• 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!

Democrats, you have one real job...and you are screwing it up

But we disagree - I said it's not much of a victory, but is still is SOME victory, and should be done - that second worst person should be elected over the worst, of those are the only two options who can practically win. To your second point, IF the only options were trump or a horrible Democrat who is still better, I'd have to support the latter, but those are NOT the only options and it would be a disaster for us to nominate that bad Democrat needlessly.

But at what risk are you willing to take?

Let's say:
A "bad" Democrat (say Manchin or someone like him closer to the center) gives you 80-90% chance of victory against Trump

Biden or other moderate Democrat gives you a 70-80% chance to win

Progressive candidate gives you a 50% coin flip to beat Trump

If we assume those were accurate percentages, which nominee would you prefer to see against Trump in this hypothetical?
 
But at what risk are you willing to take?

Let's say:
A "bad" Democrat (say Manchin or someone like him closer to the center) gives you 80-90% chance of victory against Trump

Biden or other moderate Democrat gives you a 70-80% chance to win

Progressive candidate gives you a 50% coin flip to beat Trump

If we assume those were accurate percentages, which nominee would you prefer to see against Trump in this hypothetical?

Thing is, that's a false premise. If that WAS the choice, it'd be a real discussion.

But it's just as easy to ask what risk YOU are willing to take if you are an anti-trump conservative Democrat whose first choice is Mansion - if the choices are, Bernie, 90% chance; Biden, 70% chance; or Mansion 20% chance, which do you pick?

That 'risk' is a perception, and NO ONE KNOWS in many cases, who would be the 'best' chance. How would Jeb have done against Hillary compared to trump? No one knows. But trump was viewed as that 'worst chance' candidate against her, so her campaign TRIED to get him nominated.

There are cases where it's clearer someone is very like to be a 'worst chance'. For example, if Republicans nominated Devin Nunes or Sarah Huckabee, or if Democrats nominated Hillary again or Donna Brazille, those would likely be 'worse candidates'. But the idea that the more conservative the Democrat the more electable, I think is at best unknowable speculation, and worst the opposite of the case.

What I do think is that, given that progressives are at least electable if not the most electable, we need to be looking at the disastrous issues for the country that only progressives can solve, and fighting for a progressive.
 
The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

FFS the "Green New Deal" isn't a law.
It's not even a bill.
It's a proposal, which is like saying it's a "conversation starter", and unlike all the gavel ready slick legislation being churned out of the think tanks, it wasn't carefully coifed by a bunch of $500/hr consultants and former lawmakers (lobbyists) now in it for the money.

Re Kamala Harris, what do you actually think the chances are that Harris...the hypothetical "President Harris" could actually succeed in "eliminating private health insurance"?

Even if universal health care were to pass, what do you think the chances would be that all private health insurance would disappear? It hasn't even disappeared IN CANADA, where they HAVE a single payer system.

If you want to talk about ****ing it up, try some other issues, like the overweening campaign to make life easier for our illegal immigrants while simultaneously tying the hands of law enforcement (ICE) to apprehend criminal aliens and people who have already been handed their deportation orders by a court.

The one thing the Democrats HAVE NOT TRIED that might stimulate some cooperation from the Right is possibly the most effective solution:

**If you're an illegal, the Right says you're consuming too many national, state and local resources.
Why not make it a very stiff fine, which you HAVE to PAY if you're caught here illegally. (with NO criminal record)
Say for instance, five or ten thousand bucks. Oh sure, a payment plan can be worked out, but if you're caught, and it doesn't look like you CAN pay the fines, or won't pay them, out you go.

**If you're a young adult, you still have to pay a fine, although smaller, and you get more time, and you have to demonstrate that you're assimilating, getting good grades and staying out of trouble.

**If you have a criminal record, instant deportation. Minor stuff like moving traffic violations don't count.
**So in essence, make getting caught while illegal similar to a DUI.

