Dems Rebuild

[Big Red 40]

50 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The GOP does not present a unified front. The entire last year proves that they squabble at least as much as the Left.

 

And I'm tired of hearing about how we need to unite. If uniting is really that important, then let go of your position and unite behind the other side. I'm guessing that neither the Democrats nor the Progressives are willing to do that.

An independent has never even come close to winning, so uniting behind a democratic candidate is really the only choice. Bernie might have great ideas (i like many of them) but i also realize his agenda is too radical for a large portion of the population to accept. If he ran for president the GOP would brand him a socialist nut job, he’ll bankrupt the country giving away "free stuff" etc and smear him as they did HRC. Swing voters would run from him . And IF he actually got elected the GOP, The Rich, corporate lobbyists would obstruct him at every turn and neuter him.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Big Red 40

[zoogs]

We are the side that accepts the smears the Republicans try to employ as one part of their strategy to depress turnout.

 

For that, we lose elections. And we have ourselves to blame for not achieving that result.

 

I suppose this is all a sensible price to pay for what we think is the only way to send a wake-up call to the Democratic Party, so that they will move to the ______ direction on _______ issue(s).

[Big Red 40]

Is there a less smearable candidate on the left to put forth ? I think that’s what it will take . Maybe Joe Kennedy?

[Landlord]

6 hours ago, zoogs said:

If you want the Democratic Party to win, vote like it.

 

Also, we did. What happened?

[zoogs]

Did you? 

[BigRedBuster]

I completely agree with this and have thought this for a very long time.  There have been lots of leaders on the Democratic side that have completely used and abused the black vote.  Some of them are even black people like Jesse Jackson.  The vast majority of these people have done no where close to the amount of good for black people compared to the support, both voting and financial, the black people have given them.

 

 

[RedDenver]

19 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

An independent has never even come close to winning, so uniting behind a democratic candidate is really the only choice. Bernie might have great ideas (i like many of them) but i also realize his agenda is too radical for a large portion of the population to accept. If he ran for president the GOP would brand him a socialist nut job, he’ll bankrupt the country giving away "free stuff" etc and smear him as they did HRC. Swing voters would run from him . And IF he actually got elected the GOP, The Rich, corporate lobbyists would obstruct him at every turn and neuter him.

I keep hearing that Bernie (or insert progressive) is too <insert term like liberal, radical> so will get smeared, lose independents, etc. But Hillary was the exact opposite and that didn't stop her from being smeared. And she did poorly with independents. Do we think Hillary wouldn't have been obstructed?

 

Bernie is currently the most popular politician in the country, and Elizabeth Warren is second. Maybe give the popular politicians a shot?

[Big Red 40]

in 2020 there will be a Republican candidate, and good or bad, they will win the electoral college in the states that they always do. Same with the Democrats. I just don't see enough electoral college points left ,in a handful of true swing states, for an independent to make a serious run at the presidency.

[Danny Bateman]

22 hours ago, RedDenver said:

The GOP does not present a unified front. The entire last year proves that they squabble at least as much as the Left.

 

And I'm tired of hearing about how we need to unite. If uniting is really that important, then let go of your position and unite behind the other side. I'm guessing that neither the Democrats nor the Progressives are willing to do that.

Their voting base sure as heck does. As the old adage goes, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." When push comes to shove, they will almost entirely opt for a garbage human being of questionable Republican bonafides ("Two Corinthians") and reprehensible temperament like Donald Trump if he calls himself a Republican rather than take the bait and vote Democrat. Alabama proved somewhat of a rebuke to this pattern, and Roy Moore was apparently a bridge too far for many of them. A fracturing of the base sending a message about quality of candidates would be a good thing.

 

Or look at the tax bill. They squabble about their own differences with the bill, but ultimately, everybody is coming home. Corker took an apparent principled stand on the merits of the bill exploding the deficit, only to hit eject and become a yay vote when the GOP cedes a seat and it becomes clear the margin for error is too small. Watching any of these GOP senators hem and haw and pretend they aren't voting for this tax bill is merely low-grade kabuki theater.

 

We'll never know how things would have turned out had Bernie won the nomination, but I don't think the conservative base would have been swayed at all significantly. You can see that in their dogged approval of Trump even now.

 

Re: your comments about Bernie above... I think the take away from above is whomever gets nominated will be put through the GOP smear machine. Candidates that win find a way to survive that treatment. I'm personally not one that soured on Bernie because of his ideas, but rather my opinion that he'd have trouble implementing them. Absolutely would have voted for him 10/10 times against Trump, but assuming he doesn't crush Trump and develop a blue wave with his coattails, he would've been kneecapped immediately by the strong GOP numbers in Congress. We get to play the Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell game of sending conservative agenda piece to the president to be vetoed for four more years & no judicial confirmations, at which point they attack President Bernie as a useless hack with no accomplishments. Which probably results in more GOP gains over four years hedging towards a supermajority.

