• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Left better brace itself for war

Jack Hays said:
If your view is truly representative then there is indeed an intra-Dem war in the offing, but that's a large "if." If the New Dems are driven out, would you expect them to migrate to the Repubs? Their presence might be just the thing the Repubs need to become a durable and sober center-right governing party.
Click to expand...

Those New Dems you speak of will migrate right back to the couch, as they did in the last two mid-terms .
 
NIMBY said:
Those New Dems you speak of will migrate right back to the couch, as they did in the last two mid-terms .
Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. The Clintonite New Democrats tend to be regular voters.
 
NGNM85 said:
I'm starting to think that might be a lesson that needs to be learned the hard way. Let's be clear, I am not saying, like Chernyshevsky, 'the worse, the better.' Nor am I ambivalent about the consequences, both for workers, and the human race, as a whole, of a Cruz, Rubio, or lord forbid, Trump administration. That being said, the common wisdom in the Democratic party, and among the pundit class, is the 'Mondale myth'; the belief that a candidate like Sanders can't possibly win in the general. This was the argument of Clinton, and the DLC, neoliberals like Blair, and 'New Labour', who argued the party needed to move to the right, to move away from organized labor, etc. Which, I would argue, is a classic case of confirmation bias, they found the answer they were looking for. I think Hillary's loss might do more good than harm. I think it would teach the Democratic Leadership that if they don't stand up for workers, workers will not vote for them. I think it might be beneficial for the standard bearer for that clique, a 'serious' politician, a right-wing corporatist hawk, to get totally creamed in the election. I think it might teach the Democratic leadership a painful, but necessary lesson.
Click to expand...
Depressing sumbitch aren't you.

I agree with the assessment, but I do agree with FieldTheorist is correct in that the next recession is coming, and the effects of that on political demographics cannot be overstated. That, and a pyrrhic victory over the long term for liberals is really a hard a pill to swallow when I think of what Clinton manages to do in the White House. I think this movement we're seeing from the establishment democrats on supporting payday lenders is a dark foretelling of what we'd likely see in a Clinton administration.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Bull****, he is a world class prick.
Click to expand...

Putting it that way, what President is not a world class prick? It goes with the territory. What I meant is that Obama moderates his positions more than he would if he had a free hand and he is restrained in part by self consciousness over his breakthrough standing as the first black President. Maybe I'm wrong but this is how I read him.
 
Jack Hays said:
If your view is truly representative then there is indeed an intra-Dem war in the offing, but that's a large "if." If the New Dems are driven out, would you expect them to migrate to the Repubs? Their presence might be just the thing the Repubs need to become a durable and sober center-right governing party.
Click to expand...
That raises an interesting point. I think it's likely they'd go to moderate republicans, but moderate republicans are also a dying breed. Perhaps more likely they'll drift to the leftism of the new party.
 
gavinfielder said:
That raises an interesting point. I think it's likely they'd go to moderate republicans, but moderate republicans are also a dying breed. Perhaps more likely they'll drift to the leftism of the new party.
Click to expand...

But if they settled among the Repubs would they not shift the internal balance of that party?
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think that's accurate. The Clintonite New Democrats tend to be regular voters.
Click to expand...

Since I wasn't referring to Clintonite New Dems--but you knew that .
 
Last edited:
gavinfielder said:
That raises an interesting point. I think it's likely they'd go to moderate republicans, but moderate republicans are also a dying breed.
Click to expand...

They're a dying breed because they're no longer welcome in the Republican party. A cautionary tale for those who would demand absolute ideological conformity in their party.
 
JackA said:
Putting it that way, what President is not a world class prick? It goes with the territory. What I meant is that Obama moderates his positions more than he would if he had a free hand and he is restrained in part by self consciousness over his breakthrough standing as the first black President. Maybe I'm wrong but this is how I read him.
Click to expand...

No other President has mocked and nettled those who dont agree with him like Obama does. He also has a very bad habit of freezing out those who dont agree to do as he says based upon nothing more than he wants what he wants and he does not care what anyone else wants. Most presidents are more interested in getting progress than they are in picking and sustaining fights, but not our Professor!
 
Jack Hays said:
McGovern was a minor candidate in 1968. The young peoples' candidate was Eugene "Clean Gene" McCarthy.
Click to expand...

The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that Sanders carries substantially more support than either of them.

