Not exactly. Republicans opposed Obama’s nominees because he was a Democrat, and the Democrats oppose Trump’s nominees because he is a Republican. And when Obama was elected, Democrats controlled Congress, and when Trump was elected, Republicans did.
Like I said, it’s the same thing.
Regards,
Shodan
I am aware you said it. That doesn’t make it remotely true.
I’m shocked, shocked, that partisanship is a factor in these matters. But just because partisanship is a factor doesn’t make it the only factor. I’m sure that there are people who oppose Ben Carson for HUD, but most people don’t see him as anything other than an innocuous boob.
However, when opposition to a particular nominee reaches such a “critical mass” that they have to haul the VP in just to get the person approved, well…
As regards to a position such as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, it would be nice to get someone who believes that the environment actually needs, you know, protecting. And if a person chooses to take an approach to that task that is conservative in its underpinnings, well and good. And by “conservative”, in the previous sentence, I mean informed by conservative thought, not merely the doctrine de jour that is passing itself off as such these days. Do not forget, after all, that “conservative” and “conservation” have the same root.
Now, now, let’s be fair. I don’t think you are giving Shodan enough credit. He didn’t refute your statement that:
He just said that it was the same thing as Republicans balking at Democrats and Democrats balking at Republicans, and I happen to agree with him that “Inexperienced, knows nothing about what she’s doing,has no desire to learn, and is rather corrupt.” is a perfect description of a Republican. 
Cheap shots aside, It’s not like Democrats are opposing every one of Trumps nominees. General Mathis was approved 98-1, John Kelly 88-11, Elaine Chow 93-6, Nikki Haley 96-4. and David Shulkin unanimously,
…What?
That’s absolutely not what I’ve been hearing from my liberal friends on facebook, or indeed any of the media outlets I pay attention to. The reason “liberals” (read: sane people) opposed DeVos was because she was utterly unqualified, and her previous efforts in the field of education left her home state as a fucking disaster area. She had no experience managing the kind of administrations the Department of Education runs, as she freely admitted in her confirmation hearing. She didn’t know the difference between proficiency and growth, or even seem to understand what was meant by the terms. She was unwilling or unable to say how she intended to protect parents, students, and taxpayers from graft and fraud, a known problem in DeVos’s previous forays into education in her home state, and a constant threat when it comes to “voucher schools”. She’s made it clear that she is a young earth creationist, and has said in the past that school reform is a great way to, and I quote, “advance God’s kingdom”.
Are these supposed to be conservative positions? I mean, if you insist on claiming that radical ignorance, religious fundamentalism, and lack of qualifications are hallmarks of conservative thought, I’m not going to argue with you (look at who nominated DeVos), but if you ask me, that seems like less of a defense of DeVos and more of a damning indictment of modern “conservative” thought. Or perhaps I should say modern conservative “thought”.
It’s like when they hired Michael Brown for FEMA, except Michael Brown was merely inexperienced, and not also a dominionist who insisted on sending the missionaries to New Orleans before anyone else could go help, with a demonstrably awful track record in the field. Why yes, I am saying that a random nobody with absolutely no track record in the field would have been better than Betsy DeVos. Given the odds, I think it’d be very hard for a crapshoot to end up worse.
I’m going to assume that you’ll be providing evidence for this claim. Like, say, statements from the democrats to this regards, or some sort of analysis of what they’ve done. Except I doubt it, because many high-ranking democrats actually have supported charter schools, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. You know, the last two democratic presidents. Hell, even the people behind Waiting for “Superman”, a documentary which uncompromisingly portrays charter schools as the way forward, were democrats.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the democratic party is dogmatically against charter schools as a partisan issue, and that therefore charter schools are another partisan stick they tried to beat DeVos with. Neither part of that is true. DeVos didn’t get shit for supporting charter schools, because democrats don’t oppose charter schools. At most, DeVos got shit because the charter schools in her home state of Michigan, which she pushed hard for, sucked. There was virtually no oversight, it’s next to impossible to close a failing school. And given that she refused to answer the question as to how she would combat exactly this kind of graft and poor performance in her hearings, it should be an issue regardless of who nominated her.
You can paint this as a partisan issue if you want, but all that does is reflect poorly on your side of the partisan divide. No rational person who understands what’s going on could possibly think that Betsy DeVos is a good choice for SecEd.