 

Ultimately that's still a much better alternative, but is it THAT much better?

Edited December 16, 2017 by dudeguyy

[Danny Bateman]

After skimming through this thread tonight, I thought there was a lot of good conversation that I missed last night and I thought I'd leave a few thoughts for whatever it is worth.

 

1. On fundraising, I'm not sure we're in a political climate where forgoing fundraising is politically tenable if a generic Democrat wants to beat a generic Republican, at least at the federal level. Even those most opposed to the current campaign finance structure (i.e., Bernie and those who support his brand of big money skeptics) will readily admit dark money can literally buy seats given the right circumstances. I think we'd all like this situation to change and the undue influence of dark money in politics to be flushed out. But I'm not sure how unilateral disarmament of financial backing is going to go. Beto O'Rourke is doing it in Texas trying to unseat Ted Cruz (not taking a single dollar from SuperPACs) & I'l be interested to see how well it works out for others who follow his lead as well, as a sort of trial balloon.

 

2. I agree with those of you who suggest new leadership is needed. Nancy Pelosi twisted lots of important arms and did an amazing job whipping votes for the ACA and I will forever hold a debt of gratitude to her for that. But the fact remains that the Dem leadership is viewed as stale and thus inexorably incapable of being in touch with the interests of a very broad swath of the country. This is particular true in our neck of the woods and other conservative areas, where they are weaponized alongside notorious supervillains as George Soros and the Clintons in order to poison the well for any Dem on the ballot. Although, I'm not sure the last point is all that relevant, given whomever is in leadership is going to get lambasted by these same forces as a means to a political end. Tossing them out because you think it will stop attacks on them as out of touch elitists is an exercise in silliness - if you want them out, you want fresh ideas and to create an image of change or reformation.

 

3. Republicans are absolutely better at messaging. Landlord is right in that facts/logic don't appeal to the human brain in the same way as raw emotion does. As a strictly political move, Dems should craft their messaging more like the GOP does. I empathize with zoogs because I'd like to see a future where we elevate high-minded debate about critical issues and decide what is best for the future of our country based on the best current evidence. But frankly that may be a little unrealistic in the short term. The dumbing down of America is both depressing and incredibly influential on modern politics. If it is to ever improve, it will take a lot of time to fix. In the short term, if it takes Democrats pleading with America that the GOP health bill will directly lead to the deaths of millions of Americans or that the tax bill will mortgage American futures and decimated the social safety net to pay off the wealthy and corporations NOW, so be it. If that's what it takes to reverse the current wave of craven, dishonest GOP hacks from heading to Congress, sign me up.

 

4. I don't think it's wrong to expect better from the political candidates or parties you identify with more, even if you view them simply as the lesser of two evils. But again, we're in a climate where fracturing of a coalition means sending someone who represents the polar opposite of one's own ideals to Washington. This is directly what happened to Roy Moore in Alabama. It is beyond fair to demand concessions to your policy views and withhold support until a party produces them if they want your support. But we should recognize that in so doing we may unwittingly contribute directly to the election of someone who drags the country in the opposite direction we'd like to see it move in. Some may call it lack of imagination or sweeping an inconvenient problem under the rug, but I just think it's highly unrealistic to expect a third party or parties to crop up and seize any kind of significant power. In a representative democracy with two entrenched parties, it would be a massive, earth-shattering undertaking to try to create space for a notable third party - or a switch to a different type of voting altogether. I do think a move away from FPTP voting and abolishing the electoral college would be excellent starts, but those are incredibly heavy lifts in and of themselves. Regardless, we're going to continue to find a lot of choosing between two candidates we're not really wild about situations in this system. How far we're willing to concede on individual issues or policy stances is a personal preference. I say this as someone who will most likely vote straight-ticket Dem in the future because the modern day GOP has become such a grievously irresponsible outfit that offers very little to nothing of benefit for me or anyone I care about. I'll still weigh local Republicans, if they're good candidates. But even a Dem I don't see eye to eye with hardly at all is preferable to another Republican heading to Washington to not give a damn about my interests like our current batch of representatives do. I"d take a party of a thousand Joe Manchins and Heidi Heitkamps any day, even with the current leadership, because I'd at least expect them to churn out policy I agree with. If that makes me a blind pragmatist who can't see the forest through the trees, so be it.

[zoogs]

Although, I'm not sure the last point is all that relevant, given whomever is in leadership is going to get lambasted by these same forces as a means to a political end.

 

Yes, this is the thing. 

 

And there are (and will be) legitimate criticisms, too. It doesn't mean don't fight for those things. But context. 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that Democrats are not good enough -- pick almost any issue. Race. Women. Economics. Foreign policy. On the left you'll see people in performative fits of "America, listen to black women" alongside corrective "this is self-preservation; now, do better" retorts. In this I'm an optimist but attitudes percolate upward and change isn't overnight. It's a fight against rigid structures, not illegitimate ones. One of the major policy pushes I think makes sense right now is a fight for the voting rights that have been assailed with specific target demographics in mind for a long, long time. 

