Does anyone read the links before they post them? Because here’s what stands out in just the portion you quoted:
I’m skeptical of both claims. I don’t think most white professionals who currently vote for Democrats think the Republicans have better economic policy. Do you have some reason for believing that to be the case?
Similarly, why do you think the the Dem advantage on women is about abortion? I thought the gender splits on abortion weren’t that large. There are much larger gender splits on other issues, from minimum wage increases to foreign policy. Abortion is, perhaps surprisingly, relatively gender-neutral.
What’s the point of “Not yet 60%”?
Do you think every single plank of Gingrich’s Contract With America had 60% support? Not even close! The idea was to 1) come up with several planks that would appeal to different constituencies, and get to–not 60%, but 51% to 55%–by delivering on all of them; and 2) sneak in some less popular ideas to advocate for those as the new face of reform, making them sound popular and “reformy.”
If the Democrats try to run hard to the middle, they’re not copying Gingrich, but Clinton! Or Obama or Kerry or somebody. It is not lethal to go hard left, if they hit enough different sub-groups that it adds up to >50%, and deliver something to each of them.
Hey, hey, Schumer! You are free to join the Grand Old Party. Get a crucifix, start denying climate change happens, whatever.
We’re trying to win here, in constituencies that aren’t downstate NY.
Here’s a bill that might poll at 60%: Bill would make policing for revenue a civil rights violation.
Some very valid proposals from the OP and others. I would add term limits to members of Congress.
Has there been a big push for term limits recently, though? It was in the actual Contract With America because legislative term limits were a big, bizarre fad in the early 90s. The whole term limits movement seems to have died down since then, though.
As noted just a few posts above, I too think the 60% bar is not correct, although probably for different reasons. At any rate, you need to put forth some specific proposals, not just say they should go “hard left”. Which “hard left” policies do you propose to put in The Contract?
Not a bad start, Bob. #2 might be good to keep even if there is effectively no support anywhere for Privatizing SS. Even Bush’s effort to partially privatize it got no traction. And #4 is probably unconstitutional, at the state level.
Here is what the Kos thinks such a contract should look like:
You could also look over this site and pick polls that seem to show a majority of Americans want something. There are a few things under budget and taxes that might work, such as ‘Should the government do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor in this country, or is this something the government should not be doing?’…80% of Democrats and over 50% of Independents seemingly approve of this, which seems to me to be a majority in the range of 60% of all Americans (only 29% of Republicans agree). There is this one as well: ‘In your view, is it essential or not essential that the United States continue to be a world leader in space exploration?’ I’d go for that as a plank on the Democratic contract with America. 
#4 would also cost an ungodly amount of money…but if you are going to tax the rich and their wealthy to an inch of their lives I guess money won’t be an issue. #6 would be a fundamental break with the concept of Social Security as well, but what the hell…I’m sure it would be popular, which is what this is all about.
Not that I am aware of. My comment was just a little bit of wishful thinking on my part, since neither party would be in favor of it.
One point of clarification about Bob’s #4: It might be constitutional for the courts to force certain municipalities to outfit police with body cameras if a systematic record of abuse can be documented (such as what we are seeing in Ferguson) and litigate in court. I’m thinking of how the courts took over certain school districts they thought were not desegregating. However, a blanket federal requirement on all state and local law enforcement agencies would probably be struck down by the courts.
BTW, that’s a nice link to the Kos’s list. Pretty good list, too. (“Good” meaning good for the Democrats. I don’t agree with all of them, personally.)
I don’t agree with them all either, and I don’t think all of them meet the 60% (or whatever) of popular support, but it’s a good starting point for Dems. Essentially, if they DO go for a populist agenda (which a Contract with America kind of presupposed…if this is just a Contract with Democrats, especially those who lean left like me, which seems to be what many posters in here are posting too then I don’t see it working), to me that means they are moving to becoming a centrist party, which I’m all in favor of. I don’t see it happening, but what the hell.
This is important because, among other reasons, the state offices are farm-teams for Congress.
I think Markos nailed it. That’s a good one. I don’t support more than half the items there, and some are quite timid(why only millionaire farmers? Why a donut hole in the payroll tax?), but they are at least popular.
But to get back to my one criticism, it shows the difficulty of this for Democrats. They just can’t tax the middle class anymore. Markos even included yet another middle class tax break, although he’s smart enough to make it a lot less than meets the eye(saves the average person not even $100). The Democrats are limited to goodies for everyone up to the very well off, paid for by taxes only on the 1%. It’s a straitjacket.
I don’t follow. How does a populist agenda equate to becoming a centrist party? Of course populism as such belongs nowhere in particular on the left-right spectrum, but I should think any populist agenda proposed by Democrats would make the party the leftist party that it should have been all along. (I’m talking economic, not social/cultural/religious populism, here.)
And I think a lot of conservatives popping into this thread are grossly underestimating the electoral appeal of left-populism. If the American people ever get a chance to really, effectively vote against the plutocracy, they’ll take it.
Because I don’t agree with you that left wing is populist in the US. I think that most populist policies that the Dems could write into a Contract with American (as opposed to a Contract with Dems Like BG and other Left Leaning Dopers) would be centrist, by and large. Essentially, if a left leaning/left wing agenda could get 60%+ popular support from Americans (as opposed to Democrats) then we’d be there already, since they would win every election. Since, instead, what we get are parties playing to the base in the primaries then rushing to the center for the general elections I’m going to go with that stance until I’m shown the error of my ways.
Well, tell the Democratic Party to run on that as their platform then and see how it works out for them. ‘Vote for me and I’ll destroy the plutocracy keeping you all down! Power to the PEOPLE!!!’.
If the Dems offered such an agenda. At present, they don’t, and have not for decades.
Unfortunately, the leading Dems can’t do that, because the plutocrats own them. (The difference from the Pubs is that the Dems are not wholly owned.) But such a message properly crafted from a credible source would indeed have considerable voter-appeal.
Are we to understand that YOU know what the American people want?