• 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!

Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

  • Move further to the left and promote liberal populism.

    Votes: 30 45.5%

  • Move towards the center - third way type policies.

    Votes: 36 54.5%
  • Total voters
    66
Manc Skipper said:
It needs to move from the right to at least the centre.
Click to expand...

i can see how in europe the party would be considered conservative, but very few here would see it that way. Just like how california is thought of as liberal, but if you look at the trash the voters have passed and failed to pass or didn't pass until decades after europe - 3 strikes, gay marriage ban, assisted suicide (2015), weed (2016), death penalty

Now to not get too off track, the dems - same exact ****. Years if not decades behind liberalism in europe on everything

It's just republicans are so extremist in their conservatism that it kinda makes even the taliban look liberal. Maybe they'll get behind legal assisted suicide in 2050? Weed in 3050? Allocating $50 billion to fixing roads and actual working internet instead of tanks the military will just throw away? They'll have to invent a new system to keep track of years by then. So i understand why americans mistakenly see the parties as diametrically opposed
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
To the left, for two reasons.

1. That's where the American people want them to go. Americans support liberal policy. Look at all the outrightly liberal policy that the people voted for and passed on ballot initiatives in 2012, on everything from guns to education to drugs. Even in conservative states. Even in an election where Democrats had huge loses. And why did Democrats have huge loses despite majority support for liberal policy? Well...

2. Democrats can't "move to the center," because they're already on the right. There is no liberal party in America. Democrats are not liberal. They don't support anything liberal. They refused to fight for SSM, they refuse to stand up against neocon militarism, they refuse to fight for universal healthcare... America had a Democrat for the past 8 years, for two of those years with a Dem majority in Congress, and we didn't even get family leave. What the hell is "liberal" about the Democrats? Just because they're not extremist regressionists, as the GOP is becoming, doesn't make them liberal. That's like saying that George Bush is a liberal just because he's not as theocratic as Mike Pence, or as fascist as Steve Bannon.

So it's hard to answer your question when the Democrats are currently to the right of both choices, but I voted for the first.
Click to expand...

I actually thought Obama himself back 08-09 was left of center. His #1 campaign funding came from the people, not big pharma or wall street or defense contractors. So he said hey, let's overhaul health care, let's end private prisons and gitmo and redistribute the wealth

And then along came lieberman and some other ****heads in his own party to ruin all that, and some unwise decisions on his part on how to make use of unprecedented popularity
 
chromium said:
i can see how in europe the party would be considered conservative, but very few here would see it that way. Just like how california is thought of as liberal, but if you look at the trash the voters have passed and failed to pass or didn't pass until decades after europe - 3 strikes, gay marriage ban, assisted suicide (2015), weed (2016), death penalty

Now to not get too off track, the dems - same exact ****. Years if not decades behind liberalism in europe on everything

It's just republicans are so extremist in their conservatism that it kinda makes even the taliban look liberal. Maybe they'll get behind legal assisted suicide in 2050? Weed in 3050? Allocating $50 billion to fixing roads and actual working internet instead of tanks the military will just throw away? They'll have to invent a new system to keep track of years by then. So i understand why americans mistakenly see the parties as diametrically opposed
Click to expand...

No, I'm American and I agree. So do American voters. They vote for liberal reform on ballots (all over the country, not just places like Cali), and there are enough of them to actually pass those ballots into law a lot of the time, and yet they won't show up to vote for Democrats.

Why is that? Well, because Democrat politicians aren't liberal. And if you plot them on a political compass, you will see that clearly. Most of them plot to the right on the political scale, and don't support most of the liberal reforms that the people vote for.

Look at that list you gave for Cali. Most of those things were passed by ballot initiatives, not politicians. That means the actual people voted for them, not the politicians. Most Democrat politicians still refuse to publicly support assisted suicide, drug law reform, etc, even as the people vote for it in state after state and national polls indicate some of these things even have majority support. The Dems were still staying silent on gay marriage even as a majority of Americans were fighting for it.

That's the problem, and that's why Democrats keep losing. They're too far right for American liberals, who make up a huge percentage of the population. If you're an American liberal and your only choices are conservative and super-conservative, why bother voting for either one?
 
chromium said:
I actually thought Obama himself back 08-09 was left of center. His #1 campaign funding came from the people, not big pharma or wall street or defense contractors. So he said hey, let's overhaul health care, let's end private prisons and gitmo and redistribute the wealth

And then along came lieberman and some other ****heads in his own party to ruin all that, and some unwise decisions on his part on how to make use of unprecedented popularity
Click to expand...

Ehhhh... I don't know. I think it's certainly arguable, but I can see why they plotted him the way they did too. Obama really had one big thing that was liberal, which is healthcare reform. But even that is sort of... antiquated?

I mean, Dems were trying to get universal healthcare in the 90's, back when they were actual liberals. So Obama proposing something that wasn't as good as universal healthcare and putting that forward as "liberal," when 90's Democrats had tried for more, and the rest of the West did this 50 years ago... I mean, is that liberal? Or is that just observing the mundanely obvious reality that America's healthcare is screwed?

And outside of that, I really can't think of much he wanted that wasn't basically centrist. I mean, regarding saying he'd close Gitmo (*sigh*), being against torturing people and detaining them without trial isn't "liberal." That's just following the Constitution, and our own laws.

And regarding taxes on the wealthy and wealth redistribution, 1950's Republicans supported higher tax rates on the rich than today's Democrats would ever dream of. More than 50%. So how is that "liberal" when 20th century Republicans would have found Obama's proposals to be too conservative?

