast. Think Obama from Illinois, he won easily. Northeast liberal, Hillary Clinton NY, John Kerry Mass, Mike Dukakis Mass, all lost. Fresh face from flyover o****ry, Obama, Bill Cinton Arkansas, Jimmy Carter Georgia, LBJ Texas all won.

The last Democrat from the Northeast who won was JFK back in 1960. But the Northeast was mostly Liberal Republican territory in 1960, remember the old liberal Rockefeller Republicans.

Click to expand...

Did you see that study that said no democrat over 55 has won the WH since Truman? If thats true, then younger is best. I would also agree middle of the country is better but thats problematic since there are few. The pundits keep pushing Cuomo, Booker, Harris, Warren, Biden etc. I just dont see them playing in the heartland. Maybe Biden but he might be too old. Another thing to consider is everyone is planning on running against Trump in 2020, which I seriously doubt. I dont see that at all. What happens if a Jeff Flake or John Kasich wins a GOP nomination? Democrats would be positioned either too coastal or too far left for that. Trump is really the pivot point here.

pilot16 said:

Did you see that study that said no democrat over 55 has won the WH since Truman? If thats true, then younger is best. I would also agree middle of the country is better but thats problematic since there are few. The pundits keep pushing Cuomo, Booker, Harris, Warren, Biden etc. I just dont see them playing in the heartland. Maybe Biden but he might be too old. Another thing to consider is everyone is planning on running against Trump in 2020, which I seriously doubt. I dont see that at all. What happens if a Jeff Flake or John Kasich wins a GOP nomination? Democrats would be positioned either too coastal or too far left for that. Trump is really the pivot point here.

Click to expand...

Like you, I don't see Trump seeking a second term. I don't see him becoming popular and if the midterms go the way I think they will. Your lifelong Republicans will regain control of the GOP. But that depends on the current trends continuing. Fact is Trump's persona grates on most independents. Trump's base loves his obnoxious twitter ways, independents don't. Trump hasn't tried to expand his base, he hasn't even tried to unite the Republican Party. That will come home to roost.

Today only 33% of independents approve of Trump while 51% disapprove. Of Trump's twitter use, 22% of independents say its appropriate, 53% say it's inappropriate.

Actually Obama came out of the blue back in 2008. He had been a first term senator, severed only 4 years and viola, he's sitting in the Oval office. The same thing could happen in 2020 if the Democrats don't jury rig their nomination process again. Their nominee could be someone few of us heard of or someone whom we don't consider has a chance today. Governor wise you have Bullock of Montana, Cooper of North Carolina, Dayton of Minnesota, Hickenlooper of Colorado and possibly quite a few senators that could fit the bill of a fresh face from flyover country. A few senators might been Bennett Colorado, Duckworth Illinois, Peters Michigan, Cortez Masto Nevada, perhaps even Tim Kaine of Virginia or Baldwin of Wisconsin. All fairly young and all not from the Northeast or West Coast.

But no one knows whether any of those would be interested. 2020 is a long way away.

Perotista said:

Like you, I don't see Trump seeking a second term. I don't see him becoming popular and if the midterms go the way I think they will. Your lifelong Republicans will regain control of the GOP. But that depends on the current trends continuing. Fact is Trump's persona grates on most independents. Trump's base loves his obnoxious twitter ways, independents don't. Trump hasn't tried to expand his base, he hasn't even tried to unite the Republican Party. That will come home to roost.

Today only 33% of independents approve of Trump while 51% disapprove. Of Trump's twitter use, 22% of independents say its appropriate, 53% say it's inappropriate.

Actually Obama came out of the blue back in 2008. He had been a first term senator, severed only 4 years and viola, he's sitting in the Oval office. The same thing could happen in 2020 if the Democrats don't jury rig their nomination process again. Their nominee could be someone few of us heard of or someone whom we don't consider has a chance today. Governor wise you have Bullock of Montana, Cooper of North Carolina, Dayton of Minnesota, Hickenlooper of Colorado and possibly quite a few senators that could fit the bill of a fresh face from flyover country. A few senators might been Bennett Colorado, Duckworth Illinois, Peters Michigan, Cortez Masto Nevada, perhaps even Tim Kaine of Virginia or Baldwin of Wisconsin. All fairly young and all not from the Northeast or West Coast.

But no one knows whether any of those would be interested. 2020 is a long way away.

Click to expand...

