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

[all swedes are racist]

33 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

This is puerile logic.  Obama got the greatest turnout Dems can hope for.  Did he do it be veering far to the left?  Nope.  He also didn't do it by veering far to the center either.  He did it by inspiring people.  As I said, I really don't care what wing the 2020 candidate comes from.  I want that.  I want the 2004 DNC speech - which made his career and had me working for him by late 2006.

As I said above, I honestly don't care where she or anyone else is coming from.  Show me you can win, that's all I care about - far left, left, or center left.  

Can't help myself on one aspect though: "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."  Really?  I need to convince your twitter friends?  No, I don't think I do.

i think karradin meant the establiment dems, not you personally. and yeah, they really fucking do. 

[LongRider]

Another thing too, is what with the 'new' Dems approach, I already forgot their exciting slogan for it, anybody remember?  Well they say that now they need a 50 state approach and no more flyover states.  Well f'n duh'h!  Howard Dean told them that they needed a 50 state approach years ago and Obama put into to action.  They need boots on the ground knocking on doors in every state. 

There are people in the state and vols' who will come to the state that will do that.  Clinton thought she the three states that surprisingly went to Trump were her 'backbone' or foundation or some such shit and she pulled vols from there.  If the Dem's want turnout they have to work for it, they have recruit the vols for it and they cannot, never, ever, think they have the election in the bag.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

i think karradin meant the establiment dems, not you personally.

Sure.  Doesn't change what I said or meant.

9 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

and yeah, they really fucking do.

So these twitter people are going to sit it out unless they get their preferred Dem nominee?  Against the white supremacist and nazi Trump administration?  How does that follow?  Because such an insinuation sounds as if such "supporters" would allow their personal preferences to supersede what is best for the country.

[Gorn]

The talk about Bloomberg as Democratic 2020 candidate ignores the simple fact that he couldn't get elected to any major position anywhere outside of New York City. I remember a quote about him when he was talked about as an potential independent candidate: "a candidate who wants to take away your gun, your soda and your union card ".

Add to this his history of racial profiling during his time as mayor and his Wall Street background, and you end up with a candidate who, at the same time, manages to alienate all the parts of Democratic coalition as well as all the additional voters that the Democrats need to win over (or at least not vote Republican).

[A True Kaniggit]

26 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So these twitter people are going to sit it out unless they get their preferred Dem nominee?  Against the white supremacist and nazi Trump administration?  How does that follow?  Because such an insinuation sounds as if such "supporters" would allow their personal preferences to supersede what is best for the country.

It happened once. Why wouldn't it happen again?

[all swedes are racist]

22 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Sure.  Doesn't change what I said or meant.

So these twitter people are going to sit it out unless they get their preferred Dem nominee?  Against the white supremacist and nazi Trump administration?  How does that follow?  Because such an insinuation sounds as if such "supporters" would allow their personal preferences to supersede what is best for the country.

if you are having a hard time wrapping your head around it, give me some time to see if i can find some example of this happening somewhere in the dusty corridors of the distant past....

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

IIm glad to see you changed your mind and agreed with my argument in the space of 3 sentences.

No, I just acknowledged that it might be wise to run a younger candidate, but not someone who is younger than @Jaime L. 

15 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Somehow I don't think playing it safe is gonna be a good strategy come campaign time. The Democrats have simply lost too much and they need vigor and charisma.

I’m not saying that Democrats should nominate the most boring individual alive, but it would be a mistake to nominate a super liberal individual.

[Week]

3 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

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. 

Abortion as an issue is a loser for democrats - it's decisive in a way that the gap is extremely difficult to bridge. Roe v Wade is the law of the land - there's no sense in relitigating that battle as it will only go backwards to the detriment of 50% of the population directly and the remainder indirectly. As I said, moving Left or Center is irrelevant - strong leaders that can articulate their views (Obama) are what is needed. Any artificial movement to expand the tent by pandering to one side or the other is a losing strategy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours 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.

Yeah, it really failed Obama.........and every Democratic nominee for the last forty years. Democrats have won the popular vote 7 out of 11 times by nominating people who are relatively moderate. The last time they nominated a true bleeding heart liberal they suffered one of the biggest electoral landslides in history.

 

[aceluby]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Abortion as an issue is a loser for democrats - it's decisive in a way that the gap is extremely difficult to bridge. Roe v Wade is the law of the land - there's no sense in relitigating that battle as it will only go backwards to the detriment of 50% of the population directly and the remainder indirectly. As I said, moving Left or Center is irrelevant - strong leaders that can articulate their views (Obama) are what is needed. Any artificial movement to expand the tent by pandering to one side or the other is a losing strategy.

Exactly.  They have no reason to discuss it and they should do everything in their power so it's not a major issue.  It's the law of the land and has been for 40 years.  They need to discuss strengthening the social safety net.  They need to discuss how their economic policies are what brought on the strongest middle class of all time.  They need to discuss how Republican policies have weakened the middle class since Reagan.  They need to talk about how they are working to strengthen healthcare, not take it away like Republicans.

Shit, there's basically no policy that Republicans have that they can declare to be better on.  Sanders really did do a good job of hammering this home, however there were many groups that felt left out because he didn't specifically have policies that dealt with that specific group.  It made it seem like he was only talking to other white males which made minorities, women, and LGBT groups feel alienated.

So the real question is how can democrats hammer Republicans on their shit policies that don't help anyone; and both address the identity politics that leftist groups need to feel part of the platform, but not get bogged down so that you lose focus on discussing how shitty GOP politics are.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:47 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, it really failed Obama.........and every Democratic nominee for the last forty years. Democrats have won the popular vote 7 out of 11 times by nominating people who are relatively moderate. The last time they nominated a true bleeding heart liberal they suffered one of the biggest electoral landslides in history.