Furthermore, as Matt Karp writes;

"Generally, however, the “electability” argument skips past Clinton and concentrates on Sanders. And here the case against Sanders divides into three general paths — one, guided by historical analogy; another, driven by pundit fears and fantasies; and a third, oriented around voter ideology and demographics. None are persuasive.

The most common way to dismiss Sanders is to lump him in with previous progressives battered by conservatives in general elections — usually Mondale in 1984 or George McGovern in 1972. “The early enthusiasm for Sanders reminds me of the McGovern and Mondale races, where two good men were only able to win one state each in their presidential campaigns,” former Louisiana senator John Breaux told the New York Times in January.

The logic of this analogy turns on the idea that McGovern and Mondale both lost for the simple reason that they were too liberal for American voters. The first rebuttal is almost too obvious to spell out: the 2016 electorate looks nothing like the 1972 or 1984 electorate — quite literally, it is a different set of people.

A healthy majority of voters this year were not eligible to vote in 1984; almost half of them weren’t even alive in 1972. People old enough to have cast ballots against McGovern will probably make up no more than 20 percent of the electorate in 2016. These are very old historical parallels.

Very old, and very lazy. As Daniel Denvir has written, the combination of factors that produced the McGovern disaster bears almost no resemblance to the political situation today. In 1972 the Democratic Party was in a state of flux. McGovern captured the nomination with about 25 percent of the primary vote; over 23 percent went to the Alabama white supremacist George Wallace. Major party leaders like AFL-CIO boss George Meany, meanwhile, refused to support McGovern in the general election against Nixon.

Today both major parties are far more ideologically unified and more polarized. Although the Democratic Party elite has so far shunned Sanders, he is almost as popular as Clinton among the party’s rank and file. If Sanders wins a clean majority of the primary vote, it’s hard to imagine any significant chunk of the Democratic coalition abandoning him in a general election against the Republicans.

But the historical analogies miss the mark for an even more fundamental reason. McGovern and Mondale did not lose because they were too liberal, but above all because they faced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, popular incumbents presiding over economic booms.

The 1972 and 1984 blowout losses conform closely to electoral models that measure vote totals based on underlying economic conditions, without taking any account of candidate identity or ideology. The Democrats were doomed no matter who they nominated.

If the primary race continues to tighten, Clinton supporters will no doubt continue to spook Democrats with the fatal visions of 1972 and 1984. These are but McGoverns of the mind, false creations conjured by elite pundits and party officials. They offer no actual evidence that can be applied to the 2016 general election."
 
NGNM85 said:
The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that Sanders carries substantially more support than either of them.

Furthermore, as Matt Karp writes;

"Generally, however, the “electability” argument skips past Clinton and concentrates on Sanders. And here the case against Sanders divides into three general paths — one, guided by historical analogy; another, driven by pundit fears and fantasies; and a third, oriented around voter ideology and demographics. None are persuasive.

The most common way to dismiss Sanders is to lump him in with previous progressives battered by conservatives in general elections — usually Mondale in 1984 or George McGovern in 1972. “The early enthusiasm for Sanders reminds me of the McGovern and Mondale races, where two good men were only able to win one state each in their presidential campaigns,” former Louisiana senator John Breaux told the New York Times in January.

The logic of this analogy turns on the idea that McGovern and Mondale both lost for the simple reason that they were too liberal for American voters. The first rebuttal is almost too obvious to spell out: the 2016 electorate looks nothing like the 1972 or 1984 electorate — quite literally, it is a different set of people.

A healthy majority of voters this year were not eligible to vote in 1984; almost half of them weren’t even alive in 1972. People old enough to have cast ballots against McGovern will probably make up no more than 20 percent of the electorate in 2016. These are very old historical parallels.

Very old, and very lazy. As Daniel Denvir has written, the combination of factors that produced the McGovern disaster bears almost no resemblance to the political situation today. In 1972 the Democratic Party was in a state of flux. McGovern captured the nomination with about 25 percent of the primary vote; over 23 percent went to the Alabama white supremacist George Wallace. Major party leaders like AFL-CIO boss George Meany, meanwhile, refused to support McGovern in the general election against Nixon.

Today both major parties are far more ideologically unified and more polarized. Although the Democratic Party elite has so far shunned Sanders, he is almost as popular as Clinton among the party’s rank and file. If Sanders wins a clean majority of the primary vote, it’s hard to imagine any significant chunk of the Democratic coalition abandoning him in a general election against the Republicans.