Does anyone on the Right think that is reasonable?
 
Thing is, that's a false premise. If that WAS the choice, it'd be a real discussion.

But it's just as easy to ask what risk YOU are willing to take if you are an anti-trump conservative Democrat whose first choice is Mansion - if the choices are, Bernie, 90% chance; Biden, 70% chance; or Mansion 20% chance, which do you pick?

That 'risk' is a perception, and NO ONE KNOWS in many cases, who would be the 'best' chance. How would Jeb have done against Hillary compared to trump? No one knows. But trump was viewed as that 'worst chance' candidate against her, so her campaign TRIED to get him nominated.

There are cases where it's clearer someone is very like to be a 'worst chance'. For example, if Republicans nominated Devin Nunes or Sarah Huckabee, or if Democrats nominated Hillary again or Donna Brazille, those would likely be 'worse candidates'. But the idea that the more conservative the Democrat the more electable, I think is at best unknowable speculation, and worst the opposite of the case.

What I do think is that, given that progressives are at least electable if not the most electable, we need to be looking at the disastrous issues for the country that only progressives can solve, and fighting for a progressive.

Basically the logic behind my hypothetical is this:

Democrats are already energized to vote whomever the nominee is against Trump

There is a number of centrist and even right leaning people who would be willing to vote a moderate or centrist Democrat if Trump is the opponent.

The further you move away from the center the more likely you are to lose those that would switch and encourage them to either not vote or worse case scenario vote Trump energizing Republican voters against the Democrat. For those that do not like Trump but not necessarily a Democrat they would be more likely to vote for someone closer to the center.

The polls seem to bear this out as well with Biden the only one really having an advantage with the rest of the candidates being nearly a coin flip against Trump.

I'm just the oddball that Tulsi is the only candidate out of the Democrats that is likely to get my vote thus far and depending on the nominee outside of her may lead me to vote Trump. So as of right now my preference is Tulsi>not voting>Trump depending on DNC nominee.
 
I think you guys should nominate that Williamson woman from the first debate. First rate Democrat right there, Tell you what. ;)
 
Basically the logic behind my hypothetical is this:

Democrats are already energized to vote whomever the nominee is against Trump

There is a number of centrist and even right leaning people who would be willing to vote a moderate or centrist Democrat if Trump is the opponent.

The further you move away from the center the more likely you are to lose those that would switch and encourage them to either not vote or worse case scenario vote Trump energizing Republican voters against the Democrat. For those that do not like Trump but not necessarily a Democrat they would be more likely to vote for someone closer to the center.

The polls seem to bear this out as well with Biden the only one really having an advantage with the rest of the candidates being nearly a coin flip against Trump.

I'm just the oddball that Tulsi is the only candidate out of the Democrats that is likely to get my vote thus far and depending on the nominee outside of her may lead me to vote Trump. So as of right now my preference is Tulsi>not voting>Trump depending on DNC nominee.

Yes, that's the standard, incorrect argument for conservative Democrats. Biden's advantage comes from name recognition - just as Hillary started with a huge advantage over Bernie, just as Jeb started out as the front-runner.

The fact the only Democrat you'd vote for over trump is Tulsi says we have almost nothing in common interest in politics.
 
Yes, that's the standard, incorrect argument for conservative Democrats. Biden's advantage comes from name recognition - just as Hillary started with a huge advantage over Bernie, just as Jeb started out as the front-runner.

The fact the only Democrat you'd vote for over trump is Tulsi says we have almost nothing in common interest in politics
.

You are likely correct that name recognition is likely the largest factor in his advantage but that doesn't take away from the fact that there are a considerable number of Republicans that would either not vote or vote Democrat if given a nominee they could stomach and that the more radical the candidate the more likely you are to energize the Republican base against you. Why give Trump any extra momentum?

What do you have against Tulsi?
 
