• 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!

CNN Nailed The Democrapic Party To Wall

Greenbeard said:
So I'm okay biding my time to the midterms if the Dems are sitting at +9. Particularly if your OP is correct!
Click to expand...

Don't be too surprised if you're highly disappointed. Again.

Biggest mistake the D's could make is thinking they got the next election in the bag.
They thought that had the last election in the bag.

Just like the R's thought they had the 2012 election in the bag.

Sitting back and getting comfortable is a bad mistake.
 
Dragonfly said:
Don't be too surprised if you're highly disappointed. Again.

Biggest mistake the D's could make is thinking they got the next election in the bag.
They thought that had the last election in the bag.

Just like the R's thought they had the 2012 election in the bag.

Sitting back and getting comfortable is a bad mistake.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose we get two more years of the GOP accomplishing nothing. Rinse and repeat.
 
Greenbeard said:
Then I suppose we get two more years of the GOP accomplishing nothing. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

And possibly 4 more years after that.

But guess what, how many SCOTUS seats become open in the next 7 years?

You want Trump, with an R House & Senate appointing two or three more SCOTUS judges?

Huge gamble for being rather lackadaisical about it all.
 
Dragonfly said:
And possibly 4 more years after that.

But guess what, how many SCOTUS seats become open in the next 7 years?

You want Trump, with an R House & Senate appointing two or three more SCOTUS judges?

Huge gamble for being rather lackadaisical abut it all.
Click to expand...

I missed the part where I said I want Trump or a GOP Congress. I said they're inept, and their base doesn't actually care about pushing them to achieve anything. Both of which have turned out to be significant mitigating factors in the damage they theoretically could've caused.
 
Greenbeard said:
I missed the part where I said I want Trump or a GOP Congress. I said they're inept, and their base doesn't actually care about pushing them to achieve anything. Both of which have turned out to be significant mitigating factors in the damage they theoretically could've caused.
Click to expand...

What you missed was the concept that if the D's don't figure out something, they will continue to LOSE elections and we'll be STUCK with Trump and the R's.
 
Dragonfly said:
Whether you think CNN is "fake" or not, this assessment is so dead-nuts spot-on it's amazing.

Forget the rest of the article, just focus on this one part. It should really be #1 in my opinion. (it' #2 in the article)



here's the link to entire piece, but let focus on the part I quoted please.
Five poll numbers that should make Democrats uneasy - CNNPolitics.com

If you're a registered "D", can you even remotely suggest the quote above is wrong?

If you're a registered "R", don't get too cocky, this is exactly where the "R's" were not that long ago.

So "D's", what's the best plan for 2020? Are ya gonna go with insanity and just nominate some tried and true D that's been slobbering around Washington for decades?
Or perhaps are you gonna try a new avenue and seek out a newcomer to the whole show?

Hopefully you won't go with the "anyone is better than Trump so we'll just nominate anyone" tactic.
That didn't work for the R's against Obama.

You guys/gals need to get over your extreme BUTTHURT over 2016 elections and start developing a "real plan" that isn't just focused on being anti-Trump.

Focus, for once, on doing what's best for the majority of regular Americans.
Fiscal responsibility. Socially open an welcoming to all.

Don't just point fingers at Trump and call him a poopyhead. Don't enlist idiots like Madonna and such in hopes of using "star power" to get votes.

Have a real plan. A true platform. Then find the guy/gal who can promote that with passion and honesty.
Also, find somebody who doesn't have decades of shadows and mistrust in their portfolio.

So what say you Dems? Did CNN nail your party to a T?
Click to expand...

A fresh face idea is good. I would add someone from Flyover country, not a nominee from the northeast. Flyover country, Obama won, Illinois, Bill Clinton won, Arkansas, Jimmy Carter won, Georgia. Northeast, Hillary Clinton lost, John Kerry lost, Micheal Dukakis lost.

It's true Mondale lost, Minnesota. But no one would have beaten Reagan in 1984. Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 after having won in 1976. But Carter appeared more of a hostage than the ones Iran held and there too was the misery index. Gore lost to Bush in 2000, but he wasn't a fresh face and he couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee. If he had carried his home state, he would have won.

The last Democrat from the northeast that won was JFK back in 1960. But the Northeast was then liberal Republican for the most part, Rockefeller Republican. The South was Conservative Democrat and California was Republican.

A fresh face from flyover country would do it in my opinion. One independents could get behind. Independents if a group Obama won in 2008 52-44 over McCain and a group Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 46-42 to Trump with 12% voting third party. Gore lost independents to Bush in 2002, while Bill Clinton won independents in 1992 38-32 over Bush the elder with Perot gathering 30%.

A candidate that can attract the independent voter in my opinion is a must. Some liberal from the northeast can't do that.
 
Perotista said:
A fresh face idea is good. I would add someone from Flyover country, not a nominee from the northeast. Flyover country, Obama won, Illinois, Bill Clinton won, Arkansas, Jimmy Carter won, Georgia. Northeast, Hillary Clinton lost, John Kerry lost, Micheal Dukakis lost.

It's true Mondale lost, Minnesota. But no one would have beaten Reagan in 1984. Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 after having won in 1976. But Carter appeared more of a hostage than the ones Iran held and there too was the misery index. Gore lost to Bush in 2000, but he wasn't a fresh face and he couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee. If he had carried his home state, he would have won.

The last Democrat from the northeast that won was JFK back in 1960. But the Northeast was then liberal Republican for the most part, Rockefeller Republican. The South was Conservative Democrat and California was Republican.