I would think that in 2020, the further left will be more energized for primaries and those candidates might be too moderate for them. Anyone of them could indeed win indies and moderate republicans but getting through the primary process isnt simple. Far less in numbers but more partisans show up for primaries. I just dont know too if we will be out of our populist theme by then either. A long way off to figure out if we will go back to two corporate parties or will it now be the democrats to turn populist? Lots of variables yet. Although it isnt that far off, earliest announcements came in mid 2015, so I anticipate it will be a tad earlier with candidates beginning in early 2019. Little over a year away!

pilot16 said:

I would think that in 2020, the further left will be more energized for primaries and those candidates might be too moderate for them. Anyone of them could indeed win indies and moderate republicans but getting through the primary process isnt simple. Far less in numbers but more partisans show up for primaries. I just dont know too if we will be out of our populist theme by then either. A long way off to figure out if we will go back to two corporate parties or will it now be the democrats to turn populist? Lots of variables yet. Although it isnt that far off, earliest announcements came in mid 2015, so I anticipate it will be a tad earlier with candidates beginning in early 2019. Little over a year away!

Click to expand...

You're right about the primaries. One must be a hard leftest and pass their litmus tests. Like having to be pro-choice, pro-gun control, basically a big powerful government being mommy and daddy for all. The days of a Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter winning the nomination is long over. Remember Bill founded the DLC, a Democratic conservative group and Jimmy was pro-life. Also back then during Jimmy and Bill, the Democratic Party made up approximately 40% of the total electorate. It included the blue dogs and a lot more moderates. Today the Democratic Party has shrunk down to 30% of the electorate as it shed all of its conservatives and most of its moderates.

The once big tent party which represented most Americans now only represents those in the northeast and west coast. Plus a couple of island states. But with just two parties to choose from, they don't care how many people desert them. As long as they maintain their lead over the Republican Party which they have.

Everything goes in cycles, much like Obama and the ACA was god sent for the GOP to recover from losses in 2006 and 2008 in 2010, I have the feeling Trump will do the same for the Democrats in 2018. Reverse all the loses the Democrats suffered during Obama reign.

I think the populist movement will be over. Perhaps the right message, wrong messenger.

Perotista said:

You're right about the primaries. One must be a hard leftest and pass their litmus tests. Like having to be pro-choice, pro-gun control, basically a big powerful government being mommy and daddy for all. The days of a Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter winning the nomination is long over. Remember Bill founded the DLC, a Democratic conservative group and Jimmy was pro-life. Also back then during Jimmy and Bill, the Democratic Party made up approximately 40% of the total electorate. It included the blue dogs and a lot more moderates. Today the Democratic Party has shrunk down to 30% of the electorate as it shed all of its conservatives and most of its moderates.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying the party shed its moderates? It's just not true.

The left was shed, or until recently, marginalized, with the advent of the New Dems as I mentioned to you in another post as the party became increasingly donor reliant and friendly from the 80s onwards; I even provided you with a link detailing their history, and how the conservative wing basically usurped the party and displaced the FDR wing/traditionalists. As stated, the mainstream Dems of today are essentially 90s Republicans on all but social issues; it's painfully obvious when you consider that their grand solution to the healthcare issue with control of every chamber of government was to draft a flawed GOP/Heritage Foundation proposal from 93.

The fact is that what passes for a moderate in America just isn't cutting it anymore; people don't want good cops to the GOP bad who represent their donors and sponsors foremost and not their constituents, and only really disagree about how much or how quickly those monied interests should **** you and this country.

Perotista said:

You're right about the primaries. One must be a hard leftest and pass their litmus tests. Like having to be pro-choice, pro-gun control, basically a big powerful government being mommy and daddy for all. The days of a Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter winning the nomination is long over. Remember Bill founded the DLC, a Democratic conservative group and Jimmy was pro-life. Also back then during Jimmy and Bill, the Democratic Party made up approximately 40% of the total electorate. It included the blue dogs and a lot more moderates. Today the Democratic Party has shrunk down to 30% of the electorate as it shed all of its conservatives and most of its moderates.

The once big tent party which represented most Americans now only represents those in the northeast and west coast. Plus a couple of island states. But with just two parties to choose from, they don't care how many people desert them. As long as they maintain their lead over the Republican Party which they have.

Everything goes in cycles, much like Obama and the ACA was god sent for the GOP to recover from losses in 2006 and 2008 in 2010, I have the feeling Trump will do the same for the Democrats in 2018. Reverse all the loses the Democrats suffered during Obama reign.

I think the populist movement will be over. Perhaps the right message, wrong messenger.

Click to expand...

