Saturday, November 8, 2014

Random Thoughts on the Election

I'll start with this from Salon. Otherwise, I may just come back and add to this post.

On MSNBC, Chris Hayes argued that Democratic candidates erred in running away from Obama. So did an indignant Al Sharpton and even Republican Joe Scarborough. Many liberal pundits had urged Democrats to stand by their man. Paul Krugman recently called Obama “one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history.”

My feelings exactly. I sent a message to my candidate, Aaron Woolf, telling him not to run away from ACA after he told a reporter he wouldn't give a hypothetical answer to whether he'd have voted yes on it. I told him the answer I 'd have liked to see was, "I would have voted yes on it. If I'd been in the Congress way back, I'd have voted yes on Social Security and Medicare, too. And you know what, Republicans are still trying to get rid of all three."

This was in the news today:

(T)he country churned out 214,000 net new jobs last month.

That kept alive a nine-month streak over the 200,000 benchmark, and a record 56 months straight of growth in the US jobs market.

"With today's report, the unemployment rate is falling as fast as at any point in the last thirty years, and the economy is on pace for its best year of job growth since the late 1990s," said Jason Furman, Obama's top economic advisor.

The data suggested even more strength than that: the numbers for the previous two months were revised upward, and showed that the economy is smoothly absorbing more entrants and returnees into the jobs market.

And yes, the article did say that wage gains were not what they could be. But, as much as I think Matt Funiciello is an arrogant jerk bastard, it would be nice to see a Dem or two with the same spirit. It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems in the district actually do give him a veto on their candidate in 2016.Here's a little something for his supporters:

Obama’s failings are those of a generation of Democrats whose flaw is not how they campaign but how they govern. The only problem with their ‘message’ is that they often don’t mean it. They’re no more apt to change than the donors and consultants who hold their reigns are apt to let them. Since they’re too afraid to emancipate themselves others will have to do it for them, if necessary by primary.

Those possible ‘others’ are mighty disaffected. Do they still think the Democratic Party worth the time and effort that it takes to write a new agenda, build a new movement and challenge old leadership? I don’t know that they do. I only know that I’ve spent my life in that party and that nothing short of its utter transformation can save it now.

Also from Salon (yes, I use this blog to bookmark shit):

Amid this week’s disastrous Democratic drubbing, Connecticut emerged as one of the few bright spots for Democrats. Facing a formidable challenge from wealthy investor Tom Foley, whom he defeated by less than one percentage point in 2010, Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy secured another term, fending off Foley 51 to 48 percent. For Democrats seeking a way forward after Tuesday’s rout, Malloy’s victory is instructive: when Democrats build a record of progressive achievements — and run campaigns based on that record — they can win.

Running against a multimillionaire opponent who paid only $673 in federal taxes in 2013, Malloy naturally lobbed plenty of populist rhetorical barbs at Foley. But Malloy also boasted something many Democrats who lost Tuesday night did not — an actual track record of economic populist accomplishments. Malloy could point to specific policies he’d signed into law — most notably, mandatory paid sick leave and the nation’s first-ever state-level minimum wage increase to $10.10 an hour — that benefited Connecticut families but would be jeopardized if Foley, who opposed those policies, won the governorship.

My italics, also something for Funiciello supporters, point the bullshit that there's no difference between Dems and Reps. Matt would be attacking Malloy for not getting them $15 an hour.

“The core economic issues – such as the minimum wage increase and paid sick days – really drew a contrast between Malloy and Foley, partly because they are issues that really resonate with everybody,” Farrell said. “Everybody has a sense that everybody who works should be paid a decent wage and people who get sick shouldn’t have to choose between their health and losing their job or losing their pay.”

But, Farrell noted, Malloy signed both paid sick leave and the minimum wage increase into law despite encountering opposition among more moderate Democrats in the state legislature, particularly on the former.

“When we passed paid sick days, when we passed the minimum wage increase, it wasn’t easy,” she said. “We had a lot of opposition from more moderate Democrats. In Connecticut, there are strong Democratic majorities in both chambers, but you get a lot of opposition from moderate, corporate Democrats. So if they had won the day on those issues, we’d probably be preparing for Gov. Foley right now, because Malloy would have been without these strong economic justice issues to run a campaign on.”

Yes, there are ball-less Dems in Connecticut. The moral here is to be more progressive. Change has to come to the Democratic Party, though. Unless you believe in magic.

Well, do ya? Then vote Green!

No comments:

Post a Comment