Jump to content
mu2010

The Democratic Party

Recommended Posts

Democrats break down just like Republicans, outside the establishment there is a faction focused on economics and a faction focused on social issues.  Within each faction, some people are are moderate-to-conservative regarding the other faction's core concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats break down just like Republicans, outside the establishment there is a faction focused on economics and a faction focused on social issues.  Within each faction, some people are are moderate-to-conservative regarding the other faction's core concern. 

 

Do you think most people fit within a faction?

 

I find myself crossing lines all the time, usually based on what I consider to be pragmatism.  I also think a significant number of voters simply vote for reasons unrelated to any specific political issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-democrats-senate-chances-overrated/

 

A Democrat takeover in the Senate has likely been overstated (for now).  538 gives the Dems a 45% chance of a takeover of the upper house of Congress.  Why?  It's a horrible Senate map in 2018 - perhaps the worst ever for either party.  A full 26 Democratic seats are up while just 8 Republican-held seats will be contested - and really only two of those are in purple states (Nevada and Arizona).  Tennessee and Texas are outside shots for pick-ups.

 

But 5 Democrat Senators are up for re-election in states that Trump won by 18% or more just 14 months ago.  That's a lot of defense to play.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45% ain't half bad when you consider that map.

 

But, the Democrats don't need to take the Senate back, all they need to do is hold their ground. When one party controls the White House, controlling two houses of Congress doesn't give you that much more power than controlling one house. Taking back the House will take away the ability for the GOP to pass legislation unilaterally and that is really the key thing here. If they hold their ground on the Senate and take back the House, it sets them up well for 2020 when the Senate map for the GOP is nearly as bad as this year's map is for the Dems (all the 2014 tea party loons will be up for reelection).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

 

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

 

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

 

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

 

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

 

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

 

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

 

I would love to see Oprah run. It could be really entertaining. She's an outstanding communicator and has a unique ability to connect with pretty much anybody on any level, which is why her talk show was so successful. I suppose early on in her campaign we would know if she has the gravitas to be President. The one thing that raised a red flag during her Golden Globes speech was her reference to speaking "your truth." I don't know if that's exactly what she meant to say, but it certainly suggests that there's no objective truth, which is of course one of the mantras of the PC crowd. Did she ever clarify that statement?

 

"To tyrants and victims and secrets and lies, I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this; what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

 

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

 

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

 

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

I agree with you - the last thing we need is another billionaire entertainer as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

 

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

 

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

 

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

 

I would love to see Oprah run. It could be really entertaining. She's an outstanding communicator and has a unique ability to connect with pretty much anybody on any level, which is why her talk show was so successful. I suppose early on in her campaign we would know if she has the gravitas to be President. The one thing that raised a red flag during her Golden Globes speech was her reference to speaking "your truth." I don't know if that's exactly what she meant to say, but it certainly suggests that there's no objective truth, which is of course one of the mantras of the PC crowd. Did she ever clarify that statement?

 

"To tyrants and victims and secrets and lies, I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this; what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”

 

Well the current White House clearly doesn't believe in objective truth...HEY-OOOO!!! They are the ones who coined "alternative facts."

 

As to speaking "your truth", I believe what she is referring to is that victims of sexual assault and gender discrimination who have been silent can speak "their truth" and speak about their experiences and that is a powerful tool to expose those guilty of these things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

 

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

 

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

 

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

 

I would love to see Oprah run. It could be really entertaining. She's an outstanding communicator and has a unique ability to connect with pretty much anybody on any level, which is why her talk show was so successful. I suppose early on in her campaign we would know if she has the gravitas to be President. The one thing that raised a red flag during her Golden Globes speech was her reference to speaking "your truth." I don't know if that's exactly what she meant to say, but it certainly suggests that there's no objective truth, which is of course one of the mantras of the PC crowd. Did she ever clarify that statement?

 

"To tyrants and victims and secrets and lies, I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this; what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”

 

Well the current White House clearly doesn't believe in objective truth...HEY-OOOO!!! They are the ones who coined "alternative facts."

 

As to speaking "your truth", I believe what she is referring to is that victims of sexual assault and gender discrimination who have been silent can speak "their truth" and speak about their experiences and that is a powerful tool to expose those guilty of these things. 

 

How did one of Harvey Weinstein's best buddies become their advocate?  #SheKnew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking this for months. Dems should give Trump a wall, which, while a waste of money, is more symbolic than substantive. It can't hurt anyone - it's a wall. Worst thing it does is waste money which happens all the time anyways. We'll get some construction jobs in South Texas. Put some minority hiring quotas on it haha.

 

He'd sell you his mother just to build the wall. Dems could get a lot of substantive things in return by giving him his dumb wall, and they could embarrass congressional Republicans and donors while doing it. The only danger is Dem voters being unreasonable and unable to tell leverage when it's staring them in the face. This is why Dems are bad at politics.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455375/donald-trump-daca-deal-democrats-should-give-trump-wall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is a breakdown of Democrats' over performance tonight in all 4 contested special elections:

 

SC #HD99: D+13.08%

WI #AD58: D+24.90%

WI #SD10: D+27.52%

IA #HD06: D+20.44%

 

That is an average Dem over performance tonight of D+21.49%


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Americans are looking for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans....

