2018 Democrats thread

[caulfield12]

Even though every single head-to-head poll consistently had him doing better against Trump than HRC?

This is where the Dems have to push back forcefully.

No raising of taxes...if the Republicans can create trillions of dollars in debt that won’t be paid back in revenue generated from the tax cuts, then the Dem’s can INVEST money into education, infrastructure and health care that will be paid back tenfold over the next 20-30 years.

That’s the only way to spin it...that Medicare for All (the hybrid which allows a choice of continuing with present insurance or opting into Medicare AND negotiating down drug/pharmaceutical prices) will save anyone earning under $100 or 125K or whatever arbitrary number they come up with (indexed to cost of living in that metro area) thousands of dollars more over a decade by cutting out the middleman/insurance monopoly.

And that we absolutely have to invest more into education, the environment and infrastructure or China’s going to eat us for lunch while we’re worrying about coal miners and clawing back industrial/factory jobs.

The irony, of course, is that Republicans hate giveaways or anything that’s FREE, unless it’s FOR THEM.  

The middle class has to see a clear difference this time around.   It’s all how you sell.   It’s not giving away school for free, it’s investing in our future and making our future workforce more competitive with the rest of the world, etc.

[caulfield12]

7 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Come on. I can't change how Bernie speaks, how he does it, or his implicit biases. You're trying to talk pragmatism while suggesting I should change things I have absolutely NO impact on. All I can do is try and convince people that he's not a smart choice if we want to win because of his inability to excite and mobilize and incredibly vital part of our base. 

You can’t honestly think African-Americans would sit out another election after everything that’s happened under Trump...that they dislike Sanders so much they’d rather keep Trump for 4 more years?

I find that nearly impossible to believe.

[StrangeSox]

28 minutes ago, Reddy said:

This narrative is patently and unequivocally false. It's insane that it's so prevalent. Pick ANY social issue, and establishment Dems and Rs are on completely different sides. Same for the majority of economic issues. 

 

Seriously. Pick an issue. Or make a list. I'll tell you where Dems stand vs Republicans, and we can examine whether they're the same. 

Look at Schumer's quiet backing of the bank deregulation bill in the Senate. Look at Obama's failure to prosecute anyone for the financial fraud crisis. Look at the half measure that is the ACA. Pelosi statements praising capitalism.

 

The establishment has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the left since at least Clinton's presidency in issue after issue. If the progressive movement you increasingly detest didn't constantly challenge them, they'd be even worse.

 

You're not really putting in much effort to try to understand the lefts frustration with the mainstream Democratic party from their perspective. You might not still end up agreeing with that perspective, but the path you're in now is just going to result in more anger and confusion from your end if the left wing if the base gets frustrated with yet another slate of weak spined incremental politicians who work more for tiny tweaks on the status quo than anything big and bold.

[StrangeSox]

31 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Come on. I can't change how Bernie speaks, how he does it, or his implicit biases. You're trying to talk pragmatism while suggesting I should change things I have absolutely NO impact on. All I can do is try and convince people that he's not a smart choice if we want to win because of his inability to excite and mobilize and incredibly vital part of our base. 

This, but for establishment candidates and the left side of the Democratic base!

[StrangeSox]

speaking of the usefulness of centrists

 

Quote

 

The warning signs are flashing red: Democracy is under threat. Across Europe and North America, candidates are more authoritarian, party systems are more volatile, and citizens are more hostile to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy.

These trends have prompted a major debate between those who view political discontent as economic, cultural or generational in origin. But all of these explanations share one basic assumption: The threat is coming from the political extremes.

On the right, ethno-nationalists and libertarians are accused of supporting fascist politics; on the left, campus radicals and the so-called antifa movement are accused of betraying liberal principles. Across the board, the assumption is that radical views go hand in hand with support for authoritarianism, while moderation suggests a more committed approach to the democratic process.

Is it true?

Maybe not. My research suggests that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.

