[baytrailcat]

I disagree that this will not be helpful. The old-guard of Democratic Party hails from these hyper liberal areas (Fienstein, Schumer, Pelosi), and based on what we have seen so far, they aren't even showing a slightest hint of resistance to Trump. See the senate democrat's response to Trump nominees for example. Put enough pressure on them, they will at least form a semblance of resistance which can inspire and have real effects.

For a practical example, if people of San Francisco jointly decide that they want Nancy Pelosi to do X, Y and Z (otherwise she will get primaried in 2018), she will have no option but to do that. This is exactly what the Tea Party did (with tremendous help from Koch brothers) in last eight years. They unseated the old leaders and took over the party.

[anarazel]

> The old-guard of Democratic Party hails from these hyper liberal areas (Fienstein, Schumer, Pelosi), and based on what we have seen so far, they aren't even showing a slightest hint of resistance to Trump.

What exactly do you want them to do (serious, not provocative question)? All three have spoken up (in varying volume) about the nastier executive orders / memoranda / proclamations, all three argued against several of the more controversial senate approved cabinet posts.

Nearly all the senate confirmable posts can't be filibustered under the current rules. I'd even call it surprising how many of them haven't yet made it out of the respective committees due to the republican majorities. All that's holding them back seems to be those arcane "collegiality" rules that the senate has, and the reticence of some republican MoC.

Except for filibusterable stuff, the democrats are largely powerless for the moment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly happy with how Democratic "leadership" is working, but it's far from clear to me what should be done.

[cmurf]

Wide latitude has been given on cabinet appointments by the senate, historically. And also with a supreme court nominee looming, there's every reason for Democrats to not use their outrage on cabinet nominees where it won't matter anyway.

[baytrailcat]

Lol.. history and norms. Norms like releasing your tax returns before running for office? You think we are going to a centrist judge because dems kept their powder dry? Outrage is the only thing left.

[setpatchaddress]

You second sentence was the excuse given by Democrats throughout George W. Bush's presidency for every single failure to contain the damage. And they did it every single time, every single violation of the constitution, every single movement-conservative (old-speak for alt-right) Supreme Court pick. The outcome was that newspapers got used to publishing the words "Democrats Capitulate" in headlines. That was great for building the party's brand, as you might imagine.

[pcardh0]

>This is exactly what the Tea Party did (with tremendous >help from Koch brothers) in last eight years. They >unseated the old leaders and took over the party.

Do you have a link showing where, "they took over the party"? My understanding is that the Tea Party is a minority faction within the GOP.

[baytrailcat]

Check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_the_Tea_P...

Pay attention to the 2010 primary races that happened within GOP. There were also some high profile races where the Tea-party/Traditional-GOP split even caused Dems to win some seats (like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware)

After that cycle, mainstream republicans mostly co-opted the movement and the rift wasn't that evident in successive elections.