You are likely correct that name recognition is likely the largest factor in his advantage but that doesn't take away from the fact that there are a considerable number of Republicans that would either not vote or vote Democrat if given a nominee they could stomach and that the more radical the candidate the more likely you are to energize the Republican base against you. Why give Trump any extra momentum?

What do you have against Tulsi?

I don't disagree there are some conservative Democrats/less far-right Republicans who would vote for a conservative Democrat, but not a progressive Democrat. Here's the thing. I give a lot of weight to the importance of a progressive over a conservative Democrat, whether you do or not.

The price of those votes is losing the better policies of the progressive, and losing the votes of the people who would vote for a progressive, but not a conservative Democrat. You might be HURTING our chances, and our chances aren't the only issue. I need to learn more about Tulsi to discuss her, but she might be the only Democrat I've seen who might be TOO isolationist; I see her dismiss basically ANY intervention without more justification than 'all intervention is bad'.
 
Kamala has said she signs on with the New Green Deal. I will not vote for her because of it.

Cory Booker has said he signs on with the New Green Deal. I will not vote for him because of it.

What legislation related to the Green New Deal do you object to?
 
I don't disagree there are some conservative Democrats/less far-right Republicans who would vote for a conservative Democrat, but not a progressive Democrat. Here's the thing. I give a lot of weight to the importance of a progressive over a conservative Democrat, whether you do or not.

The price of those votes is losing the better policies of the progressive, and losing the votes of the people who would vote for a progressive, but not a conservative Democrat. You might be HURTING our chances, and our chances aren't the only issue. I need to learn more about Tulsi to discuss her, but she might be the only Democrat I've seen who might be TOO isolationist; I see her dismiss basically ANY intervention without more justification than 'all intervention is bad'.

It is a sad that not being a warmonger has become a negative for a political candidate in the US.

Which US intervention have you supported?
 
It is a sad that not being a warmonger has become a negative for a political candidate in the US.

Which US intervention have you supported?

So, on a spectrum of 1 to 100 on support for intervention, you rank a #2 the same as #100, and call them a "warmonger". You might want to recognize how warped your view is.

What intervention have I supported? I'd have to think, there are many I haven't. It's more her blanket absolutism against the idea seemingly of almost any intervention in principle that goes too far for me. If Russia invaded England tomorrow, I'd support helping England.
 
So, on a spectrum of 1 to 100 on support for intervention, you rank a #2 the same as #100, and call them a "warmonger". You might want to recognize how warped your view is.

What intervention have I supported? I'd have to think, there are many I haven't. It's more her blanket absolutism against the idea seemingly of almost any intervention in principle that goes too far for me. If Russia invaded England tomorrow, I'd support helping England.

At no point has she or anyone else for that matter suggested that we abandon our allies. It has always been about the ridiculous foriegn policy that the US has engaged in since WW2 believing that it is important to spread democracy by carpet bombing every weak country that we do not like. It is the interfering in elections, placing crippling sanctions, arming and training rebels (like ISIS), fueling civil wars and effectively leading numerous countries to ruin. As much talk as there is about Russia, we are objectively worse and it isn't even close. Our intent is in the right place the problem is that intention doesn't automatically result in positive outcomes and in my lifetime all we have done is spread death and destruction.
 
Our intent is in the right place the problem is that intention doesn't automatically result in positive outcomes and in my lifetime all we have done is spread death and destruction.

I have to disagree our intent is so much in the right place. There's a difference between what the intent is of the policymakers, and the yarns they spin for the public about their reasons. You might read "Confessions of an economic hit man" sometime for more about the intent.
 
The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Honest question, who would you vote for? Are there any in the current pool that you are looking at? If not, who outside the bubble would you consider?
 
Honest question, who would you vote for? Are there any in the current pool that you are looking at? If not, who outside the bubble would you consider?