 

Quote

 

Across Europe and North America, support for democracy is in decline. To explain this trend, conventional wisdom points to the political extremes. Both the far left and the far right are, according to this view, willing to ride roughshod over democratic institutions to achieve radical change. Moderates, by contrast, are assumed to defend liberal democracy, its principles and institutions.

The numbers indicate that this isn’t the case. As Western democracies descend into dysfunction, no group is immune to the allure of authoritarianism — least of all centrists, who seem to prefer strong and efficient government over messy democratic politics.

Strongmen in the developing world have historically found support in the center: From Brazil and Argentina to Singapore and Indonesia, middle-class moderates have encouraged authoritarian transitions to bring stability and deliver growth. Could the same thing happen in mature democracies like Britain, France and the United States?

 

 

 

 

[Reddy]

59 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Even though every single head-to-head poll consistently had him doing better against Trump than HRC?

This is where the Dems have to push back forcefully.

No raising of taxes...if the Republicans can create trillions of dollars in debt that won’t be paid back in revenue generated from the tax cuts, then the Dem’s can INVEST money into education, infrastructure and health care that will be paid back tenfold over the next 20-30 years.

That’s the only way to spin it...that Medicare for All (the hybrid which allows a choice of continuing with present insurance or opting into Medicare AND negotiating down drug/pharmaceutical prices) will save anyone earning under $100 or 125K or whatever arbitrary number they come up with (indexed to cost of living in that metro area) thousands of dollars more over a decade by cutting out the middleman/insurance monopoly.

And that we absolutely have to invest more into education, the environment and infrastructure or China’s going to eat us for lunch while we’re worrying about coal miners and clawing back industrial/factory jobs.

The irony, of course, is that Republicans hate giveaways or anything that’s FREE, unless it’s FOR THEM.  

The middle class has to see a clear difference this time around.   It’s all how you sell.   It’s not giving away school for free, it’s investing in our future and making our future workforce more competitive with the rest of the world, etc.

1) Sweet Jesus people are still making that argument? No. One. Had. Gone. Negative. On. Bernie. At. That. Point. And polls are a snapshot of a moment in time and have no bearing on future moments with different contexts. I swear. We need to teach polling analysis in grade school. Little frustrates me more than people who make bad arguments with polls they don't understand.

2) Democrats are making all of those arguments. Unfortunately, those policy positions and arguments don't make headlines in today's world. 

[Reddy]

40 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

This, but for establishment candidates and the left side of the Democratic base!

You mean the establishment that KEEPS WINNING and has far MORE SUPPORT than the Bernie wing? 

[StrangeSox]

*looks at state of Democratic party from local level up through the federal government across the country*

that's a strange definition of winning!

but you don't seem interested in actually having a discussion or, like I said, at least trying to understand where others on the left are coming from. you just want to dismiss anyone who doesn't support the democratic establishment who has a great history of LOSING BIGLY, though has been WINNING SOME along with MORE LEFT/PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES ALSO WINNING SOME. so have fun getting extremely mad at anyone fed up with the state of the Democratic party and their failed leadership that led us to GOP dominance across the board.

Edited May 24, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

44 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

You're not really putting in much effort to try to understand the lefts frustration with the mainstream Democratic party from their perspective. You might not still end up agreeing with that perspective, but the path you're in now is just going to result in more anger and confusion from your end if the left wing if the base gets frustrated with yet another slate of weak spined incremental politicians who work more for tiny tweaks on the status quo than anything big and bold.

The frustration comes from not understanding how the system works, and what Democrats can and can't do as a minority party. A lack of appreciation for the diversity of the Democratic coalition. And a selfishness that puts purity over progress.

There are things about the party that frustrate me. Schumer pisses me off sometimes. But I'm not so arrogant as to put my personal feelings ahead of doing the thing that will help the most people and protect those that are currently under attack. Right now we need Democrats - ANY Democrats - in office. 

If we don't take the Senate, Roe v Wade is gone. Is that something you're willing to lose for the sake of your principles? 