But the historical analogies miss the mark for an even more fundamental reason. McGovern and Mondale did not lose because they were too liberal, but above all because they faced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, popular incumbents presiding over economic booms.

The 1972 and 1984 blowout losses conform closely to electoral models that measure vote totals based on underlying economic conditions, without taking any account of candidate identity or ideology. The Democrats were doomed no matter who they nominated.

If the primary race continues to tighten, Clinton supporters will no doubt continue to spook Democrats with the fatal visions of 1972 and 1984. These are but McGoverns of the mind, false creations conjured by elite pundits and party officials. They offer no actual evidence that can be applied to the 2016 general election."
Click to expand...

You may be right. I would never claim that 2016 is either 1984 or 1972. It's worth remembering, however, that the other side isn't the same either.
 
DiAnna said:
I'll be voting for the democratic nominee unless something drastically changes, and I'll say out loud that I hope that nominee is Hillary.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

I don't understand the logic of a "war" in the democratic party. [...] at this time more than ever SCOTUS nominees alone should have all people with socially liberal views giving any democrat running for president their vote. [...] Would social liberals actually take a chance for not just one, but the potential of three SCOTUS nominees coming from one of the jingle asses running on the republican side? Are y'all insane?
Click to expand...

To answer the question: No. And yes, obviously, if I vote for Hillary --which honestly no matter how much I openly despise her at the moment, that's more than likely-- then it will be because of the SCOTUS nominees and because there's at least a chance she'll do something half-way progressive about the environment.

But let's flip your narrative around. Republicans aren't going to suddenly stop being crazy, and they aren't suddenly going to stop voting. So if your argument is:

"The Republicans are crazy, so concede on almost every political issue because we need to stop them from accomplishing the most abhorrent, extreme policies they want."

So let me ask you some follow-up questions.

1.) How much are we willing to completely throw overboard (economic justice, social security/medicare, minimum wage, etc) until we are just overtly doing what Republicans want?

2.) How long should we accept this compromise? We give Republicans 90% of what they want, year after year, and then Democrats will prevent them from enacting the 10% of their truly abhorrent economic and social policies.

3.) Is that an acceptable compromise? Does that sound like a healthy democracy to you? Given that the country has been doing this for over 30 years now, and Republicans have only gotten more frothing at the mouth in terms of their extremist positions... Does this sound like a successful solution to you?

OrphanSlug said:
Something else we might want to add to this discussion is the potential problems from extreme political positions leaving more people somewhere in the nebulous middle between the ideological wants of left and right leaning politics. Another way to say this is the potential fallout from division oriented politics causing already low party affiliation rates to continue to deteriorate.
Click to expand...

The idea that most Independents are genuinely moderate is sort of a misnomer. Most Independents declare themselves to be moderate, but tend to fundamentally be aligned to one ideology and exceedingly rarely actually switch their votes.


Moot said:
Not compromising might be the "new democrats" downfall. First thing millennials need to learn is that they're not going to get everything they want no matter how much they stomp their little feet and holler.
Click to expand...

"New Democrats" refers to the Clinton-era Democrats, not the Progressive Left (pick your favorite term here) that represents the Millennials. But I definitely agree, New Democrats refusing to compromise with their base and instead compromising (meaning giving them 90% of what they want) with the Republican party.
 
FieldTheorist said:
The idea that most Independents are genuinely moderate is sort of a misnomer. Most Independents declare themselves to be moderate, but tend to fundamentally be aligned to one ideology and exceedingly rarely actually switch their votes.
Click to expand...
On the issues, yes, but the parties? I think the fact that the right libertarian camp is flirting with Sanders votes is an excellent example of Independent voting power. We'd do well to remember there's a broad spectrum of views that can fall into positions and ideologies that either party occasionally stakes.
 
Jack Hays said:
If your view is truly representative then there is indeed an intra-Dem war in the offing, but that's a large "if." If the New Dems are driven out, would you expect them to migrate to the Repubs? Their presence might be just the thing the Repubs need to become a durable and sober center-right governing party.
Click to expand...

No, I expect that the Democratic establishment has woven a lot of stories, and I think those stories are going to get unwoven. Look, I strongly doubt that there are many Democrats --in the South or otherwise-- who actually object to universal healthcare, etc. The only reason they voted for Hillary is because of the argument that DiAnna raised. I think that's fundamentally flawed and that there's a way forward, but it involves not giving Republicans everything they want from the outset.