I could hold my nose and vote for a moderate candidate simply because I thoroughly despise Trump as our president. I could not vote for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. I could probably vote for Biden or Klobuchar, but she won't last much longer. I could possibly vote for Mayor Pete, but I don't see him winning the nomination. Of the top tier candidates, Biden is about it. I thought I could vote for Harris but she keeps doing little things that lose me.
 
I have to disagree our intent is so much in the right place. There's a difference between what the intent is of the policymakers, and the yarns they spin for the public about their reasons. You might read "Confessions of an economic hit man" sometime for more about the intent.

I'm just giving them the benefit of doubt that they are doing out of good intentions, otherwise it is just too depressing to think about.
 
I'm just giving them the benefit of doubt that they are doing out of good intentions, otherwise it is just too depressing to think about.

Yet, rather important to understand the lies. A little like Vietnam - how important was it to understand that the war was wrong, not really saving world freedom? It was hard for people to do, but pretty important. Many never did, and just stuck with things like 'politicians tying the hands of the military is why we lost'.
 
Yet, rather important to understand the lies. A little like Vietnam - how important was it to understand that the war was wrong, not really saving world freedom? It was hard for people to do, but pretty important. Many never did, and just stuck with things like 'politicians tying the hands of the military is why we lost'.

It really shouldn't have been hard to understand that we had no reason to be involved in that conflict. Situations like Vietnam are precisely why the founders of this country warned against entangling alliances. If we had minded our own business from the very start we wouldn't have ever needed to worry about being lied into a war. It still amazes me how gullible the American public is when it comes to going to war (or in some cases completely oblivious to the fact that we have been in a constant state of war for nearly 2 decades with up to 7 countries).
 
It really shouldn't have been hard to understand that we had no reason to be involved in that conflict. Situations like Vietnam are precisely why the founders of this country warned against entangling alliances. If we had minded our own business from the very start we wouldn't have ever needed to worry about being lied into a war. It still amazes me how gullible the American public is when it comes to going to war (or in some cases completely oblivious to the fact that we have been in a constant state of war for nearly 2 decades with up to 7 countries).

The cold war was on, and there was broad support for the idea that we were the leader of the free world to stop a communist takeover of the world. WWII's global threat was recent history. We'd seen China become communist, we'd seen Cuba become communist, we saw the Soviets beat us into space and get nuclear weapons. We'd fought communism in Korea. The cold war had been hyped, and there weren't really and national politicians who felt much able to say different than the cold war views.

It's why it's not understood much just how revolutionary Kennedy's efforts to end the cold war were, but even he had to run as a cold warrior, while privately saying he was "an almost peace at any price president". He had to try to end Vietnam secretly and after he was re-elected, expecting to be politically destroyed for doing it, publicly endorsing the domino theory. Support for the war was almost universal at the start.

There was a different mentality then. Presidents were viewed as almost infallible on things like war, and questioning a president going to war was a lot harder for people than it would be today post-Vietnam, post CIA revelations, post-Iraq wars, post-Economic hit man information, and so on.

So it was a pretty big deal for people to come around to opposing a war. A couple books that are outstanding for more information are Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets" which shows how he went from Marine infantry leader and pro-war hawk and national expert on the war to radical anti-war, and how hard it was to oppose it, and Chris Hedges' more general war book, "War is a force that gives us meaning" about how countries rally behind wars.
 
I don't disagree there are some conservative Democrats/less far-right Republicans who would vote for a conservative Democrat, but not a progressive Democrat. Here's the thing. I give a lot of weight to the importance of a progressive over a conservative Democrat, whether you do or not.

The price of those votes is losing the better policies of the progressive, and losing the votes of the people who would vote for a progressive, but not a conservative Democrat. You might be HURTING our chances, and our chances aren't the only issue...

It looks like it's six of one, or a half dozen of the other. Moderates won't vote for a progressive and vice versa. But history shows that only one group can be counted on through thick and thin, to get to the polls and vote. Many of the other group will have plans that day, be nursing a hangover, or for whatever reason won't show up in the same numbers.