 

You'll also see plenty of conservatives who think black people are lazy, who bitched about Ferguson and balked at Colin Kaepernick, who scoff at social programs and hum along to "inner cities" and "tough on crime" ... who pretty much have a consistent up-and-down set of attitudes regarding Black people and the policies they back en masse, throwing around headlines like that Intercept article. And hot-take-susceptible liberals on the other side who swallow both the facts and the take, and thus interpret it less as a call to move in policy directions and more as a "both parties suck" thing. It's not a mystery why low turnout occurs, folks. And it's not a mystery what the consequences of that are.

 

There are certainly people who view elections as a way to send messages to their parties. There's this illusory, utopian ideal that maybe if we shake party leadership out of their stupor, they will be replaced by sterling-armored knights without flaw, and lost elections are required for this. Yes, it's true that setbacks can spur change and also that change is good. The other side of that is this isn't a f---ing game. Here's a post in response to a particularly worthless WaPo op-ed arguing that alas, Moore's loss deprives us all of really holding it to the Republicans. Similar concepts.

 

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

That is a good point at the end. I always viewed a Moore win as a distant silver lining to a Jones one because it would put a morally repugnant man in the U.S. Senate in any real position to affect real change on all Americans. Given his transparently bigoted views to non-Christians and reprehensible other opinions about women, among other things, that is a clear and present danger.

 

I never understood the accelerationist mindset of 2016 wherein a Trump presidency actually just throws gasoline on the fire and brings about massive societal backlash and cultural reforms. We've seen the gasoline, sure. But that attitude discounts the millions who would invariably suffer under a Trump presidency - the Dreamers, for an easy example.

 

I'm left thinking accerlationists must be fairly well off personally, at least to the point where they could weather the storm of a Trump presidency. I still find that lack of awareness of one's countrymen and empathy pretty jarring.

 

On the subject of voting rights, a relevant tweet I saw Tuesday that makes a lot of sense to me:

 

 

[RedDenver]

13 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

in 2020 there will be a Republican candidate, and good or bad, they will win the electoral college in the states that they always do. Same with the Democrats. I just don't see enough electoral college points left ,in a handful of true swing states, for an independent to make a serious run at the presidency.

I agree that an independent has a very low chance of actually winning the presidency from outside the parties, which means that the primaries are critically important in the process and hence why we're debating this topic.

 

As for the electoral college, we just saw a dramatic shift in the "Blue Wall" states. This is a time of political upheaval and we shouldn't just assume that means people and even states will continue voting the way they always have. Especially since the millennial generation just last year surpassed the baby boomers as the largest voting block. Young people don't tend to vote as much as older people, but that will change as the older generation departs and the younger generation votes more.

Edited December 16, 2017 by RedDenver

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I agree that an independent has a very low chance of actually winning the presidency from outside the parties, which means that the primaries are critically important in the process and hence why we're debating this topic.

 

As for the electoral college, we just saw a dramatic shift in the "Blue Wall" states. This is a time of political upheaval and we shouldn't just assume that means people and even states will continue voting the way they always have. Especially since the millennial generation just last year surpassed the baby boomers as the largest voting block. Young people don't tend to vote as much as older people, but that will change as the older generation departs and the younger generation votes more.

 

This is a great point. Electoral shifts happen all the time. Lots of states in the Midwest are trending red, but other important states are slowly becoming more blue as well... Arizona, Georgia & Texas to name a few. 

Ultimately when you grasp beyond the "Gen Z is going to be the most conservative generation ever" tropes, I ultimately strongly believe the GOP support of Trump and approach to governance is poisoning the well for a lot of Millenials. We're not a monolith, but a lot of us were repelled by GWB and are experiencing a similar effect with Trump.

 

It's going to be hard for them to ultimately sustain their electoral strength as Millenials continue to age up and become the dominant voting bloc in the country. The GOP has a strong hold on most Boomers through appeals to tradition, memories of Reagan and Fox News, but that's only going to continue to carry them for so long before they have to face the uncomfortable task of appealing to younger generations they're royally PO'd.

 

You're right, though. Nobody should make any assumptions about traditional voting patterns in the electoral college or otherwise. Things change - sometimes suddenly but sometimes over a long period of time. Both parties would do well to recalibrate their priorities to better match the greatest number of people instead of relying on dogma & assumptions.

[Big Red 40]

I watched the election results of the last three elections, most states were decided early and by large margins. Hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of minds would have to change to swing those electoral college results. It would take a major upheaval, and lots of  time to change that if it happened.at all. The glaring thing to me is the 100 million + registered voters who didn't vote at all. Higher voter turnout usually favors the left , and i think that complacency was a huge factor in the 2016 election loss. I agree we need a better candidate to engage the nonvoters, and i think is the current crap show continues, swing voters will sour on the GOP, and will be looking for change also.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Big Red 40