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professional left activists angry about the Dems not having "backbone" and "caving" on this shutdown thing - ridiculous. It doesn't matter how much backbone you have, if you don't have votes, you can't pass the laws you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at a latina pro-DACA activist on twitter, posting about how she's going to leave the Democratic Party and they're all a bunch of racists complicit in the torture of immigrant families and so on, and also any male twitterer who presented a counterargument was mansplaining, and it was just really ridiculous. She said she has a lot of friends who are dreamers so obviously it's going to be a very emotional issue, and if I'm being sympathetic I guess I can give her a bit of a pass to blow off some steam.

 

But her ire should be directed at the GOP, because at the end of the day if Democrats controlled both houses and the White House, they'd pass the thing in two seconds - and people like this activist should keep that in mind before starting a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if the president doesn't like the bill they'll need a lot of votes to override.  that won't happen.  If DACA happens, there's going to be some wall money.  I  am OK with that even though I think a wall is wasteful spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Yes and she should remember it was Trump who shot down a deal that had been agreed upon already. Best thing to do is stay united with those trying to beat Trump.

 

I think they should absolutely give him wall money. It's dumb, costly, and more than likely ineffective, but I think a country has a right to restrict future immigration if it pleases. What it can't do is treat those already here unfairly or inhumanely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very interested to see who & when the Dem's present their candidates for 2020.  Any speculation?

 

I think some candidates will emerge soon.  Good chance we'll see Cory Booker run, maybe Kamala Harris.  I think I'm missing someone obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very interested to see who & when the Dem's present their candidates for 2020.  Any speculation?

 

Outside of the Oprah nonsense...Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and if you count Bernie Sanders seem to be the working short list.  This doesn't count any celebrities / non-politicians who may run, or governors like Andrew Cuomo or Terry McAuliffe who may opt for the national stage.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.

 

Yes, I agree.  Anyone over 65 should not run in my opinion and that includes Warren (she'll be 71 come 2020).  Some think the barrier should be under 60 or 50.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumer's incompetent.  The GOP's coalition is united when it comes to illegal immigration (those who don't object are stealthy about that) and the Dems isn't even close.  Large segments of labor are very much not on board.  Never go to the wall under such circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Schumer has done a good job as the minority leader.  We'll have to see how this CR shakes out to really know for sure.

 

If he makes DACA the party's defining issue he's treating Trump the way the Ohio Democratic Party treated John Kasich, and the results could be similar.  Especially if they pile "DAPA" into it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.

 

Yes, I agree.  Anyone over 65 should not run in my opinion and that includes Warren (she'll be 71 come 2020).  Some think the barrier should be under 60 or 50.

 

Agreed.  From a strategy perspective, the Dem's should keep the list short so the primary season remains civil and I'd start it as late as possible, so the "fresh faces" don't become old news by fall of 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.

 

Yes, I agree.  Anyone over 65 should not run in my opinion and that includes Warren (she'll be 71 come 2020).  Some think the barrier should be under 60 or 50.

 

Agreed.  From a strategy perspective, the Dem's should keep the list short so the primary season remains civil and I'd start it as late as possible, so the "fresh faces" don't become old news by fall of 2019.

 

Still need to do some researching on candidates and find out their positions, voting record etc.  My top 3 (maybe even in order?) would be Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker.  I think Gillibrand might appeal to someone like YABO713[/member] as she was part of the "Blue Dog Democrats" and has generally been fiscally conservative (which has ticked off some on the far left, I guess).  I'm not sure she'll win because the Sanders faction of the left won't like that she once received an "A" rating from the NRA, for example.  She started out conservative, being a Representative of upstate New York, and has quickly swung left since joining the Senate.  So a lot of her critics will probably point to her "flip flopping" over her career in Congress.

 

But yeah, anyone relatable and inspiring under the age of 60 is who I'm looking for at this early stage.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...

 

Nonetheless, this brings me to a point Smerconish made this morning... The vitriol for Trump coming from the far left is going to see some very VERY progressive candidate biting at heels in 2018. This could ultimately mean that far-left candidates will win securely blue districts and then be unable to win a general. Just some food for thought.

 

Back to the point.. I really like Gillibrand, I like McCaskill better though. In my opinion, below is who the Dems can run in 2018 to have a shot:

 

- Evan Bayh

- Joe Biden (age aside, people love him)

- Michael Bloomberg (if he goes Dem)

- Gillibrand

- And bold prediction here - Joseph Kennedy III will be the Democratic / American darling in the Senate if he wins his seat this year. DO NOT be surprised if he strikes while the iron is hot and launches a POTUS bid shortly thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden is likeable but too old.  Sorry Joe

Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.

Bayh - don't know much about him yet.

