U.S. Politics: A Request to Address the Cleft on the Left

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Shryke said:

It hasn't even been a year since the 2016 election. I would hope we have not forgotten it already.

A large enough portion of the Democratic base wasn't gonna come out for "centrist devil" Clinton in order to get rid of Trump. And you think they'll come out for fucking Bloomberg?

And you think giving Republicans a "safe harbour" is gonna work? Clinton fucking campaigned on that and it didn't do shit where it mattered. I mean, come on.

I think y'all are vastly vastly overestimating the appeal of Bloomberg while vastly vastly underestimating the extent to which a lot of left-wing voters hate him.

Well, some people thought "how bad could Trump really be?" And I think they now know it was a mistake to stay at home, even if they were "never Clinton's" like Michael Moore was (but who voted for Clinton because, holy hell, Trump is actually running!), they may be thinking that if the only thing Clinton would have achieved is preventing the WS&Ns from feeling empowered it would be worth holding one's nose and turning up to vote. I dunno, I'm not an ultra-lefty Democrat so I don't know what they are thinking right now, or were thinking pre-election. But I gotta imagine that many of them think that maybe, in hindsight, possibly a vote for Clinton might have been the better option than giving the middle finger to the whole election.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I’m not sure about this. It seems to me that Democrats should worry more about getting their own base out.

It seems to me that Republicans are always gonna play team Republican no matter what.

I dunno. I think enough centre-right folks, at least the independents among them if not the Republicans, are regretting not voting at all, or voting for Trump, and they could be a decisive bloc in 2020 with a Democratic candidate who fits in their ideological ball park. There are no doubt many on the left who would rather see the whole house burn down than simply replace a right wing looney with a slightly less right wing sane person. But I would be surprised of many or any of them are in the Democratic tent, which probably means the only Democrat they ever voted for was Obama, and even then a lot of them didn't. The US still has a woefully low turnout even in years where a highly popular person is running. I don't know what the ideological spectrum of long term non-voters is, but I'm guessing that group is well represented by people on the ideological fringes, and possibly more so on the left, since the far rights seems to be fairly well catered for within the Republican party.

[Durckad]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I have to believe Trump takes care of much of that problem just by being Trump. Does anyone see Dem voters staying at home in anywhere near the same numbers regardless of who the candidate is? 

Isn't taking certain groups of voters for granted part of the reason we're in this clusterfuck dumpster fire right now? I'd hope they don't just assume that people will just show up just because Trump. Logically, yes they should, but then again... 2016.

5 hours ago, Shryke said:

It hasn't even been a year since the 2016 election. I would hope we have not forgotten it already.

A large enough portion of the Democratic base wasn't gonna come out for "centrist devil" Clinton in order to get rid of Trump. And you think they'll come out for fucking Bloomberg?

And you think giving Republicans a "safe harbour" is gonna work? Clinton fucking campaigned on that and it didn't do shit where it mattered. I mean, come on.

I think y'all are vastly vastly overestimating the appeal of Bloomberg while vastly vastly underestimating the extent to which a lot of left-wing voters hate him.

Clinton also had to overcome the vast hurdle of her being Hillary Clinton, who has been smeared by Rethuglicans for almost two decades. Bloomberg, as far as I know, does not have that drawback so I think dismissing him simply because Clinton also tried to tack center ignores all of the other... peculiarities of Clinton's candidacy.

[all swedes are racist]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah I cannot imagine Bloomberg doing better than Clinton.  He's not going to play any better with the Dem base that didn't turn out in 2016.  And the left 2/3rds of the party likely have a lot of issues with him.  I think speculation about a candidate at this point is irrelevant.  The Dems need to figure out what they want to do and figure out how to communicate that to the public.  You're not going to beat Trump by trotting out the most republican friendly or centrist candidate you scrape up from the functional government, corporate friendly, chamber of commerce approved candidate pool (and old white guy to boot) that you drag out of the swamp and toss up on the podium.

 

3 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The conundrum they face is that if  they go too far to the left , they  risk losing  the moderate centrist voters and with it,  the 2020 election. They need a diverse voting base  with a  candidate. that everyone can agree on and so far, there's  no sign that they've found their ideal candidate. 

no, at worst they risk losing support/ endorsements of the rich doner class. moderate/centrist dem voters aren't going to vote r or even stay home in the face of trump or any real republican. the dem base is much more closely aligned with the ideas of a strong social safety net, worker and consumer protections, and especially healthcare reform-- even those policy positions that get tarred as "far left" (ha ha). what they need, as larry indicated, is a singularly strong message demonstrating a commitment to the poor and working class that should be their base. as shitty and disingenuous as it is, the rights message to their base of "we're gonna work for what you want" has proven more effective than the dems

[DMC]

Have to say, it is quite fascinating that once one asks for any specific articulation of what violence towards nazi protesters entails in the long run, there is palpable radio silence on the subject.  Ok, maybe it's not fascinating, maybe it's just expected, but it would save these threads a lot of pages if you didn't have idiots going back and forth on the subject.  Alternatively, if anyone does want to take up the preemptive violence cause:

 

[Seli]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

What nominating a centrist who's name isn't Clinton does is give centre-right independents and Republicans a safe harbour, they can vote to keep a Republican congress but take the Whitehouse keys out of Trump's hands by voting for an ideologically acceptable Democrat. What they won't do is vote for a Democratic candidate that is solidly left.

It is a sad description of the world we live in that it makes sense those voters will exist. There will be so many people bending in the weirdest ways to explain to themselves that Trump and the GOP have nothing to do with eachother, and it will be perfectly ok to keep voting GOP in national elections..

[karaddin]

I honestly can't believe people are already suggesting just ignoring the concerns of the left of the party and going even more centrist. If you think those people are more appeased simply due to Trump then its because you've buried your head in the sand and you aren't listening to them, not because its the truth. Even if you're right, even if there are free and fair elections in 2020 and a centrist manages to win it, its a temporary victory that is going to do even more harm to your cause. Start listening ffs. Kamala Harris was a name that was reasonable to utter 6 weeks ago. Then she made a bunch of statements on a bunch of things that really make her unacceptable to a broad swath of the left. Bloomberg was never going to be acceptable to them.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I honestly can't believe people are already suggesting just ignoring the concerns of the left of the party and going even more centrist. If you think those people are more appeased simply due to Trump then its because you've buried your head in the sand and you aren't listening to them, not because its the truth. Even if you're right, even if there are free and fair elections in 2020 and a centrist manages to win it, its a temporary victory that is going to do even more harm to your cause. Start listening ffs. Kamala Harris was a name that was reasonable to utter 6 weeks ago. Then she made a bunch of statements on a bunch of things that really make her unacceptable to a broad swath of the left. Bloomberg was never going to be acceptable to them.

Not sure to whom you're referring to.  As a (adult) lifelong "centrist," I'm more than ready to veer left.  Kamala Harris is totally my jam.  The DNC has a lot of work to do - primarily fundraising - but I ultimately don't care which wing of the Dems wins 2020.  Defeat Trump.  Defeat the GOP.  That's all I care about.  That's all I'll work for.  That's all that matters.

[drawkcabi]

I'm in a state where I can't vote in a primary because I'm an independent. But whoever is on the Democratic ticket in the 2020 general election, I vote for in opposition to Trump.

So if voters who stayed home in 2016 or voted third party, if they do come out in 2020, will that be coined the "hindsight is 20/20" election?

[GAROVORKIN]

6 hours ago, Week said:

Disagree - too big a tent risks a situation where (to mix metaphors) the left stands for so many things that they stand for nothing.

The Left needs a strong leader with the strength of their convictions. The moderate/Centrist argument is a bit overblown in my mind. Those voters are undecided and need to be drawn in - not pandered to. The backlash to 'identity politics' (blech at that word) feels as though it is conflated with a distaste for (perceived at least) pandering as much as policies themselves. 