[QUOTE=Wesley Clark]
For one thing, the tea party seemed to feel it was better to have a democrat win a race rather than have a republican who they felt wasn’t sufficiently conservative. I hope that the left as a whole doesn’t feel this way, that it is better to have a republican than a moderate democrat in charge. I’ve met Sanders supporters who felt unless Sanders won the primary, it was pointless to support Clinton. But I believe they were the vast minority of Sanders voters.
[/QUOTE]
And right there you discounted your point. One of the big reasons we HAVE Orange Top today is because a lot of the left basically couldn’t have Sanders and wouldn’t vote for Clinton. Almost across the board categories of people who voted for Obama didn’t vote for Clinton. The irony is that Romney got more votes that the Trumpster, because fewer people voted for him than voted for Romney AGAINST OBAMA.
I thought the left et al had learned the lesson after Gore, but it seems some lessons never get learned. And so now we have 4 years of Trump.
As for the OP…no, I don’t think the current protests will morph into an actual left wing oriented party able to do what the Tea Party did. As someone up thread noted, getting the left to organize and be on the same page is like herding cats…possibly harder than herding cats. The left is so fragmented, and also doesn’t resonate with most Americans, so you aren’t going to get the same connection that the Tea Party did. All I hope is that folks don’t become punch drunk and crisis weary and can actually sustain protest and critical review of what Trump et al are doing for the next 3 years and 10 months…it’s going to be a long, painful slog.
If you ask me - yes, despite the forum title “Elections,” this is the de facto politics forum.
As for the “Tea Party of the Left,” it depends on what you mean by “extreme.” Do the Bernie Boys count, or are they not extreme enough? That’s where I see the Democratic Party’s dividing line; those who support the Sanders/Warren way of doing things, and those who are more moderate.
And completely opposed motivations.
Conservation = “Regulations protect the environment.”
Conservative = “Regulations cost businesses money.”
(post shortened)
The short answer is, (drumroll please), No.
The Tea Party, and it’s supporters, were able to overcome opposition from both the Republican, and the Democrat Parties. They actually accomplished the impossible, and became the most successful 3rd party since the newly formed Republican Party helped put Lincoln in the White House.
The Tea Party supporters were able to field candidates that many voters could actually support. The Tea Party actually elected enough candidates to Congress that it became a true political force.
Organized or unorganized, an extreme left element/3rd party will be crushed by the Democrat party before it will ever be able to put butts in congressional seats. (see Bernie Sanders campaign)
My slightly behind-the-scenes view (from being involved in some state-level politics) is:
Similarities: We’re seeing the revitalization of the Democratic party on a grassroots level. Prior to this election, left-side activists were mainly in issue-groups outside of the party, which frankly at a precinct level was moribund (see: lack of a 50-state strategy, loss of state houses, etc.). Now, the people, in addition to marching, are showing up at the meetings. At the grassroots level, the policies are set by the people who show up; so I think we’ll see a quick “takeover” of local Dems by a new generation.
Differences: While there’s a commonality of anti-Trump sentiment, I don’t think this represents a further uniform lurch to the left. It definitely doesn’t represent a lurch towards crazy-lefties in the way the Tea Party lurched to the crazy right. I think you’ll see a diversity of focus: immigration focus in Los Angeles, and some new “hunting, shooting Moderates” in the heartlands, and some interesting new players such as the “scientists” wing.
I think it’s too early to tell if this will unify around a central message (be it left or centrist), or if it’s mainly a new and energetic generation of the broad coalition. Either way, it’s definitely fresh blood for the party and the legislature (state and national) in the way the tea party was, though it’s less certain that a single presidential candidate would unify them (of course, Trump and/or the tea party didn’t exactly bring Republican unity to the table).
Dem senator: I may face 2018 primary from Tea Party-esque progressives
The Tea Party may have energized the Republican party and also pushed the party to the right. But it also cost the party some winnable Senate seats when more moderate, skilled, and experienced politicians were forced out in favor of inexperienced firebrands, who went on to lose their races. This raises the question of whether this would happen on the Democratic side as well.
One thing the Democrats have working for them is that, unlike on the Republican side, Democrats don’t have such a deep mistrust of government. This worked very heavily against the Republicans in the above situation, because as a populist outsider movement the TP tended to favor candidates who were not experienced in either government or campaigning; the resulting thin (or oddball) resumes and campaign gaffes hurt them. On the Democratic side, politicians as a group are viewed much more favorably, so a TP-type movement is less likely to install this type of candidate.
All I have to add is that I hope we do get a Tea Party on the left.
The idea of hearing from the Herbal Tea Party is just so delicious! 