[Reddy]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

*looks at state of Democratic party from local level up through the federal government across the country*

that's a strange definition of winning!

but you don't seem interested in actually having a discussion or, like I said, at least trying to understand where others on the left are coming from. you just want to dismiss anyone who doesn't support the democratic establishment who has a great history of LOSING BIGLY, though has been WINNING SOME along with MORE LEFT/PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES ALSO WINNING SOME. so have fun getting extremely mad at anyone fed up with the state of the Democratic party and their failed leadership that led us to GOP dominance across the board.

The party did terribly for the 8 years under Obama, and there are a lot of reasons for that. Since Trump they've been doing a helluva lot better. 

And you're misrepresenting facts. Establishment Dems have won the VAST MAJORITY of races since 2016. Stacey Abrams is establishment. Bernie endorsed her because he badly needed a win. 

[Dam8610]

14 hours ago, raBBit said:

There are more poor white people in this country than any other race.

You seriously said this after your outrage that I used raw numbers to compare the US and Canada rather than percentages? Hypocrisy much?

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

This narrative is patently and unequivocally false. It's insane that it's so prevalent. Pick ANY social issue, and establishment Dems and Rs are on completely different sides. Same for the majority of economic issues. 

 

Seriously. Pick an issue. Or make a list. I'll tell you where Dems stand vs Republicans, and we can examine whether they're the same. 

How about banking deregulation? Please, tell me how opposed establishment Democrats are to that while 33 Democratic senators just voted to neuter Dodd-Frank.

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

You realize I support Bernie's platform in a perfect world (and if there's a viable funding source) right? I just don't support him because he divides the party and is an electoral liability. 

There is a viable funding source. It's called taxation of the wealthy and of financial transactions.

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

Come on. I can't change how Bernie speaks, how he does it, or his implicit biases. You're trying to talk pragmatism while suggesting I should change things I have absolutely NO impact on. All I can do is try and convince people that he's not a smart choice if we want to win because of his inability to excite and mobilize and incredibly vital part of our base. 

If you know that his policies are the ones that will benefit women and POC most, YOU could educate them on that fact rather than bash Bernie for not effectively communicating. Besides, Democrats have counted on, and gotten, the minority vote while doing relatively little to earn it for decades now. Why is it that only when someone comes along with ideas that can actually help them does "excit[ing] and mobiliz[ing]" that part of the base become important? Again, if the guy has the right message, and your goal is winning in 2018 and 2020, supporting him and communicating his message effectively seems like the most logical thing to do.

26 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

speaking of the usefulness of centrists

 

 

 

 

Makes sense.

 

14 minutes ago, Reddy said:

1) Sweet Jesus people are still making that argument? No. One. Had. Gone. Negative. On. Bernie. At. That. Point. And polls are a snapshot of a moment in time and have no bearing on future moments with different contexts. I swear. We need to teach polling analysis in grade school. Little frustrates me more than people who make bad arguments with polls they don't understand.

2) Democrats are making all of those arguments. Unfortunately, those policy positions and arguments don't make headlines in today's world. 

I didn't know Hillary Clinton and the people who were running the DNC at the time were "No. One." in 2016. They are now for all intents and purposes, but they weren't then.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Dam8610

[StrangeSox]

11 minutes ago, Reddy said:

The party did terribly for the 8 years under Obama, and there are a lot of reasons for that. Since Trump they've been doing a helluva lot better. 

And you're misrepresenting facts. Establishment Dems have won the VAST MAJORITY of races since 2016. Stacey Abrams is establishment. Bernie endorsed her because he badly needed a win. 

The party also did terribly from 2000 up until 2006. 2006 was good, 2008 was better, 2012 was okay. 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, and 2016 were all disasters. Some signs point to a big year this year, but it's still a long-shot to take back the Senate and maybe 50/50 to take the House right now.

 

More establishment candidates have been running, so of course more of them have won. It's...sort of expected that there will be more establishment candidates than outside challengers. You're also really, really hung up on Bernie when the conversation is broader than him specifically. You gotta move past your Bernie hate if you want to have any hope of engaging with or even just understanding the left base of the party. "The establishment candidate is the safe choice!" is a really hard message to sell after 2016.