 

Back in April The Washington Post ran a piece   Democrats Self Inflicted Abortion Problems    This brings up one of the division inside party , DNC Chairman Tom Perez's unequal support for Abortion rights and unwillingness  to back Democrats that support the line could prove costly in terms of  party unity . Also there are voters who  there are  democratic voter who are less to vote  a prochoice democratic  and there probably lot them in places like the midwest , and the south which the democrats need in order to win .  This is probably not the only issue that the democrats are out of step on which could cost them much needed support.   Honestly I just don't think going  far to the left will helpful to the democrats comes election time. 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Not sure to whom you're referring to.  As a (adult) lifelong "centrist," I'm more than ready to veer left.  Kamala Harris is totally my jam.  The DNC has a lot of work to do - primarily fundraising - but I ultimately don't care which wing of the Dems wins 2020.  Defeat Trump.  Defeat the GOP.  That's all I care about.  That's all I'll work for.  That's all that matters.

They have to agree on a party leader, so far  they've come up empty and they are continue com up empty until they solve the dysfunction. and  division problem within the party.

[Red Tiger]

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

I honestly can't believe people are already suggesting just ignoring the concerns of the left of the party and going even more centrist. If you think those people are more appeased simply due to Trump then its because you've buried your head in the sand and you aren't listening to them, not because its the truth. Even if you're right, even if there are free and fair elections in 2020 and a centrist manages to win it, its a temporary victory that is going to do even more harm to your cause. Start listening ffs. Kamala Harris was a name that was reasonable to utter 6 weeks ago. Then she made a bunch of statements on a bunch of things that really make her unacceptable to a broad swath of the left. Bloomberg was never going to be acceptable to them.

I want Harris or Joe Kennedy III, both staunch progressives.

[Bonnot OG]

Yea, for me who ever the Dems put forth I will be voting for.

 

[GAROVORKIN]

6 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Yea, for me who ever the Dems put forth I will be voting for.

 

Isn't  the" Ill vote for whoever  they put forth"   the same kind of thinking that got Donald Trump elected ?

[Inigima]

I cannot fathom why you guys think the Democrats need to run to the center. It's failed over and over again, most recently in the election of Donald Trump. I swear, the Democrats are like Charlie Brown and the centrist wing is Lucy. Surely this time it will work!

"The left will vote for anyone in this election, Trump is too horrible" is exactly the tactic that put Trump in office. They fucking didn't! That's what got us here.

[A True Kaniggit]

4 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I cannot fathom why you guys think the Democrats need to run to the center. It's failed over and over again, most recently in the election of Donald Trump. I swear, the Democrats are like Charlie Brown and the centrist wing is Lucy. Surely this time it will work!

Yeah, it's weird. It's like they think that by having Democrat candidates lean towards the center they will be able to lure slightly right of center Republicans into voting Democrat. 

Newsflash: That doesn't work! The centrist Republicans are gonna, guess what? Vote Republican!

So why not put forward a Democrat far enough to the left to bring out the people who have already shown that they'd rather sit at home rather than vote for the centrist candidate? Relying on people to come out and vote for your guy just because they're "not as bad as the other candidate" is not a winning strategy.

[karaddin]

Harris is not a progressive is the point I was making about her. If you see yourself as a centrist ready to move left, and think she seems great - maybe you can't have quite the perspective that someone already on the left would have. That's not meant to be a damning indictment of you, just...start listening to a wider range of people. Because a lot of the Americans I interact with on twitter, the ones you need to be convincing to be part of your party, are not impressed.

For a start on the problems with Harris as a progressive, if your primary concern with the ACA repeal bill is that it was messing with 1/6 of the US economy - your mindset is not a progressive one. You could argue that this isn't how she actually feels about it, it was merely messaging to try appeal to the centre, but that still says she's pitching to the center not the left, no? 