Seriously,
The Democratic Party, herbal or not, doesn’t have enough power to order a cup of coffee or tea. They aren’t going to decide our future. Right now, they are simply trying to avoid the further embarrassment of losing 8 more seats in the Senate.
Trump is a candidate who truly understands the importance of 50%+1. He knows he doesn’t need more than that and he isn’t trying to get any more than that. He is after all a “businessman”, perhaps not a good one, but someone who isn’t going to pay any more for a property than he has to.
So far, his actions and antics have satisfied his supporters. That is all he needs. As the person in line at the grocery (with a red hat on, naturally) said today, Trump is crazy as a June bug but better than the alternatives. He is OK with how things are going.
One day, suddenly and without anyone predicting it, the red hats will decide Trump is wrong and that will be the end of him, or not-I can’t predict the future. But until the red hats decide not to support him, Trump will continue to do just fine with the one constituency that matters, the 50%+1. And I know he lost the popular vote and won the presidency with plenty of electoral votes to spare, but the 50%+1 simply means he only needs to do enough to win election. So far, he is doing fine.
Your math confuses me, which is easy enough, as I am a born mathtard. So, perhaps you can simplify, break it down for someone who had to take Algebra 1 twice to pass. And cheated.
“50%+1”, you say? Is that of the population at large, or simply the voting population? If the latter, wouldn’t that necessarily require that his approval amongst voters has improved from his “close-but-no-cigar” election results? Which is to say, if it were held today, he would win the popular vote, yes? I am unaware of this development, despite nearly constant fretful attention. Perhaps you can direct me to the source of this information?
As for the population at large, that would roughly translate into “approval rating”, yes? Which has significantly improved, you say? Goodness, I missed that one too! There may even be several others equally befuddled. So, help us out, here, OK?
The Tea Party wasn’t so much conservative as reactionary. Like the Trumpets, theirs is a reaction to change, they are largely the same people under a slightly different banner.
These people coming out now, they aren’t “lefties”, or even progressives. They are not the people who activate for progressive programs and press for an agenda. They are just the middling, muddling center. For them, some degree of progress is the status quo, any argument is about how much that accepted pace of change needs to be accelerated, what level is comfortable, sustainabie, the least disruption.
They aren’t leading a revolution, they are resisting one. Some portion will drift more leftward, but not all that many, probably.
In a political culture based on reasoning, arguing and compromising, the Trumpers and the Republicans are cheating. They don’t have the numbers to demand the power to turn the country inside out and tear off big chunks of things they don’t like. But they are perfectly willing to betray that political balancing act to impose their will.
And this resistance is an expression of a kind of radical centrism. A fair argument could be made that a lot of the problem we currently face is a result of their apathy and disengagement. My bunch, the lefties, we’ve pretty much always been “out there”. But I got a nickel says at least half of these people have never attended a protest in their lives. Until now.
Better late than never. I hope.
Seems to me that a Democratic Tea Party would be only be a more vocal, more extreme part of the party. But the Trump protests take the entire spectrum of the party.
You need a Tea Party only if you think your regular party is fucking things up. While it’s possible this could happen, I don’t think opposing Trump is contributing to it. All Democrats oppose Trump at levels higher than the just the Tea Party hated Obama.
There’s already a House Progressive Caucus. Now, I don’t know if the Berniecrats, or Justice Democrats, or People’s Party, will actually successfully primary even one Democrat. And I don’t believe that they will successfully unseat even one Republican. I expect utter failureunless they work on transparent and verifiable voting systems, and bring free and fair elections to the USA. All the GOP have to do to win forever is keep cheating, using electronic vote-counting methods to stuff ballot boxes, and keep getting away with it.
Personally, I don’t believe any of that is necessary, nor am I convinced they are smart enough to get away with it. The standard tactics of dirty-pool democracy do the job. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, the adroit use of money, these are all tried and true, and don’t require sophisticated planning.
Its a commonly held belief that the evil are smarter than the rest of us, but, they are usually rather dull. Luckily.
Rather than the Tea Party, perhaps you should look across the Atlantic to Labour in the 1980s and the rise and fall of Militant Tendency, and the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2015.
Given that Trump will be much more unpopular than Obama, and that Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans, a left-wing Tea Party could be considerably more effective, and wield a lot more clout, than the right-wing Tea Party of 2008-2010.
Well, bear mind these are the American Center-Left/Democrats we’re talking about. Their record on results-oriented concerted action is not exactly impressive.