[Reddy]

Doing multipost responses like that makes it hard to respond back to your individual points. 

I'm not going to keep relitigating. No one went negative on Bernie. 

Re: banking regulations, you picked the single issue that exists where some Dems are problematic. Congrats. I agree with you. That doesn't supercede EVERY. OTHER. ISSUE. Is that issue worth not supporting Dems over if it means Roe v Wade is overturned? If gerrymandering is made even worse? If the environment gets destroyed? If climate change goes unaddressed? If millions lose healthcare? If medicaid, medicare, social security and food stamps get gutted? If we get no gun control? I could go on and on. 

I want corporate money out of politics. I don't want us deregulating wall street. But that is not this moment's fight. There's too much else at stake. 

[Reddy]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The party also did terribly from 2000 up until 2006. 2006 was good, 2008 was better, 2012 was okay. 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, and 2016 were all disasters. Some signs point to a big year this year, but it's still a long-shot to take back the Senate and maybe 50/50 to take the House right now.

 

More establishment candidates have been running, so of course more of them have won. It's...sort of expected that there will be more establishment candidates than outside challengers. You're also really, really hung up on Bernie when the conversation is broader than him specifically. You gotta move past your Bernie hate if you want to have any hope of engaging with or even just understanding the left base of the party. "The establishment candidate is the safe choice!" is a really hard message to sell after 2016.

Fortunately that's not the messaging. The fact that you think a $15 min wage, medicare for all, guaranteed jobs, and not taking PAC money is establishment is a little silly. And women who've never run before are winning across the country. Is that establishment? 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Reddy

[StrangeSox]

2 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Doing multipost responses like that makes it hard to respond back to your individual points. 

I'm not going to keep relitigating. No one went negative on Bernie. 

Re: banking regulations, you picked the single issue that exists where some Dems are problematic. Congrats. I agree with you. That doesn't supercede EVERY. OTHER. ISSUE. Is that issue worth not supporting Dems over if it means Roe v Wade is overturned? If gerrymandering is made even worse? If the environment gets destroyed? If climate change goes unaddressed? If millions lose healthcare? If medicaid, medicare, social security and food stamps get gutted? If we get no gun control? I could go on and on. 

I want corporate money out of politics. I don't want us deregulating wall street. But that is not this moment's fight. There's too much else at stake. 

What did Clinton do in the 90's? What about Obama's "Grand Bargain" proposal during his turn?

I voted for Clinton in the general. I'll vote for Lipinski this fall as well, despite him being the worst Dem in the House and having to be dragged even mildly left from his anti-abortion, gay-hating, anti-health care stances of old by a legitimate progressive challenger this year.

What if I want better than what establishment Dems have offered on abortion, environmental protections, climate change, and especially health care? Why is it always up to the progressives to compromise their views and stances in service of the centrists?

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Fortunately that's not the messaging. The fact that you think a $15 min wage, medicare for all, guaranteed jobs, and not taking PAC money is establishment is a little silly. And women who've never run before are winning across the country. Is that establishment? 

What's dragged the establishment to support those causes, which they sure as hell weren't previously?

the left base! the same base you keep attacking again and again and again.

I also never mentioned any of those specific things so I'm not sure who you're yelling at there?

[Reddy]

Just now, StrangeSox said:

What's dragged the establishment to support those causes, which they sure as hell weren't previously?

the left base! the same base you keep attacking again and again and again.

I also never mentioned any of those specific things so I'm not sure who you're yelling at there?

EXACTLY! We've listened! But it's never enough for Bernie and his followers. THIS is the moment we have to come together, and the Dems have been trying to throw the left as many concessions as possible to get them on board. Still they refuse. 

[Reddy]

6 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

What did Clinton do in the 90's? What about Obama's "Grand Bargain" proposal during his turn?

I voted for Clinton in the general. I'll vote for Lipinski this fall as well, despite him being the worst Dem in the House and having to be dragged even mildly left from his anti-abortion, gay-hating, anti-health care stances of old by a legitimate progressive challenger this year.