So the war is more going to involve the Democratic base agreeing that they will support Progressive values, not neoliberal values.
 
gavinfielder said:
On the issues, yes, but the parties? I think the fact that the right libertarian camp is flirting with Sanders votes is an excellent example of Independent voting power.
Click to expand...

YEP, and now that it is clear that the American people will support people like Sanders and Trump in the future we will see much better change agents running for leadership roles in Washington. Good people have long avoided the place because itis a cesspool and the American people acted like we were fine with the place being that way, but things have changed.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I need to do a quick preamble on a very important topic, first, before I get into this discussion: Why aren't blacks voting for Bernie Sanders? Now after he's begun losing handedly in this demographic, people are now very concerned about why this is, and in response I think there have been some thoughtful responses in the African-American community, which I encourage people to read. The reasons are interesting and worth taking on board, but the reality is, it's too little and too late. At the core of it, there's a fundamental ideological difference between the two voting blocs that are most necessary to the success of the Democratic party. The first are Millennials, and the second are African-Americans/non-Millennial women.


Now, here's the problem. Democrats absolutely need both Millennials and blacks/women and Latinos to win the upcoming election. Those demographics are the key to the Democratic Party's success (If they get them, they will obliterate the Republicans in 2016). But here's the key problem: Clinton chose the nuclear option on Sanders' supporters as a part of her usual dirty tactics (Bernie bros, attacks on youth, etc) and the problem is that we are not thick enough to think that "Oh, well, Hillary didn't say those things personally, so I guess she isn't responsible for them."

This means that the Left, in terms of serious supporters, is now divided into two halves that are quickly becoming unwilling to work with each other, because they perceive their interests as being ideologically opposed to each other, and view each other's candidates as being wildly unsavory. I don't know what this means for the future, other than that there's about to be a massive war between the Progressive Left and the Neoliberal New Democrats. The Progressive Left is obviously going to win based on demographics, but that may take time --time that we don't have if there's a second Great Recession.
Click to expand...

I guess I could be wrong since Im not on the left but I see no evidence the them actually being differed in any way that matters.

There most certainly is no war coming in their own party LMAO

Everybody I know in real life that claims to be left hasnt voiced any concern of a war or not voting if the person they support doesn't get the nominee. What you are saying seems like pure fantasy.

Also it begs the question if war is up the democrats what is going on in the GOP? Just saying if one buys into the fantasy of the OP then the drama going on in the GOP can't be ignored either.

If I had my wish I wish it was all true and it generated at least a real 3 party system but thats just as much fantasy as the current OP
 
I think what this really illustrates is that both of the governing parties are utterly, and completely dominated by the ruling class, and that there is no democracy in America, and we should stop pretending otherwise.
 
gavinfielder said:
Who said anything about a riot? No, millennials see democracy dying and the government becoming increasingly corporatist but the nation isn't going to overcome decades of growing voter apathy over a single nail in the coffin. What's going to happen if Bernie loses the nomination is the voter apathy grows and the democrats will lose the white house, the house, and the senate, and we'll have either 4 years or 8 years or republican rule, depending on how long it takes for the next recession to trigger.
Click to expand...

War, riot...call it whatever you want. I like Bernie, I just don't think he can win the general election.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
No other President has mocked and nettled those who dont agree with him like Obama does. He also has a very bad habit of freezing out those who dont agree to do as he says based upon nothing more than he wants what he wants and he does not care what anyone else wants. Most presidents are more interested in getting progress than they are in picking and sustaining fights, but not our Professor!
Click to expand...

You watch way too much Fox News for your own good.
 
AGENT J said:
Everybody I know in real life that claims to be left hasnt voiced any concern of a war or not voting if the person they support doesn't get the nominee. What you are saying seems like pure fantasy.
Click to expand...
Most people on the 'left' don't have the intellectual honesty to realize there's a very large amount of people supporting alternate views within their assumed voting bloc.
 
NGNM85 said:
The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that Sanders carries substantially more support than either of them.

"
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. McCarthy was hugely popular. He won more primary votes than any other Democrat. He placed first in national polls. He was doomed by the small number of states that then held primaries.
 
AGENT J said:
There most certainly is no war coming in their own party
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assert that so casually and smugly, given your own statement that you don't understand the issues.
 
Moot said:
War, riot...call it whatever you want. I like Bernie, I just don't think he can win the general election.
Click to expand...
In contrast, I don't like Hillary, and it's the votes of my bloc that will decide this election.

That's the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom