Bump, in case Delvo wants to try and explain "just like the right".
2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker
- Thread starter Brainster
- Start date
- Status
Distracted1
Philosopher
I could learn all the words to O'Canada if they'd have me.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
I looked semi-seriously at making a move before Trump was elected. They are very restrictive. If you're a retired American with sufficient assets to live on without taking a job from a Canadian citizen and just wants to live there and spend money, they aren't interested.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I guess the Canadians don't believe in trickle down economics.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
But neither made any sense.
She proposed no platforms that would be construed as either a "hawk" or a buddy of Wall Street.
Her platform across the board was to the left of Obama's not to the right.
Belz...
Fiend God
It's not about her platform, but about her words, history and dealings. Remember how much of a deal Sanders made about the transcripts to her Wall Street speech?
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
If we agree that they should be "engaged" and "involved", then we don't disagree that they're there.
That's the problem right there. "I'm not him" is not engaging. It's exactly how to get people not to bother voting for you because you've given them nothing to vote for.
I don't follow what this means. "Give back to the progressive wing" sounds like it means "Democrats should actually do something progressive for a change", but the part after the star-jump sounds like it means progressives should give more support to politicians who aren't particularly progressive. I'd agree with the former, but how does the latter make any sense or even fit with how democracy is supposed to work? What other political group would you say should vote for politicians who aren't on their side and don't try to do the kinds of policies they favor? And what connection is there between these two subjects?
Also, that's not what "litmus test" means. I can going along with expanding the original meaning beyond basing approval or disapproval on one single issue regardless of all other issues, to basing approval or disapproval on just a few issues regardless of the rest, but a word like "progressivism" is a package of positions on practically all issues. That doesn't leave anything else for the alleged litmus-tester to be ignoring in favor of them! Describing a politician's positions or actions and whether they agree with one's own is just political commentary, not a litmus test.
I might agree to some extent, if there were any sign that the "moderate" Democrats who run the party and insist on the same repeatedly failed campaign strategy as you had any intention of ever actually doing that. But they just go along with everything instead.
And BTW, back to an older one...
When have you ever seen/heard a conservative saying Democrats should fight for liberal policies?
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
You're really not getting it. The conservative meme is that Dems need to stop running more to the middle because they think they own the middle. They'd love to see the Democratic Party running hard left, much like they pretended to respect and be willing to work with Bernie Sanders. They're sitting like a cat in front of a mouse hole with cheese on its breath. They would love to see Bernie or a Bernie clone as the candidate in 2020.
When I speak of engaging it's to convince Progressives that if they have any hope, it's in the Democratic Party but more importantly that they need to do the Mao/Chiang thing and unite long enough to beat the common enemy. The Democratic Party has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the progressive side on a number of issues. Those of us calling for LGBTQ rights (before they were referred to as such) were voices in the wilderness for three decades. The Democrats finally came around, en masse, only in the last twelve years.
I can argue on these boards with mainstream Dems until the cows come home, but we're not talking about political philosophies. We're talking about election politics. It's a dream to think that a hard left progressive is going to carry the party or the GE. Satisfy ourselves, if necessary, with the reality that the barbarians are at the gate, and they have to be stopped, even if it means supporting the people you argue with every day on UHC or gov't sponsored tuition (just to pick two issues).
Sanders did not have the support. Period. No progressive on a 100% progressive platform is going to have the support. Pushing Hillary off of some of her positions and to the sensible left was a huge victory. Bernie saw that, but more important he saw that the important thing was what we failed to do.... Stop The Republicans.
That is the whole battle, right now.
(Has anyone come up with the final figure of the number of Bernie supporters who stayed home. NPR reported that the Bernie voters who switched to Trump (roughly 1 in 10) actually won him the rust belt states that gave him the White House. If another 1 in 10 stayed home because, sniff, y'all were a bunch of meanies to Bernie, then they've made my case for me.)
When I speak of engaging it's to convince Progressives that if they have any hope, it's in the Democratic Party but more importantly that they need to do the Mao/Chiang thing and unite long enough to beat the common enemy. The Democratic Party has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the progressive side on a number of issues. Those of us calling for LGBTQ rights (before they were referred to as such) were voices in the wilderness for three decades. The Democrats finally came around, en masse, only in the last twelve years.
I can argue on these boards with mainstream Dems until the cows come home, but we're not talking about political philosophies. We're talking about election politics. It's a dream to think that a hard left progressive is going to carry the party or the GE. Satisfy ourselves, if necessary, with the reality that the barbarians are at the gate, and they have to be stopped, even if it means supporting the people you argue with every day on UHC or gov't sponsored tuition (just to pick two issues).
Sanders did not have the support. Period. No progressive on a 100% progressive platform is going to have the support. Pushing Hillary off of some of her positions and to the sensible left was a huge victory. Bernie saw that, but more important he saw that the important thing was what we failed to do.... Stop The Republicans.