Unless I'm forgetting what progressive even means in US parlance, and it means just left of centrist like liberal seems to atm. My point is she is not of the genuine left, she's of the establishment and the center.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/22/2017 at 0:42 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

snip

It's been awhile since I looked at the voting data, but my impression is Clinton did poorly, at least compared to Obama, in some key areas where Democrats should be strong, people younger than 30, minorities, and a set of working class whites who aren't too caught up in social issues, but worry about economic ones. So turning out the Democrats "natural base" seems like seems like something that needs to be done in the next election.

My sense is that you could run somebody to left of Hillary Clinton pretty easily (who despite what Republicans say, wasn't really a left wing loon. She was really pretty centrist) and be fine. Maybe if you ran somebody to the left of Bernie Sanders you'd start to run into trouble. But I think you could easily run somebody to the left of Hillary and be okay.

Also, I think there is the matter of long term strategy. I mean the Democrats should try to push politics back to the left. You don't do that by trying to "triangulate" all the time. I mean I just think the Democrats attempts to "triangulate" under the Clinton ultimately backfired as the Republicans went even more to the right.Plus trying to “triangulate” or split it down the middle with the Republican party still puts you on the wrong side of policy making, since the only thing the modern Republican party is good at is passing tax cuts on for the wealthy. On just about every other issue, whether we're talking about addressing minority concerns, financial regulation or whatever, the Republican has nothing. There is a reason why the Republican Party failed to repeal and replace the ACA. It’s an unserious  party that is just technocratically incompetent. I wouldn’t the so called “Party of Business” run a lemonade stand.

[GAROVORKIN]

32 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I cannot fathom why you guys think the Democrats need to run to the center. It's failed over and over again, most recently in the election of Donald Trump. I swear, the Democrats are like Charlie Brown and the centrist wing is Lucy. Surely this time it will work!

"The left will vote for anyone in this election, Trump is too horrible" is exactly the tactic that put Trump in office. They fucking didn't! That's what got us here.

 

The stock market is doing well and jobs are being created , as to whether that will hold come midterm , that's another matter.  As long as people in general  have jobs , money their  pockets and they are content  , they won't really see the urgency to change that status quo. Which will be porblamatic for the democrats trying to unseat Trump and the Republicans .     And before anyone brings up the idea that this Pollyanna thinking , It's not. 

[Inigima]

17 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Harris is not a progressive is the point I was making about her. If you see yourself as a centrist ready to move left, and think she seems great - maybe you can't have quite the perspective that someone already on the left would have. That's not meant to be a damning indictment of you, just...start listening to a wider range of people. Because a lot of the Americans I interact with on twitter, the ones you need to be convincing to be part of your party, are not impressed.

For a start on the problems with Harris as a progressive, if your primary concern with the ACA repeal bill is that it was messing with 1/6 of the US economy - your mindset is not a progressive one. You could argue that this isn't how she actually feels about it, it was merely messaging to try appeal to the centre, but that still says she's pitching to the center not the left, no? 

Unless I'm forgetting what progressive even means in US parlance, and it means just left of centrist like liberal seems to atm. My point is she is not of the genuine left, she's of the establishment and the center.

Progressive and liberal are more or less synonymous. After decades of Republicans demonizing the word "liberal" it was replaced with "progressive" as an attempt at rebranding. It hasn't worked very well, of course, because it's a stupid idea.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/22/2017 at 7:06 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

 

The stock market is doing well and jobs are being created , as to whether that will hold come midterm , that's another matter.  As long as people in general  have jobs and money their  pockets and they are content  , they won't really see the urgency to change that status quo. Which will be porblamatic for the democrats trying to unseat Trump and the Republicans .

And none of this has anything to do with Trump or "The Party of Business". Republicans love to point out their super awesome growth enhancing policies. But, when it comes down too it, they suck at it. The reality doesn't meet the Republican rhetoric. And Democrats should point this out.