A fresh face from flyover country would do it in my opinion. One independents could get behind. Independents if a group Obama won in 2008 52-44 over McCain and a group Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 46-42 to Trump with 12% voting third party. Gore lost independents to Bush in 2002, while Bill Clinton won independents in 1992 38-32 over Bush the elder with Perot gathering 30%.

A candidate that can attract the independent voter in my opinion is a must. Some liberal from the northeast can't do that.
Click to expand...

Amy klobochar, Al Franken, Kamala Harris.

All three would make strong candidates.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Let's see if I got this right.

We are going continue to have overpriced health care.
We are going to continue over taxing the middle class.

I can see a need for those institutions. I'll give you that one.
Click to expand...

Uh, how is you disagreeing with the things the Dems stand for somehow proving that they stand for nothing? Do explain.
 
calamity said:
Uh, how is you disagreeing with the things the Dems stand for somehow proving that they stand for nothing? Do explain.
Click to expand...

Narrative shifts pretty quickly.

"Dems need a platform."
"Here's their platform."
"Well, they didn't win!"

"Dems need to stand for something."
"Here's what they stand for."
"Well, I don't like that!"

"People don't think the Dems stand for anything, they can't win."
"They're up 9 in the generic ballot."
"Hillary Clinton!"
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Let's see if I got this right.
We are going continue to have overpriced health care.
We are going to continue over taxing the middle class..
Click to expand...

Please show what tax rates on the middles class you find too high. I'd really be interested to see even if it's just high level numbers, I'm not wanting to bore you with some tedious analysis...just be honest.

Democrats would gladly reduce healthcare costs via universal health care implementations/regulations. You're saying you'd be up for that? Because we don't have it because Republicans oppose and media blast against anything even approaching that invasive, so it has to happen in stages. ACA being the first. And yet R's want to go backwards on that, kicking people off health insurance....!? And when they win power they unveil, a DOA healthcare plan that no one wanted? Now they are trying again, bless their hearts.
 
Dragonfly said:
True or false?
Click to expand...

Who cares that their platform did not win?

The thread you started is about them not standing for anything. Well, true or false?
 
Dragonfly said:
Yep. The 2016 platform that brought us Hillary Clinton.

How'd that work out?

You want to try it again?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty confident that if the Dem nominee wins by 3 million votes in '20, he or she will be president.

Regardless, the lie you're telling is that the Dems don't have a platform, don't have a very specific policy agenda. They do. According to your OP, the real problem they face is that many people aren't familiar with it. Easy fix.
 
Dragonfly said:
Yep. The 2016 platform that brought us Hillary Clinton.

How'd that work out?

You want to try it again?
Click to expand...

IMO, the platform (or lack of one) didn't cause Clinton to be the nominee. The DNC pretty much decided on her (stupidly) after Obama won in '08. That discouraged alternative candidates.

Clinton wasn't a good candidate to begin with, and on top of that, the GOP had already spent 25 years slinging mud at her. "Damaged Goods" or "Massive
Baggage" doesn't do her justice.

Trump was worse, but he got enough people out in the right places to win in our system.
 
Dragonfly said:
Did Hillary Clinton represent that "platform"?
Click to expand...

So, you concede that they have one. Now, you just want to quibble about Hillary. Got it.
 
jimbo said:
Americans are stupid? Possibly, but outside of California they are not stupid enough to vote for an undindicted criminal whose platform is the other guy is worse and I am more o same o. So we get Mr. President Trump.
Click to expand...


the california thing is pointless and really stupid
 
A majority thinks Democrats don't stand for anything other than being against Trump. Only 37% of Americans say the Democratic Party "stands for something," while 52% say it just stands against Trump, according to the same ABC News/Washington Post poll. It comes at a time when Democrats are left without a clear figurehead and many, both inside and outside of the party, have criticized its leaders for lack of a clear message.
Click to expand...
Our GOP is no better off and probably worse.

The party that gets new forward think leaders committed to the welfare of the country before themselves will rule for a generation.
 
Mach said:
Please show what tax rates on the middles class you find too high. I'd really be interested to see even if it's just high level numbers, I'm not wanting to bore you with some tedious analysis...just be honest.

Democrats would gladly reduce healthcare costs via universal health care implementations/regulations. You're saying you'd be up for that? Because we don't have it because Republicans oppose and media blast against anything even approaching that invasive, so it has to happen in stages. ACA being the first. And yet R's want to go backwards on that, kicking people off health insurance....!? And when they win power they unveil, a DOA healthcare plan that no one wanted? Now they are trying again, bless their hearts.
Click to expand...

The false presumption is that universal health care would reduce costs. Whose costs and how? I've never seen government reduce the cost of anything or make it better. UHC or Obamacare is no exception. The first act, setting up the web site, cost more than Yahoo, Google, and Facebook combined, and it failed OOTB. Higher deductibles, higher costs, in some areas triple digit price increases, all he norm.

Nobody's kicking people off health care or health insurance. What will get kicked off is OPM payers.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Amy klobochar, Al Franken, Kamala Harris.

All three would make strong candidates.
Click to expand...

Kamala Harris' ambition far outweighs her experience. I actually voted for her, but until she serves her term as senator and is distinguished by her deeds rather than grandstanding for the cameras (and embarrassing her own constituents with her confrontational behavior), I'd not support her as a presidential candidate.

I can't see Al Franken ever getting the party nomination, let alone enough votes to be elected. I don't know who the third person even is, and Google doesn't either!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom