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

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm fine with a Democratic candidate admitting to being personally anti choice, but only if they are willing to protect women and their health by improving health care and maybe preventing undesired pregnancies in the first place.  

I want to say on the front end that you made some valid points in the part of your post that I snipped, but I’m trying to raise a basic question. In conservative parts of the country where a liberal Democrat stands no chance of winning, is the party not better off if it runs a conservative Democrat who may not be in line with the liberal wing of the party, regardless of what the issue is within a reasonable standard? Staying on abortion and reproductive rights, I would not support running a anti-choice candidate that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and do things like defund Planned Parenthood or close abortion clinics, but I could support a candidate who would use their position of power to not expand abortion rights if they couldn’t support it morally or for whatever reason. I think that’s a fair compromise to pick up a seat that might help lead to universal healthcare, for example.

[GAROVORKIN]

4 hours 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.

 

Yes it is the law of the land,  but there is no avoiding the fact that it will likely  be an issue in the midterms and probably in the 2020 election . It's  a given that the conservative wing of Republican party   even some moderate Democrats trying  to hold on to their seats will make it up as an issue.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Not sure how true this is as I'm not a fan of country music, but it certainly applies to the arguments we've been having since Charlottesville...

 http://www.rollingstone.com/country/news/why-country-music-stars-wont-talk-about-charlottesville-w498752?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/My wife left me, the dog died, my truck broke down and I can't disavow White Supremacists cause they buy my records.... 

[Shryke]

5 hours 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).

Yup. Like, I feel it needs repeating just to kill this argument dead, but there's a lot of left-wing voters/activists/minorities/etc who hate his fucking guts. And the Democrats need those people.

There were plenty of people I know pissed off he was even at the convention.

He's a NY/DC media fantasy candidate and that's it. His only base is op-ed writers.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Not sure how true this is as I'm not a fan of country music, but it certainly applies to the arguments we've been having since Charlottesville...

 http://www.rollingstone.com/country/news/why-country-music-stars-wont-talk-about-charlottesville-w498752?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/My wife left me, the dog died, my truck broke down and I can't disavow White Supremacists cause they buy my records.... 

The nightmare became real

[GAROVORKIN]

7 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yup. Like, I feel it needs repeating just to kill this argument dead, but there's a lot of left-wing voters/activists/minorities/etc who hate his fucking guts. And the Democrats need those people.

There were plenty of people I know pissed off he was even at the convention.

He's a NY/DC media fantasy candidate and that's it. His only base is op-ed writers.

The Left will do for the Democratic Party what Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn  has done for the Labour Party in Britain.

[all swedes are racist]

7 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The Left will do for the Democratic Party what Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn  has done for the Labour Party in Britain.

here's hoping!

[GAROVORKIN]

4 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

here's hoping!

For the Democrats to become like the British Labour Party ? Hm, I just don't see that being an ideal development for the Democrats.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Shryke said:

Yup. Like, I feel it needs repeating just to kill this argument dead, but there's a lot of left-wing voters/activists/minorities/etc who hate his fucking guts. And the Democrats need those people.

There were plenty of people I know pissed off he was even at the convention.

He's a NY/DC media fantasy candidate and that's it. His only base is op-ed writers.

Didn't get booed a ton during his speech at the DNC?

[Martell Spy]

Steve Mnuchin’s wife snaps at critics angry over Instagram post bragging about her wealth
Louise Linton parrots an argument used by Rep. Markwayne Mullin earlier this year 

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/22/steve-mnuchins-wife-snaps-at-critics-angry-over-instagram-post-bragging-about-her-wealth/

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/daryle-jenkins-has-stepped-up-to-explain-the-shadowy-groups-violent-tactics-to-the-world.html

The Public Face of Antifa

Daryle Jenkins has stepped up to explain the shadowy group’s violent tactics to a wary world. It’s not easy.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, Week said:

Abortion as an issue is a loser for democrats

 

3 hours ago, aceluby said:

 I don't think it's a winning topic for them and think that time spent on it could be spent on other issues that are, which is what I wrote right after the piece you quoted.

The notion that abortion is a losing issue for Democrats is really overstated. Now there are regions where it obviously will be, but Democrats aren't likely to win much there anyways so I wouldn't sweat it, and that's why I was also arguing that it's smart politics to allow pro-life Democrats to take those nominations if they're otherwise qualified. But for the rest of the country the issue can actually be a winner for Democrats.

First, you can't talk about it as a stand alone issue. You have to put the Republican on the defensive with issues like abstinence only sexual education and attempts to make birth control harder get or outright banned. Once you can do that you can show that they're being a raging hypocrite because they're advocating for policies that will actually increase the abortion rate. Then you pivot to stories of back ally abortions and educate people on the risks of going back to an era where that's a real possibility. You have to make it unmistakably clear that outlawing abortions will in no way shape or form prevent them from happening, and that by going that route people are actively endangering the younger women in this country. And finally, tie them to Trump's comments about how women have to be punished for having abortions and do not let them dodge or escape the issue. They'll either have to agree with Trump or distance themselves from Trump and if they do the latter you can trap them by showing your target audience just how nonsensical the outlawing abortion is.

It's important to also remember that 80% of the country is open to abortions is some form or another. 30-35% of the country supports abortion rights no matter what, so you've got them in your pocket already. The candidates goal has to be to play to the better sense of the remaining 45-50% of the people, and if you do what I listed above, I firmly believe you can win over a majority of them on the issue, especially if you can personalize it for them in an effective way. And most importantly, go on the offensive. Meekly defending the issue is the real loser. Being strong on it can energize your base and show leadership that appeals to the average voter.

[karaddin]

10 hours 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.

Obama got elected on a wave of optimism and then failed to deliver. A lot of that wasn't his fault, some of it was, but the long term impact on subsequent candidates is there regardless of how much was his fault - when you let yourself get inspired and then your hopes get crushed, it's a lot harder to trust the next person that comes along promising similar things.

And a lot of these problems that are driving people to the edge were still happening under a democrat president. So yeah, maybe you think you should just be entitled to their vote because Trump is destroying is the country, and I even gave an allowance that they might agree as far as getting rid of Trump, but if you go back to the centrist well yet again (especially if they were more centrist than Clinton) then good luck ever getting a big chunk of your potential voter base to believe you're interested in listening to them. 

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

First, you can't talk about it as a stand alone issue. You have to put the Republican on the defensive with issues like abstinence only sexual education and attempts to make birth control harder get or outright banned. Once you can do that you can show that they're being a raging hypocrite because they're advocating for policies that will actually increase the abortion rate. Then you pivot to stories of back ally abortions and educate people on the risks of going back to an era where that's a real possibility. You have to make it unmistakably clear that outlawing abortions will in no way shape or form prevent them from happening, and that by going that route people are actively endangering the younger women in this country. And finally, tie them to Trump's comments about how women have to be punished for having abortions and do not let them dodge or escape the issue. They'll either have to agree with Trump or distance themselves from Trump and if they do the latter you can trap them by showing your target audience just how nonsensical the outlawing abortion is.

Agree 100% - i meant more from a binary pro-life v pro-choice argument which was sort of the context that others had been previously discussing. The Republican Party platform is bankrupt with respect to morality, economics, and social issues. At this point, there is not an issue that I can think of that a capable Democrat/Leftist could wipe the floor with a Republican if they could appropriately frame the issues. That said - much of the current democratic leadership is absolutely garbage at it.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Obama got elected on a wave of optimism and then failed to deliver. A lot of that wasn't his fault, some of it was, but the long term impact on subsequent candidates is there regardless of how much was his fault - when you let yourself get inspired and then your hopes get crushed, it's a lot harder to trust the next person that comes along promising similar things.

And a lot of these problems that are driving people to the edge were still happening under a democrat president. So yeah, maybe you think you should just be entitled to their vote because Trump is destroying is the country, and I even gave an allowance that they might agree as far as getting rid of Trump, but if you go back to the centrist well yet again (especially if they were more centrist than Clinton) then good luck ever getting a big chunk of your potential voter base to believe you're interested in listening to them. 

Which would explain why we haven't had 2 consecutive Democratic presidents since Roosevelt/Truman.

[Inigima]

Christ some of you have taken leave of your senses. It DOES NOT MATTER how much you think Roe v. Wade is "the law of the land" or whatever other meaningless dumbshit platitude you've used to convince youself that surely now it's safe and even perfectly advisable to hurl yourself headlong into a pack of hungry wolves. If you have learned NOTHING else in the past 20 years it should be that all bets are off and history and norms mean nothing. We have a Republican party that is both hard-right and aggressive to an incredible, record-setting extent. They are 100% willing to stab you in the face, they are 100% willing to tell you they are 100% willing to stab you in the face, and they are 100% willing to look you dead in the eye and tell you that actually, it's GOOD for you to have a buck knife plunged directly into your eye socket. Roe v. Wade is exactly one (1) contradictory SCOTUS opinion from not being the Law Of The Land Hurrrrrr anymore and these fucking monsters are actively and openly stacking the court system with pure ideologues without even trying to hide it, including stealing a Supreme Court seat to install Neil Gorsuch, who is not so much a Supreme Court justice as a Fox News article in a skinsuit. And you muppets are content to burble about how abortion rights are safe forever because surely the Republicans won't cross this red line the way they've crossed a thousand others. The mind reels at how a human being could possibly be this gullible.

As regards the Democrats' never-ending run to the right because they too are incredibly, indescribably stupid and somehow continue to believe that surely this is the time Lucy won't pull the football away: Barack Obama is a once-in-a-generation oratorical talent. If your best plan for winning the Presidency in 2020 is "let's get another one of those" then I am interested to know just what brand of paste it is that you ate when you were five because its ability to destroy cognitive function should be studied in a laboratory setting. The Democrats did not win "7 of the last 11" elections, they won 5: Carter, Clinton 1, Clinton 2, Obama 1, and Obama 2. The Republicans won the other 6: Reagan 1, Reagan 2, HW Bush, W 1, W 2, and Trump. If you want to go back further than that, Nixon won the two before that and he was a Republican too. Obama was a phenomenal speaker, but he also ran against W, the most incompetent president in modern history until Trump.

I'm not saying you want to run Lenin incarnate, but the Democratic base did not turn out for Clinton* and they will give even less of a fuck about a bland technocrat like Bloomberg. Learn a lesson for once in your incompetent lives, Democrats, and figure out that the mythical moderate Republican does not exist and that the Democratic base does not like Republicans and will not reward you for becoming Diet Republicans.

* I understand that there was extreme voter suppression from the right. As I expect that to continue in 2020 I do not consider whining about it to be a viable electoral strategy and suggest looking for ways to overcome it.

[The Anti-Targ]

30 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Obama got elected on a wave of optimism and then failed to deliver. A lot of that wasn't his fault, some of it was, but the long term impact on subsequent candidates is there regardless of how much was his fault - when you let yourself get inspired and then your hopes get crushed, it's a lot harder to trust the next person that comes along promising similar things.

And a lot of these problems that are driving people to the edge were still happening under a democrat president. So yeah, maybe you think you should just be entitled to their vote because Trump is destroying is the country, and I even gave an allowance that they might agree as far as getting rid of Trump, but if you go back to the centrist well yet again (especially if they were more centrist than Clinton) then good luck ever getting a big chunk of your potential voter base to believe you're interested in listening to them. 

 

27 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Which would explain why we haven't had 2 consecutive Democratic presidents since Roosevelt/Truman.

But we have two consecutive presidents who charismatically promised big and failed / is failing to deliver. Obama's failure to live up to his own hype hasn't stopped people from falling for it, they've just been fooled into believing the hype from the other side

[Bonnot OG]

Here is a republican man, James Cobo, from Phoenix that linked an event for today at the Herberger Theater center in Phoenix for today's date. In it he was telling his republican friends to harass anti fascists / anti Trump protesters and find out their plans. He also said at the end of his post that someone could even run them over with a car. 

https://i.redditmedia.com/QWoTytgJ-83Du6ws3fWTjOPcg61wxz-EOyWEqJo7UsU.jpg?w=431&s=5ca6ab0ab606f89d264e36af96c40456

There is no reaching these people. There is no discourse to be had. There is no peace to be had with them. Turning the other cheek will not work, especially when they want to be violent towards those that they disagree with on every level, especially morally and ethically. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Sword of Doom said:

Here is a republican man, James Cobo, from Phoenix that linked an event to for today at the Herberger Theater center in Phoenix for today's date. In it he was telling his republican friends to harass anti fascists / anti Trump protesters and find out their plans. He also said at the end of his post that someone could even run them over with a car. 

https://i.redditmedia.com/QWoTytgJ-83Du6ws3fWTjOPcg61wxz-EOyWEqJo7UsU.jpg?w=431&s=5ca6ab0ab606f89d264e36af96c40456

There is no reaching these people. There is no discourse to be had. There is no peace to be had with them. Turning the other cheek will not work, especially when they want to be violent towards those that they disagree with on every level, especially morally and ethically. 

At least their often stupid enough to post this sort of shit online. I hope the police are having a chat with this gentleman.

[Shryke]

44 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Obama got elected on a wave of optimism and then failed to deliver. A lot of that wasn't his fault, some of it was, but the long term impact on subsequent candidates is there regardless of how much was his fault - when you let yourself get inspired and then your hopes get crushed, it's a lot harder to trust the next person that comes along promising similar things.

And a lot of these problems that are driving people to the edge were still happening under a democrat president. So yeah, maybe you think you should just be entitled to their vote because Trump is destroying is the country, and I even gave an allowance that they might agree as far as getting rid of Trump, but if you go back to the centrist well yet again (especially if they were more centrist than Clinton) then good luck ever getting a big chunk of your potential voter base to believe you're interested in listening to them. 

Why would it have an impact on subsequent candidates but not on Obama "The Disappointer in Chief" himself?

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

But we have two consecutive presidents who charismatically promised big and failed / is failing to deliver. Obama's failure to live up to his own hype hasn't stopped people from falling for it, they've just been fooled into believing the hype from the other side

I know, but this has nothing to do with my point.

It's a pattern. A liberal president makes promises, fails to deliver on them (even though delivering all those promises would likely be impossible) and the people rally behind a conservative instead and put him in the White House. The fact that it's much easier for a Republican to govern and please his base (lower taxes, cut regulation, increase defense spending) doesn't really help matters.

They just switch sides and go for the guy who tells them what they want to hear, common sense and pragmatism be damned.