 

Yeah, I think if you run somebody like Jill Stein or something you would be probably hurting your chances.

But, I think if you run a candidate somewhere between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, you would be fine. In fact, I think running someone to the left of Hillary would actually be helpful.

[aceluby]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, it really failed Obama.........and every Democratic nominee for the last forty years. Democrats have won the popular vote 7 out of 11 times by nominating people who are relatively moderate. The last time they nominated a true bleeding heart liberal they suffered one of the biggest electoral landslides in history.

 

Obama wasn't very centrist in 2008 though.  He ran on medicare for all, tax hikes on the rich, deficit spending to stop the economic hemorrhage, anti-war, and strong social progression.  He was a liberal by every definition of the word.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

The talk about Bloomberg as Democratic 2020 candidate ignores the simple fact that he couldn't get elected to any major position anywhere outside of New York City. I remember a quote about him when he was talked about as an potential independent candidate: "a candidate who wants to take away your gun, your soda and your union card ".

Add to this his history of racial profiling during his time as mayor and his Wall Street background, and you end up with a candidate who, at the same time, manages to alienate all the parts of Democratic coalition as well as all the additional voters that the Democrats need to win over (or at least not vote Republican).

It also ignores the long established fact that he is anything but inspiring.   He's no politician at all.  He also hates politicking.  In NYC he paid for his own campaign (yet another one of those you all want?) and had the support of the people who run this city, the developers and Wall Street, and he has the support of the techies. These are not the people who put the orange over into the Oval.  The people who did that are the millions and millions who watch(ed) The Apprentice and believed that what was made-up on tv was real.  Bloomie won't and CANNOT do that -- and he ain't on TV, he ain't even in the country.  There is no way in hell he'd get elected.  Anyway, he won't run.  Get over this silly pipe vape dream.

Clinton was a terrible candidate.  Bloomie would be even worse, because, unlike her, he doesn't even want the job.

Also, when it comes to abortion -- and just generally women's reproductive health?  It may be the law of the land, like many other things are, but it isn't available for the majority of women who aren't well off because the powers that be made sure it wasn't in many states, by intimidation including murder, fund cutting both locally and at federal level, free speech rights -- see intimidation --, lies, none of which has been rolled back by the legality of abortion.

 

 

[Week]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I just acknowledged that it might be wise to run a younger candidate, but not someone who is younger than @Jaime L. 

I’m not saying that Democrats should nominate the most boring individual alive, but it would be a mistake to nominate a super liberal individual.

JL4PREZ 2020

[Morpheus]

Trump in Arizona today. Will he pardon actual human garbage Joe Arpaio? Will he attack Flake and McCain? Will he further dig himself into a hole about his comments last week?

After successfully sticking to the teleprompter last night ( sooooo Presidential), he has to be itching to unleash some kind of Trump dump, right?

[Ice Queen]

19 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Trump in Arizona today. Will he pardon actual human garbage Joe Arpaio? Will he attack Flake and McCain? Will he further dig himself into a hole about his comments last week?

After successfully sticking to the teleprompter last night ( sooooo Presidential), he has to be itching to unleash some kind of Trump dump, right?

With any luck, after his stunt yesterday, he won't be able to READ the teleprompter.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Week said:

JL4PREZ 2020

How can you back the candidacy of a guy with so little self respect that he roots vigorously for a team with an owner who refuses to change their racist name? At least I have the dignity to root for a team that’s owned by a pair of slum lord brothers who blacked mailed the city and state for hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium that has killed all the birds in said city.

#priorities

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

At least I have the dignity to root for a team that’s owned by a pair of slum lord brothers who blacked mailed the city and state for hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium that has killed all the birds in said city.

#priorities

But those sightlines!

[Dr. Pepper]

46 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Exactly.  They have no reason to discuss it and they should do everything in their power so it's not a major issue.  It's the law of the land and has been for 40 years.  They need to discuss strengthening the social safety net.  They need to discuss how their economic policies are what brought on the strongest middle class of all time.  They need to discuss how Republican policies have weakened the middle class since Reagan.  They need to talk about how they are working to strengthen healthcare, not take it away like Republicans.

 

No, let's not leave women's healthcare behind just because it's inconvenient to discuss.  Whether or not Roe v Wade has been the law of the land has not changed the fact that it's been constantly and successfully attacked multiple times over - to the point that in some places it's practically illegal or impossible to receive an abortion.  When Dems are quiet about abortion, states roll out anti-women bills that require clinics that offer abortions to have ridiculous standards making all those clinics have to close down.  The only ways those laws have been challenged, or in some cases overturned, have been Dems who have stood up.  

Keeping abortion legal and available is what helps strengthen healthcare.  Refusing to talk about reproductive care while Republicans steamroll over our rights weakens healthcare.  We must never support a party that refuses to speak about 50% of the population.

[Maithanet]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Keeping abortion legal and available is what helps strengthen healthcare.  Refusing to talk about reproductive care while Republicans steamroll over our rights weakens healthcare.  We must never support a party that refuses to speak about 50% of the population.

Keeping abortion safe and legal is absolutely a priority.  However, I think that electing Pro-life democrats in more conservative areas can help protect the right to choose.  Any state legislature with democrats controlling even one house is not going to be passing abortion restrictions, even if a few of those democrats are pro-life.  The problem is that there are way too many state houses where Republicans have the trifecta and every two years they revisit the question "how can we make it harder to get an abortion?"