Gillibrand - might be a little too fiery.  Turns men off and some women too

Booker - I could see him doing well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden is likeable but too old.  Sorry Joe

Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.

Bayh - don't know much about him yet.

Gillibrand - might be a little too fiery.  Turns men off and some women too

Booker - I could see him doing well

 

Do you have any background on Bloomberg's origins? Because if you're saying the left needs to villainize a man who made an empire for himself because he's been too successful, then the Dems seriously need to look themselves in the mirror.

 

He had a more humble upbringing than > 70% of our Senators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of Mike Bloomberg, I think he is just a non-ideological, common sense, doer. He might not fly with the Bernie crowd though - not because of his personal wealth but because of his pro-business, pro-growth, "neoliberalism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of Mike Bloomberg, I think he is just a non-ideological, common sense, doer. He might not fly with the Bernie crowd though - not because of his personal wealth but because of his pro-business, pro-growth, "neoliberalism."

 

Tbh I don't think he'd fly with the Bernie crowd because of his success as well. "How dare he accumulate that much wealth?!" Senator Sanders said from the steps of his summer home on Lake Champlain.

 

And not to be a jerk... but if Bernie doesn't have the nads to become a full time Dem, his followers shouldn't dictate policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.

 

You ride the subway to work**.  Something that most politicians need to do much much more....

 

**sometimes combination of SUV and subway, but still an attempt was made....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...

 

 

 

Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

 

Bloomberg is a man with out a party. While he aligns well with the Dems on social issues like Gun Control, he is a hawk and very big on law enforcement and fits well with the GOP in those areas. He cant stomach the GOP social stance anymore though and would probably align better with the Dems in that respect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg

 

It's actually higher.

 

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg

 

It's actually higher.

 

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.

 

It'd be helpful if you had something like facts or a poll on your side instead of spouting off an opinion and then thinking that's representative of the country.

 

https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/22/support-for-democrats-daca-strategy-grew-during-government-shutdown-polls-show/

 

Registered voters were initially split, at 42 percent, when asked whether the DACA fight was worth a government shutdown.

 

After funding expired, more voters sided with Democrats – 47 percent to 38 percent – when asked the same question.

 

Oh that's funny, the Dreamers actually GAINED support during the shutdown and more people said it was worth shutting down the government over than not.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...

 

 

 

Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

 

Like what?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...

 

 

 

Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

 

Bloomberg is a man with out a party. While he aligns well with the Dems on social issues like Gun Control, he is a hawk and very big on law enforcement and fits well with the GOP in those areas. He cant stomach the GOP social stance anymore though and would probably align better with the Dems in that respect. 

 

Sounds like there are an awful lot of people in both parties that could identify with him, including many on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ he is going to turn off a lot of progressives with his authoritarian stance. He will turn off libertarians like myself because he is very authoritarian too. Yes he will get the gun control crowd but the gun control folks are not good for winning. He is very pro-business which will anger progressives. Imagine someone slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton and slightly left of Jeb Bush and you have Bloomberg.  See how that worked out for both parties in the last election? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg

 

It's actually higher.

 

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.

 

It'd be helpful if you had something like facts or a poll on your side instead of spouting off an opinion and then thinking that's representative of the country.

 

https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/22/support-for-democrats-daca-strategy-grew-during-government-shutdown-polls-show/

 

Registered voters were initially split, at 42 percent, when asked whether the DACA fight was worth a government shutdown.

 

After funding expired, more voters sided with Democrats 47 percent to 38 percent when asked the same question.

 

Oh that's funny, the Dreamers actually GAINED support during the shutdown and more people said it was worth shutting down the government over than not.

 

 

That would be nice if they polled for that type of question but polls do not answer those questions. It is common sense though. People do not want to be put out, and ultimately act in their self interest.

 

Polling is also designed to move an agenda in many cases not necessarily measure the pulse of the electorate. If you have ever been polled, you realize that there is no room for explanation or gray area. You have to give your response in the answers provided. It is less about what voters think and more about trying to capture support for a particular agenda item and then framing the question in a way to solicit the best response.  It is why polling before the shutdown showed that Americans wanted action on DACA which is true, but the shutdown ended quickly when it drew the ire of many people who were inconvenienced that they were put out or furloughed, etc over this issue. WHen it touches them personally, support wanes.  Look it engagement in general - Pass along a petition, people will sign it; ask for them to show up on a cold Sat afternoon and march for a cause, most but the truly engaged drop off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden is likeable but too old.  Sorry Joe

Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.

Bayh - don't know much about him yet.

Gillibrand - might be a little too fiery.  Turns men off and some women too

Booker - I could see him doing well

 

I have a hard time believing Evan Bayh will ever catch on. The guy just seems to disappear at every opportunity.

 

I like Booker. He's got charisma and a reputation for working with the R's on some issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Food for thought:  If Trump=Berlusconi then the American Left appears to be committing the same mistakes the Italian Left did which resulted in Berlusconi staying in power for multiple terms:

 

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2018/01/trump-and-berlusconi-great-political.html


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...