A few of today's faces of the Blue Dogs: Gov. Cooper of NC, Gov. Bel Edwards of LA, Gov. McAuliffe and incoming Gov. Northam of VA. Both DEM Senators in VA; Sen. Manchin; Sen. Tester; Sen. Heitkamp; Sen. Donnelly; Sen. Nelson; Sen. McCaskill.

The Populist/Progress---ive movement of T. Roosevelt and WJ Bryan lives on with the 16th and 17th amendments, the latter being the unbastardizing of choosing US Senators by gerrymandered state houses.

I see my brother Pero torn between his Blue Dog roots and his Goldwater/Perot roots. Your fondness of Presidents Carter and Clinton for the good things they've accomplished, during and after office, carry on.

It's truly comical for me to listen to DEM regressives thinking that the 'donor class' is something new to either party, just considering the first Gilded Age as an example; which TR and WJB both fought. Worse is their ridiculous claim that FDR was a regressive progressive in their twisted Naderite logic of today ...

Perotista said:

I agree. I think the Democrats need a fresh young face. None of the current leaders need apply. Actually if I were a Democrat I would be looking for that fresh young face in flyover country. Not the Northeast or west coast. Think Obama from Illinois, he won easily. Northeast liberal, Hillary Clinton NY, John Kerry Mass, Mike Dukakis Mass, all lost. Fresh face from flyover o****ry, Obama, Bill Cinton Arkansas, Jimmy Carter Georgia, LBJ Texas all won.

The last Democrat from the Northeast who won was JFK back in 1960. But the Northeast was mostly Liberal Republican territory in 1960, remember the old liberal Rockefeller Republicans.

Click to expand...

You could have gone back to the 1950s for Blue Dogs, with Truman, who had to beat back the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond in 1948, as well as Northeasterner Dewey. Truman's ascent in Kansas City politics is troubling. The whole history of USA politics is troubling.

Here in Illinois, POTUS Candidate Stevenson was a teetotaler, as I learned first-hand at Illinois State U. in 1971, when Normal, IL was still Dry. We used to call it Illinois Straight. Mayor Daley was certainly a Blue Dog, as we saw with the 1968 and 1972 DEM Conventions ...

JANFU said:

Did he not leave the US with a budget surplus?

Click to expand...

You don't really believe he did that on his own do you? If it wasn't for Kasich and his Budget committee, Clinton would have never had them.

American said:

You don't really believe he did that on his own do you? If it wasn't for Kasich and his Budget committee, Clinton would have never had them.

Click to expand...

In Clinton's 2nd term he had to and did work with Republicans.
Would that be correct?

JANFU said:

In Clinton's 2nd term he had to and did work with Republicans.
Would that be correct?

Click to expand...

He didn't have to do anything, as we've seen in other cases. But Clinton was a bit more open than some to working to achieve a mutual outcome.

NIMBY said:

A few of today's faces of the Blue Dogs: Gov. Cooper of NC, Gov. Bel Edwards of LA, Gov. McAuliffe and incoming Gov. Northam of VA. Both DEM Senators in VA; Sen. Manchin; Sen. Tester; Sen. Heitkamp; Sen. Donnelly; Sen. Nelson; Sen. McCaskill.

The Populist/Progress---ive movement of T. Roosevelt and WJ Bryan lives on with the 16th and 17th amendments, the latter being the unbastardizing of choosing US Senators by gerrymandered state houses.

I see my brother Pero torn between his Blue Dog roots and his Goldwater/Perot roots. Your fondness of Presidents Carter and Clinton for the good things they've accomplished, during and after office, carry on.

It's truly comical for me to listen to DEM regressives thinking that the 'donor class' is something new to either party, just considering the first Gilded Age as an example; which TR and WJB both fought. Worse is their ridiculous claim that FDR was a regressive progressive in their twisted Naderite logic of today ...

Click to expand...

No one thinks the donor class is new; what's uniquely new is the unprecedented amount of money that now floods into politics (now up to literally billions of dollars per the 2016 presidential race), the fact that money in politics is now constitutionally enshrined such that there are no meaningful limits per Buckley v Valeo in 76, and that the federal government has become incredibly plutocratized as a direct result. Interestingly, and probably not at all coincidentally this is about the time when the New Democrats rose to power within the Democratic party and began to displace the FDR wing.

Moreover FDR was indeed a progressive, who instituted dramatic, sweeping and not at all incremental change in favour of his constituents and in direct opposition to the monied interests at the time who despised him. Roosevelt fought those interests as Bernie does today. Obama, Bill and Hillary by stark contrast do not, and in fact embrace them; they are among the true regressives: the donor bought neoliberals and conservatives who would gladly see us remain in this new Gilded Age.