2 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

You'll have a harder time changing the minds of the old (literally and figuratively) voters than you will finding new ones to outvote them if you have the right platform.

Yes, I agree in principle but you're getting more people in the 25-40 age bracket that are falling for the conservative trap. Scapegoating minorities leads to fascism. I'm very concerned, as I see more people in my age bracket swayed by hate speech, I can't help but wonder if there this fight will last forever. 

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Because if college is free but we leave racial barriers in who qualifies for the best colleges, the free college still perpetuates the current inequalities. 

The biggest issue is the public school funding system that states have. This is the biggest thing that perpetuates racial inequality. Schools are still segregated, whether one wants to believe it or not, and those that serve large numbers of minorities get significantly less funding than those that serve Upper middle class and Upper class White America. Until we solve the public school funding issue for K-12 schools, the racial barriers will close. More minorities will test into college just by access to a better K-12 education. 

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Because if college is free but we leave racial barriers in who qualifies for the best colleges, the free college still perpetuates the current inequalities. 

Yes, you ALSO fight those fights AFTER you've won the others.

6 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

You'll have a harder time changing the minds of the old (literally and figuratively) voters than you will finding new ones to outvote them if you have the right platform.

But...now you've hit on the other major lever...the constant campaign to make it more difficult for minorities to vote, or to make sure their votes count for less through gerrymandering. Making sure that people who can legally vote were unable to legally vote was likely enough to swing Wisconsin in the last election at least. Which, again, is not an economic issue.

Just now, Dam8610 said:

Yes, you ALSO fight those fights AFTER you've won the others.

So once again your reply to minorities is that their issue is less important and they need to wait until we deal with the more important issue. And damn, that's a crappy enough reply that I completely get why Bernie sanders lost the minority vote.

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So once again your reply to minorities is that their issue is less important and they need to wait until we deal with the more important issue. And damn, that's a crappy enough reply that I completely get why Bernie sanders lost the minority vote.

It's not about importance. Those issues are just as important. It's about winning some positive policy change that will help. You're the one making it about importance, I'm talking about enacting positive change instead of spitting platitudes their way for votes only to never do a damn thing to actually help them.

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Dam8610

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So once again your reply to minorities is that their issue is less important and they need to wait until we deal with the more important issue. And damn, that's a crappy enough reply that I completely get why Bernie sanders lost the minority vote.

NO!!!!!! Their issues are important. Why can't both be of equal priority? Again, I understand some of this stuff WAY more than most white males. I understand what it is like to be afraid for your life when you are approached by a police officer. I was out wandering my neighborhood at 3am about 10 days ago on my phone talking to my dad who was working overnights. I was lucky the cop flashed his lights at me, because otherwise I would not have known he was there, and I responded. If the guy didn't flash his lights right in front of my face and if he was behind me when doing it I may not have noticed. I probably would have been unaware that he was there and who knows if I'd be typing at this computer right now. I turned around and walked home, because I was afraid if I stayed outside I was liable to be shot. The officer obviously thought I was suspicious because he wouldn't have approached me otherwise. 

Edited July 3, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

But...now you've hit on the other major lever...the constant campaign to make it more difficult for minorities to vote, or to make sure their votes count for less through gerrymandering. Making sure that people who can legally vote were unable to legally vote was likely enough to swing Wisconsin in the last election at least. Which, again, is not an economic issue.

If Democrats are so concerned about voting rights, why do they have closed primaries? Same day registration should be a thing, both for general elections and primaries.

2 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

If Democrats are so concerned about voting rights, why do they have closed primaries? Same day registration should be a thing, both for general elections and primaries.

I'm totally ok with the latter, but I'm not sure that the party gets to set the rules on the latter in most states?

Closed Primaries are a very different issue. I'm basically ok with states going either way on that one, you can make an argument that a party's declared voters are the ones who should get to pick their candidates and I'd buy that, but I'd also buy the argument that crossover voters should also have some influence in primaries. So, that's not a big voting rights issue to me.

Caucuses suck.

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

I'm totally ok with the latter, but I'm not sure that the party gets to set the rules on the latter in most states?

Closed Primaries are a very different issue. I'm basically ok with states going either way on that one, you can make an argument that a party's declared voters are the ones who should get to pick their candidates and I'd buy that, but I'd also buy the argument that crossover voters should also have some influence in primaries. So, that's not a big voting rights issue to me.

Caucuses suck.

