Maybe there’s more going on at CPAC than meets the eye, but to me it seems like nothing more than a giant Republican/Conservative circle jerk. Is anything actually accomplished at CPAC? Is this where they decide party platform? (I thought that’s what the nominating convention every four years was for.) Is there something similar on the Democratic/Liberal side? If there isn’t, is there any need for one?
As far as I know there isn’t. Starting g one up probably would t be of much use either. The difference is the Democrats aren’t the mirror image of Republicans. Republicans are distinguished by being unified around the theme of “conservatism” which these days really means authoritarianism and nationalism in defense of “traditional” culture. The Democrats, on the other hand, are a more loose coalition of several disparate groups. There’s groups whose primary interest is in racial justice, environmentalism / stopping global warming, women’s rights, gay rights, rights for religious minorities, financial justice / wealth redistribution, and so on. It would be like different groups of cats trying to heard each other vs. the Republican model of a few shepherds herding a bunch of cattle. Sure, the cats outnumber the cattle something like 60/40, but the nature of getting cats to all agree means that sometimes the cattle will win a numbers game.
The closest the liberal side gets to CPAC is Netroots Nation (formerly Yearly Kos). And it’s nowhere near exactly equivalent.
The CPAC “platform “ seems to be “worship this Golden Idol of Trump”
One other factor that is rarely discussed - these types of conferences are big money makers. So, much like televangelists, this is an big opportunity to fleece the sheeple.
Maybe those on the left are not so into “worshiping” their leaders in such a way?
All goodpoints so far.
Something CPAC does that might be useful for the Ds is it whips up enthusiasm.
If you can get (and keep) your audience fired up, get them to believe that politics, or at least loud noise about politics, is a good hobby to have all day every day, not just for 5 minutes every 4 years in a voting booth, that has powerful electoral consequences.
In Trump’s case I suspect CPAC is the vehicle, or perhaps one of several ,by which he (or his Russian masters) intends to complete the takeover of the formal levers of power of the R party.
From what I’ve heard CPAC this year will be organized around the theme of trumpism and the party is not unified on that. Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski not invited.
My guess is that Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski and a few others are the last remnant of the old guard. To continue my earlier analogy, Romney and Murkowski are like a small remnant of the shepherds who no longer have the trust of the cattle. I doubt they have the ability to bring back the party of Reagan, and very few of the cattle will follow if they lead in a different direction than Trump.
It’s quite difficult for the loser of an election to have any real levers of power. It’s not like support for Trump is growing. He’s causing Republicans to hemorage members.
No, what they’re trying to do is more along the lines of appeasing this guy who has less than half of Republicans on his side. They’re trying to control the monster, not deferring to him.
Granted, a smart person would leverage that for control. But Trump? He hasn’t even figured out how to continue his trolling strategy without Twitter. He had to have other people make him feel important.
No, the half that hates him is growing, rather than the side that loves him.
Do you have a cite for that? I’m not disbelieving, I just know now that wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.
That’s not even a joke.
Shepherds herd sheep.
Maybe that’s their problem?
I discovered something really hideous - if you play that video with full screen and pause it (at any point, pretty well) it’s like your computer has been taken over by some entirely gross, alien shit-thing that no amount of cyber-scrubbing will ever vanquish (at least from your mind, anyway, where it will remain forever).
He appears to be holding a pad. Some sneaky, lucky soul must have gotten the chance to scribble a bon mot or two in it.
I’m reminded of another fine, exquisite piece of Trump art work gettIng carted around.
Could the dems have a SIXPAC? (Silencing Insurrection and Xenophobia Political Action Conference)
One value of such a forum might be that the various factions could come out of their corners and hammer out compromises/agreements that the entire party could unify behind.
Sheep or cattle, they both apply to Trumpists. 
Nope. They are literally worshipping a Golden Idol Of Trump.
Marco Rubio cancelled his speech at CPAC, citing an ‘unexpected family issue.’ One would hope if there was a similar conference for folks of a more liberal persuasion they wouldn’t have to hold their finger to the wind to see if they should participate or not.
That said, it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea for there to be a conference of left-leaning folks to try and work out where they might be best united and how to work on making that happen.
It’s the Constitution.
Which we all know Loser Donald has never read, as it doesn’t have any pictures and it doesn’t even include his name in most paragraphs.
Looking at this from outside, that (and fundraising) is the job one would expect a national party organisation, responsible and accountable to its members, to organise its members to do, as well as (and/or as part of) pursuing their special campaigns and interests.
But I am aware of Will Rogers’s “I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat.”