That is the whole battle, right now.
(Has anyone come up with the final figure of the number of Bernie supporters who stayed home. NPR reported that the Bernie voters who switched to Trump (roughly 1 in 10) actually won him the rust belt states that gave him the White House. If another 1 in 10 stayed home because, sniff, y'all were a bunch of meanies to Bernie, then they've made my case for me.)
Belz...
Fiend God
They might not like the results, however. I don't know, but I can't say whether it'd be a winning solution for the Democrats or not.
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
Might I point out that this was the first time I had ever heard of a Democratic candidate being vilified for giving paid speeches.
And what of her history and dealings? Are they really hoping for a Dove that would be elected and stay a Dove? Because that ain't happening. If Bernie had been elected we'd still be involved all over the world.
Belz...
Fiend God
Look, I don't know. All I'm saying is that her 'ties' to Wallstreet were a point of contention, and I don't doubt that her reluctance to release the transcripts is due to her not wanting their contents known.
angrysoba
Philosophile
There used to be a meme among Republicans that Ross Perot took a load of votes from George H W Bush which denied him a victory over Bill Clinton.
However, subsequent analyses of the data (from a few sources, but I heard it most recently on a 538 podcast) showed that Perot took votes somewhat evenly from both Bush Sr. and from Bill Clinton.
That alone would suggest that back then there were a lot of voters in the centre who were happy to move back and forth across parties.
Then to get re-elected it seems Bill Clinton had to move into the middle with his "triangulation" strategy without which he probably would not have won.
Now, since then it is often opined that the Republicans have moved right, and that the Democrats have moved right as well. But is that really the case? The Democrats seem to have gone left on a number of issues such as gay marriage and other social issues.
I think it is probably irrelevant. I think people in the swing states were put off by Hillary Clinton herself and didn't want to vote for her. The number of votes that made a difference was really low. It wasn't that she didn't get enough votes, it was where those votes were cast.
The Democrats need a candidate who can appeal to a particular demographic in the rust belt, I believe.
However, subsequent analyses of the data (from a few sources, but I heard it most recently on a 538 podcast) showed that Perot took votes somewhat evenly from both Bush Sr. and from Bill Clinton.
That alone would suggest that back then there were a lot of voters in the centre who were happy to move back and forth across parties.
Then to get re-elected it seems Bill Clinton had to move into the middle with his "triangulation" strategy without which he probably would not have won.
Now, since then it is often opined that the Republicans have moved right, and that the Democrats have moved right as well. But is that really the case? The Democrats seem to have gone left on a number of issues such as gay marriage and other social issues.
I think it is probably irrelevant. I think people in the swing states were put off by Hillary Clinton herself and didn't want to vote for her. The number of votes that made a difference was really low. It wasn't that she didn't get enough votes, it was where those votes were cast.
The Democrats need a candidate who can appeal to a particular demographic in the rust belt, I believe.
Crickets. Oh well.
It's inexplicable of course Delvo. Your comments provide a stark example of the binary thinking that manifested in 2016 in the progressive wing of the party, facts be utterly damned.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
There are nine million who voted for Obama and then Trump. Left/right/center is not the way to explain or describe what's really happening. Populist or corporate-government-rich-elitist-machine is the more realistic spectrum to put it on. You couldn't find more of a classic machine insider than Clinton, whereas Trump talked like a populist. But a Democrat who actually stood for progressive/liberal principles, like Sanders, would also be a populist.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
This is called a damned if you do, damned if you don't senario.
Had Clinton released the transcripted it would have done at least as much harm because her enemies would have gone through them with a fine tooth comb looking for anything that was even remotely positive towards Wall Street to hold up as absolute proof that she was in cahoots with them.
The irony is that in acting the way they did, they really did hand the US Treasury over to Wall Street, the very thing they claimed to fear from Clinton.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
You won't often find me in this sub-forum (and I haven't read much of this thread), but I'm curious about a couple of names of potential Democrat presidential picks raised by The Gradiaun here in Blighty: Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar. Anyone know anything? They also raised Elizabeth Warren, who I would like to have seen running last time, but she'll be in her 70s in 2020.
Venom
Philosopher
Bernie Sanders first choice. Gabbard a close second.
Martin O Malley I'll take, though he's very bland. I wish he'd be more aggressive.
No one who is currently being pushed by the DNC.
Martin O Malley I'll take, though he's very bland. I wish he'd be more aggressive.
No one who is currently being pushed by the DNC.
Venom
Philosopher
To say the progressive platform is not a winning one is illusory. The part that hurts the most for many corporate Dems is their business ties and donors. As far as the voters are concerned they still hate business as usual and we need Dems to stand for something other than that.
Absolutely a progressive candidate will win votes, party support notwithstanding.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Ah, yes, the "Lost Tribe" school of politics..that there is a vast hidden vote out there of Progressive/ Right Wing voters who are just waiting for the right candidate to come along.......
- Status