All the work I've heard being done regarding eliminating closed primaries has involved going through the DNC. Plus the DNC argued in court that they have total control of the nominating process. I would assume that includes whether a primary is open or closed. I don't personally know where to even begin checking the laws and regulations that govern that, but I would think the people fighting for the change would know where and whom they need to be fighting.

12 hours ago, Reddy said:

And yet his positions are extremely moderate. He also won with such a small margin that the rural vote mattered.

In some ways yes, in others, no.

5 hours ago, Reddy said:

I'm so down with Howard Schultz ?

Love to pledge fealty to the wealthy Lord of my choice,a true democracy

Reddy this is an example of why a lot of progressives and most/all leftists have zero faith in Dem party leadership. They have a record of failure and bad centrist policies and many have appeared to learn nothing from 2016.

 

 

 

Chasing Trump voters in a state Clinton won big in and which had essentially no Republican party. Pure genius.

24 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Love to pledge fealty to the wealthy Lord of my choice,a true democracy

Maybe this billionaire will think differently than the others!

20 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

Reddy this is an example of why a lot of progressives and most/all leftists have zero faith in Dem party leadership. They have a record of failure and bad centrist policies and many have appeared to learn nothing from 2016.

 

 

 

Chasing Trump voters in a state Clinton won big in and which had essentially no Republican party. Pure genius.

But we've been winning in dramatic fashion since 16. Shrug. 

22 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

Reddy this is an example of why a lot of progressives and most/all leftists have zero faith in Dem party leadership. They have a record of failure and bad centrist policies and many have appeared to learn nothing from 2016.

 

 

 

Chasing Trump voters in a state Clinton won big in and which had essentially no Republican party. Pure genius.

What would be considered bad centrist policies?

6 hours ago, The Beast said:

What would be considered bad centrist policies?

Deregulating financial industry (being too cozy with Wall Street), free trade agreements that sell out unions to corporate interests, prison (discrepancy in sentencing between crack and powdered cocaine) and social welfare reform that actually hurts (disproportionately) more poor and middle class people...not fighting harder on environmental issues, etc.

16 hours ago, Reddy said:

But we've been winning in dramatic fashion since 16. Shrug. 

Not caring about the perception of your party as long as you're winning is a great way to start losing.

9 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Deregulating financial industry (being too cozy with Wall Street), free trade agreements that sell out unions to corporate interests, prison (discrepancy in sentencing between crack and powdered cocaine) and social welfare reform that actually hurts (disproportionately) more poor and middle class people...not fighting harder on environmental issues, etc.

I don't support those things. 

2 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Not caring about the perception of your party as long as you're winning is a great way to start losing.

It's called prioritizing. See: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell approval ratings to success ratio

Edited July 5, 20187 yr by Reddy

29 minutes ago, Reddy said:

It's called prioritizing. See: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell approval ratings to success ratio

Yes, but they have billionaires with terrible agendas bankrolling them. That leaves you with the options of sell out your ability to implement policy you want to mega corporations who will demand things like caulfield posted or to actually and legitimately appeal to the people and do things they approve of, which will mean perception of your party will matter. You seem to be okay with the former choice, but I don't think the American people can continue to afford having their quality of life sold away to the highest bidder.

8 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

I don't think the American people can continue to afford having their quality of life sold away to the highest bidder.

1

I couldn't agree more.

Just now, Reddy said:

I couldn't agree more.

So then you're against taking corporate money?

Just now, Dam8610 said:

So then you're against taking corporate money?

Nope. Or at least, not until campaign finance law changes. But that doesn't happen unless we get Democrats elected. And if it takes corporate $ to get Dems elected with the ultimate end result of getting corporate $ out of politics, then I'm all for it. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, it's also the only realistic way it gets done.

2 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Nope. Or at least, not until campaign finance law changes. But that doesn't happen unless we get Democrats elected. And if it takes corporate $ to get Dems elected with the ultimate end result of getting corporate $ out of politics, then I'm all for it. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, it's also the only realistic way it gets done.

But several people have proven that theory wrong, now, in both positive and negative ways. Bernie Sanders ran an extremely competitive presidential campaign with no PAC money and Clinton's corporate money didn't help her beat Trump. More recently, the two biggest surprise winners on the Democratic side, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Conor Lamb, both refused corporate money, and made it a campaign point. It can be done and done effectively, and I don't think we'll see campaign finance reform until there's a large group of Congresspeople who haven't taken that money, allowing them to actually represent the interests of their constituents rather than the corporate donors.