I agree with the majority of Democrats that beating Don is job one. I'd like to see as, or more progressive policies than what the candidates are proposing now, but they should be introduced after America has been seeing and benefiting from four years of a Democrat in office. Overreaching and proposing too much, too soon is a sure loser. We need idealists, but their sometimes their idealism doesn't help with practical politics.

I thought our chances were/are the main issue, if it's not the only one, what other issues are you referring to?
 
It looks like it's six of one, or a half dozen of the other. Moderates won't vote for a progressive and vice versa. But history shows that only one group can be counted on through thick and thin, to get to the polls and vote. Many of the other group will have plans that day, be nursing a hangover, or for whatever reason won't show up in the same numbers.

I agree with the majority of Democrats that beating Don is job one. I'd like to see as, or more progressive policies than what the candidates are proposing now, but they should be introduced after America has been seeing and benefiting from four years of a Democrat in office. Overreaching and proposing too much, too soon is a sure loser. We need idealists, but their sometimes their idealism doesn't help with practical politics.

Let's nominate a centrist, well-known, experienced Democrat - Hillary 2020! No way trump can beat her.

I thought our chances were/are the main issue, if it's not the only one, what other issues are you referring to?

Let's start with America moving for 50 years away from a democracy into a more and more permanent plutocracy, with centrist Democrats barely pressing the brakes to go a little slower, when we need to change course while we can (there's an analogy between plutocracy and the climate, both needing big changes).
 
Let's nominate a centrist, well-known, experienced Democrat - Hillary 2020! No way trump can beat her.



Let's start with America moving for 50 years away from a democracy into a more and more permanent plutocracy, with centrist Democrats barely pressing the brakes to go a little slower, when we need to change course while we can (there's an analogy between plutocracy and the climate, both needing big changes).

You have a point, but it's extremely rare that pundits and polling get it so wrong. Don't expect it to happen again anytime soon. I also believe that where she fell on the political spectrum had little to do with the reasons why people voted for her or not. We need the radical changes, but this isn't the time to propose them...
 
You have a point, but it's extremely rare that pundits and polling get it so wrong. Don't expect it to happen again anytime soon. I also believe that where she fell on the political spectrum had little to do with the reasons why people voted for her or not. We need the radical changes, but this isn't the time to propose them...

President John Kerry, President Al Gore, President Michael Dukakis... even Obama likely would have lost without the crash... so, you think it doesn't matter so much that trump was trying to sound like a progressive, 'drain the swamp', 'tax the rich more', 'Wall Street needs to be brought under control'... I think this is exactly the time, when Democrats have an especially good chance, to not waste the election on a centrist who will not fix things.
 
Time to revisit this thread.

Why? Because Trump is a danger to this country, now more than ever. Yet I fear that Democrats will still screw this up with radical ideas that scare off the fence sitters (aka independents).

Biden is a mess. He truly is the best bet but he is a bigger gaffe machine than I ever imagined, and I don't see that getting better. An occasional gaffe is OK, but some of his gaffes suggest his mind is going (I say this as a person with a parent with dementia, I know the signs).

So the next two people (right now) who are winning the D nom polls are Bernie and Warren. Bernie is a hot mess, and Warren has not been tested. Bernie is too easy to beat. He too is showing signs of his age. I hate to be ageist, but I also like to be a realist.

Warren's biggest challenge right now is her healthcare ideas. She has no good explanation of how it will be paid for. She should go ahead and fess up that middle class people will pay more to the government for healthcare, but she can do it if she can show it will be equal or less to what they are already paying for insurance. She is flailing badly here. Talking about "selfies" is not going to get people to forget about the costs of healthcare.

Mayor Pete is still the most sensible guy in the race for me. I know he doesn't stand a chance, but he has consistently been the only D I've been impressed with.
 
Back
Top Bottom