AHC: Successful Coffee Party

He is literally the only anti war relevant republican of that time, and I think that given the oppertunity he would reignite the Rockefeller republicans. Also metric system

Some of the realigning that happened during the Bush years wouldn't happen, or would happen differently than OTL. And Chafee just isn't up to the task of reviving anything.

I think, given the Republican Party generally being seen by Americans as strong with the military, there could be a strong case made that the Democrats just can't properly prosecute a war. Military figures like Zinni or McPeak who did oppose the war but had a history of supporting Republicans could make this case - maybe even Colin Powell.

And Lieberman may not survive the 2004 primaries; but certainly by 2008 he would be persona non grata in his party.
 
The tea party was and remains a true grass roots movement. From what I can tell, the coffee party is anything but. Mentions of the "Coffee Party" as a "thing" mostly comes from fairly affluent, white, and well-educated people who are also fairly moderate in their tone. The push for a truly leftist popular movement in the US will have to come from the people who are presumed to be the principle beneficiaries of leftist solutions (minorities, the poor, and union members), and, with the exception of minorities, probably more than half of them are by now card-carrying tea partiers or in the religious right (as are more than a few minority people). It will take a sea-change in American attitudes for leftist populism following the European model to work.

Also, it seems to me that Air America and the few leftist talk show people just don't appeal to as many people as many of the rightists. People like Rush Limbaugh achieved their initial success in part because they were funny and witty as well as being offensive (which in itself is often funny). Leftists tend to come off more preachy. At least that's my interpretation...but I stopped listening to or watching talk shows years ago.
 
The tea party was and remains a true grass roots movement. From what I can tell, the coffee party is anything but. Mentions of the "Coffee Party" as a "thing" mostly comes from fairly affluent, white, and well-educated people who are also fairly moderate in their tone. The push for a truly leftist popular movement in the US will have to come from the people who are presumed to be the principle beneficiaries of leftist solutions (minorities, the poor, and union members), and, with the exception of minorities, probably more than half of them are by now card-carrying tea partiers or in the religious right (as are more than a few minority people). It will take a sea-change in American attitudes for leftist populism following the European model to work.

Also, it seems to me that Air America and the few leftist talk show people just don't appeal to as many people as many of the rightists. People like Rush Limbaugh achieved their initial success in part because they were funny and witty as well as being offensive (which in itself is often funny). Leftists tend to come off more preachy. At least that's my interpretation...but I stopped listening to or watching talk shows years ago.

I agree with everything you say except your key point in the first line that the Tea Party is truly "grassroots".

It is a coalition which does include true grassroots but also:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tea_Party

And finally this - which is the least biased article and in my view hits the nail on the head.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-m...us-tea-party-between-astroturf-and-grassroots

I don't see anything per-se preventing the rise of a moderate movement of unions and pro-immigration campaigners and liberal and left libertarian entreprenurial types - one that could be based around how decent wages, and immigration reform could boost the economy for the benefit of forward thinking businesses as well as the middle classes, a bit like the Living Wage movement in Britain has got some Conservatives and plenty of business people on board - but given the current cultural state of the US, perhaps it is more likely in a Corey Doctorow novel than real life.

ETA: also let's look at where Open Democracy's money comes from (Soros), let's look at Avaaz, let's look at the Gates Foundation.
 
Could they make a successful shift to television?

Maybe moving MSNBC even more obviously to the left, with more emphasis on tv personalitoes and talk shows could fill Air America's gap. That way they could be not just an answer to Fox News but also the radio talk show host. After all, Rachel Maddow has a show, and the Young Turks did for a while.

The Huffington Post has potential to be a source of pro-Coffee Party opinion pieces and reporting. Basically, ou don't need to save Air America as much as have another media entity to take up the mantle.
 
I agree with everything you say except your key point in the first line that the Tea Party is truly "grassroots".

It is a coalition which does include true grassroots but also:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tea_Party

And finally this - which is the least biased article and in my view hits the nail on the head.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-m...us-tea-party-between-astroturf-and-grassroots

I don't see anything per-se preventing the rise of a moderate movement of unions and pro-immigration campaigners and liberal and left libertarian entreprenurial types - one that could be based around how decent wages, and immigration reform could boost the economy for the benefit of forward thinking businesses as well as the middle classes, a bit like the Living Wage movement in Britain has got some Conservatives and plenty of business people on board - but given the current cultural state of the US, perhaps it is more likely in a Corey Doctorow novel than real life.

ETA: also let's look at where Open Democracy's money comes from (Soros), let's look at Avaaz, let's look at the Gates Foundation.

Not unexpectedly the Open Democracy post is the only one that does not come across as screamingly paranoid regarding corporate influence in the Tea Party. It also doesn't really come down on one side or the other of the Astroturf/Grassroots controversy. One problem with articles like the one in the Guardian is that they sound patronizing and demeaning regarding the very people it wants to help "see the light". Tea Partiers may be many things, but many of them are not stupid. They are not tools of major corporations, rather major corporations have latched onto the Tea Party as a mechanism to increase their political influence. The majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, don't want to bring the corporate upper classes down to their level but to rise to their level. And rightly or wrongly they still believe that's possible.

It's my opinion that leftism in the US must separate itself from the classic Marxist model of labor vs capital that informs European socialism. Barring some unanticipated catastrophe far worse than the 1929 Crash, the majority of Americans will never see major corporations as an inherently evil force, and to make real headway with the middle and working class, the left needs to drop this mantra. Leftism in American needs to appeal to the libertarian streak in America, while at the same time focusing on wise stewardship of resources and wealth as well as national pride. Rather than equate the Koch brothers with evil puppeteers, remind people that with great wealth come the responsibility to treat others fairly and decently. Celebrate the Buffets and Gates's and ignore the Kochs and Waltons. Also, to be a truly grass roots movement, American leftism must come to terms with American religiousity. Leftists need to see religion (and even conservative Islam and fundamentalist Christianity) as a possible ally in the struggle for economic and racial equality while accepting for now its warts when it comes to gender equality. Similarly, a true and healthy American nationalism and patriotism should be fostered, one that focuses on America as the patchwork quilt of immigrants and natives, and don't be afraid to say it's exceptional and unique in the world.
 
Not unexpectedly the Open Democracy post is the only one that does not come across as screamingly paranoid regarding corporate influence in the Tea Party. It also doesn't really come down on one side or the other of the Astroturf/Grassroots controversy. One problem with articles like the one in the Guardian is that they sound patronizing and demeaning regarding the very people it wants to help "see the light". Tea Partiers may be many things, but many of them are not stupid. They are not tools of major corporations, rather major corporations have latched onto the Tea Party as a mechanism to increase their political influence. The majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, don't want to bring the corporate upper classes down to their level but to rise to their level. And rightly or wrongly they still believe that's possible.

I don't see anything from you other than opinion - I also quite clearly stated that it was the Open Democracy article was the one I agreed with the most. My point is that the Tea Party was not simply a grassroots movement as you asserted but a coalition of elites and grassroots - I also pointed out that Open Democracy and Avaaz are two examples of how progressive elites can engage with wider maybe more popular or dare we say class based forces in a similar way. I also pointed to a British example of how this happened, and made it quite clear I don't think it would have happened in the US, but that the potential is/was there.
 
As someone who both did a few Coffee party chats and some OWS stuff. I think the better move is mobilize some of the more moderate members of OWS who were basically the more vocal coffee party guys. But there not anarchist or out right libertarians/ Tea party types which some of the more extreme OWS people were.

Since during the height of OWS October/November of 2011. I had talks with friends who was organizing there local OWS movements and they already were tiring of dealing with the more extreme's at the marches.

So set up some sort of revelation that they could pool there talent along with the democrats instead of as a lone wolf.
So assuming the more miderate OWS types get their shit together and enter tlms with allying with democrats...what then? How do they proceed from there?
Maybe moving MSNBC even more obviously to the left, with more emphasis on tv personalitoes and talk shows could fill Air America's gap. That way they could be not just an answer to Fox News but also the radio talk show host. After all, Rachel Maddow has a show, and the Young Turks did for a while.

The Huffington Post has potential to be a source of pro-Coffee Party opinion pieces and reporting. Basically, ou don't need to save Air America as much as have another media entity to take up the mantle.
All good points. So the media presence to support it is there. The problem then is just getting it off the ground.
 
I don't see anything from you other than opinion - I also quite clearly stated that it was the Open Democracy article was the one I agreed with the most. My point is that the Tea Party was not simply a grassroots movement as you asserted but a coalition of elites and grassroots - I also pointed out that Open Democracy and Avaaz are two examples of how progressive elites can engage with wider maybe more popular or dare we say class based forces in a similar way. I also pointed to a British example of how this happened, and made it quite clear I don't think it would have happened in the US, but that the potential is/was there.

I don't see that we are arguing really.
 
So assuming the more miderate OWS types get their shit together and enter tlms with allying with democrats...what then? How do they proceed from there?

well the 12 election there was a few people who ran as OWS style democrats aka Raul Ruiz who beat Mary Bono for a house seat.
So more primary in districts also hopefully this influx would get the party in general to support more of these candidates via campaign funds. But in a way if more can win with out the funds maybe it gives them more street cred of being mavericks aka how the tea party ones worked.
 
well the 12 election there was a few people who ran as OWS style democrats aka Raul Ruiz who beat Mary Bono for a house seat.
So more primary in districts also hopefully this influx would get the party in general to support more of these candidates via campaign funds. But in a way if more can win with out the funds maybe it gives them more street cred of being mavericks aka how the tea party ones worked.

How does this success transfer to the local level? Arguably, the biggest success of the tea party has been in local and state elections.
 
How does this success transfer to the local level? Arguably, the biggest success of the tea party has been in local and state elections.

well I know Portland Or. had some push by there OWS types. There was a time in 2011 when OWS was owning all of social media so more ground work could of for sure happened.

I'm sure there is other sub groups that could be combined into this collation like the anti war movement vets who had some electoral support.
 
All good points. So the media presence to support it is there. The problem then is just getting it off the ground.

How does this success transfer to the local level? Arguably, the biggest success of the tea party has been in local and state elections.
IMO you need a liberal movement/Democratic Party that isn't resting on it's laurels right after winning the White house and Congress. This was a large source of the energy behind the Tea Party- the Republicans just lost signifiant power after W's less than popular term ended, and lost the Presidency to a Democrat with "CHANGE" as a central point in his campaign.

After 2008, many Republicans wanted to tear the Democrats and their own party leaders from power. Meanwhile, Democrats seemed confident that their work was done, and after Bush they ahd won the next few election cycles anyway.
 
Top