What if I want better than what establishment Dems have offered on abortion, environmental protections, climate change, and especially health care? Why is it always up to the progressives to compromise their views and stances in service of the centrists?

You fucking wait until our country isn't on the precipice of destruction at the hands of Trump and his bastardized GOP. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Reddy

[StrangeSox]

lol buddy I've been compromising my values by voting D in every election since I was of voting age. I'll be the first to argue that voting is a utilitarian exercise in harm reduction rather than an opportunity to pat yourself on the back for staying pure and clean with a 'principled' vote

9 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You fucking wait until our country isn't on the precipice of destruction at the hands of Trump and his bastardized GOP. 

who brought us to this point? who failed spectacularly at every level for a long period of time? who got outplayed by the GOP over and over and over again? who has had an economic platform that's helped to perpetuate our large and growing economic gaps, entrenching wealth and power in the hands of a few? who had no response to an increasingly unhinged GOP throughout the Bush years, culminating in Trump, the logical end-game of decades of GOP politics, not a bastardization?

 

why should the establishment be trusted? why are they the safer option in the wake of their catastrophic failures in 2016? where have they shown that they've changed and learned? what, exactly, is inspiring and trust-building so far in Schumer's leadership?

 

 

e: until you stop ranting about "Bering and his followers" and actually engage in what others are saying, which is broader and goes back farther than Sanders, I think I'm done with this convo.

Edited May 24, 2018 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

If they push Turner out of OR, will you be happier then at least...?  She’s actually alienating Hispanics more than she is bringing African Americans back into the fold.

As far as flipping the Senate, chances are pretty darned slim.  

Edited May 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

 

lol buddy I've been compromising my values by voting D in every election since I was of voting age

who brought us to this point? who failed spectacularly at every level for a long period of time? who got outplayed by the GOP over and over and over again? who has had an economic platform that's helped to perpetuate our large and growing economic gaps, entrenching wealth and power in the hands of a few? who had no response to an increasingly unhinged GOP throughout the Bush years, culminating in Trump, the logical end-game of decades of GOP politics, not a bastardization?

 

why should the establishment be trusted? why are they the safer option in the wake of their catastrophic failures in 2016? where have they shown that they've changed and learned? what, exactly, is inspiring and trust-building so far in Schumer's leadership?

You know what, fine. I'm done having this conversation. You win. I've been compromising mine too because THAT'S WHAT RATIONAL PEOPLE DO.

I wanted to fix that, so thats why I'm now working in politics. I play the game to get where I need to be so I can change things and fight for the more progressive policies that I personally believe in. But we can't GET those policies if we don't have Democrats in power, regardless of whether or not they're perfect on every issue.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Reddy

[Reddy]

 

If they push Turner out of OR, will you be happier then at least...?

She’s actually alienating Hispanics more than she is bringing African Americans back into the fold.

I'll be ecstatic.

[GoSox05]

The pressure really is on Pelosi and Schumer.  If the Democrats have a bad mid-terms, have to imagine both will be out of leadership positions.

[Reddy]

 

The pressure really is on Pelosi and Schumer.  If the Democrats have a bad mid-terms, have to imagine both will be out of leadership positions.

Absolutely, and deservedly so.

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

Outrage? I used your own words to put that post together. Sure, on a rate basis certain minority groups are more likely to be poor than white people and there are certain minority groups that are less likely to be poor than white people. Regardless, when speaking about the disenfranchised in this country, it shouldn't be looked at from a lens of race. 

Then why did you? You were the one who brought race into the discussion, in a manner designed to be misleading.

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

You know what, fine. I'm done having this conversation. You win. I've been compromising mine too because THAT'S WHAT RATIONAL PEOPLE DO.

I wanted to fix that, so thats why I'm now working in politics. I play the game to get where I need to be so I can change things and fight for the more progressive policies that I personally believe in. But we can't GET those policies if we don't have Democrats in power, regardless of whether or not they're perfect on every issue.

Perfect on every issue? LOL, a coin flip would be better on the issues than some Democratic politicians.