That's the point here. As far as politicians go, the scale has moved so far right that they're trying to claim Constitutionalism is liberal now.

But the American people haven't moved right with it. They still want true liberal policy.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, I'm American and I agree. So do American voters. They vote for liberal reform on ballots (all over the country, not just places like Cali), and there are enough of them to actually pass those ballots into law a lot of the time, and yet they won't show up to vote for Democrats.

Why is that? Well, because Democrat politicians aren't liberal. And if you plot them on a political compass, you will see that clearly. Most of them plot to the right on the political scale, and don't support most of the liberal reforms that the people vote for.

Look at that list you gave for Cali. Most of those things were passed by ballot initiatives, not politicians. That means the actual people voted for them, not the politicians. Most Democrat politicians still refuse to publicly support assisted suicide, drug law reform, etc, even as the people vote for it in state after state and national polls indicate some of these things even have majority support. The Dems were still staying silent on gay marriage even as a majority of Americans were fighting for it.

That's the problem, and that's why Democrats keep losing. They're too far right for American liberals, who make up a huge percentage of the population. If you're an American liberal and your only choices are conservative and super-conservative, why bother voting for either one?
Click to expand...

That's because they're bought off. What are you saying, the people are slightly left of slightly right? Big deal. That doesn't negate anything i said. Californians and not just the politicians are still years behind European liberals and i would argue even states like MA and WA. It's just that *maybe* they'd tolerate a true liberal like Sanders, just like they tolerate conservative democrat politicians who crack down on harmless drug users.

At the same time, true liberals would turn out at the polls where they wouldn't for corporate shills like Hillary. In that sense you may be right. But still most of the dem base would prefer a centrist, even if they're begrudgingly willing to barely vote for legal weed and assisted suicide *15 years* after Europe and S America. By now it's not liberal at all. Just like in a blink gay rights became not a liberal position. I mean, even the red states are voting for these now...that's how uselessly behind the dems and dem voters are. I lump them together for these reasons and because, well, one votes in the other.

If moderate-conservative dems start losing in california because the base has had it with the politicians dragging their feet, and they start voting for reform with their powerful ballot drives the same time as liberals in the rest of the world, then i will agree with you totally on who is to blame. Then you'll see Hillary types win only a handful of states and the DNC heads won't conspire against one of their top candidates because he's "too liberal" As it stood, even after that became public knowledge, Hillary got tens of millions of votes especially from "liberal" CA and in contrast yeah, some actual liberals stayed home. But enough to make the party completely overhaul? We'll see i guess
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Ehhhh... I don't know. I think it's certainly arguable, but I can see why they plotted him the way they did too. Obama really had one big thing that was liberal, which is healthcare reform. But even that is sort of... antiquated?

I mean, Dems were trying to get universal healthcare in the 90's, back when they were actual liberals. So Obama proposing something that wasn't as good as universal healthcare and putting that forward as "liberal," when 90's Democrats had tried for more, and the rest of the West did this 50 years ago... I mean, is that liberal? Or is that just observing the mundanely obvious reality that America's healthcare is screwed?

And outside of that, I really can't think of much he wanted that wasn't basically centrist. I mean, regarding saying he'd close Gitmo (*sigh*), being against torturing people and detaining them without trial isn't "liberal." That's just following the Constitution, and our own laws.

And regarding taxes on the wealthy and wealth redistribution, 1950's Republicans supported higher tax rates on the rich than today's Democrats would ever dream of. More than 50%. So how is that "liberal" when 20th century Republicans would have found Obama's proposals to be too conservative?

That's the point here. As far as politicians go, the scale has moved so far right that they're trying to claim Constitutionalism is liberal now.

But the American people haven't moved right with it. They still want true liberal policy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're actually right that it's antiquated, i just contradicted myself. But that's also what i'm saying about dem voters going for legal weed and assisted suicide. Antiquated. Also in blue states all over the country they voted against gay marriage long after it was legal elsewhere. Even behind heavily catholic and barely developed areas like freaking uruguay
 
chromium said:
That's because they're bought off. What are you saying, the people are slightly left of slightly right? Big deal. That doesn't negate anything i said. Californians and not just the politicians are still years behind European liberals and i would argue even states like MA and WA. It's just that *maybe* they'd tolerate a true liberal like Sanders, just like they tolerate conservative democrat politicians who crack down on harmless drug users.

At the same time, true liberals would turn out at the polls where they wouldn't for corporate shills like Hillary. In that sense you may be right. But still most of the dem base would prefer a centrist, even if they're begrudgingly willing to barely vote for legal weed and assisted suicide *15 years* after Europe and S America. By now it's not liberal at all. Just like in a blink gay rights became not a liberal position. I mean, even the red states are voting for these now...that's how uselessly behind the dems and dem voters are. I lump them together for these reasons and because, well, one votes in the other.

If moderate-conservative dems start losing in california because the base has had it with the politicians dragging their feet, and they start voting for reform with their powerful ballot drives the same time as liberals in the rest of the world, then i will agree with you totally on who is to blame. Then you'll see Hillary types win only a handful of states and the DNC heads won't conspire against one of their top candidates because he's "too liberal" As it stood, even after that became public knowledge, Hillary got tens of millions of votes especially from "liberal" CA and in contrast yeah, some actual liberals stayed home. But enough to make the party completely overhaul? We'll see i guess
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Look at some of the links given bur Surreal on page 1. Sanders-style liberalism is popular.

And they AREN'T tolerating the conservative-acting Dems, and they DON'T want a centrist. That's why they haven't been voting for them, even when they vote for liberal ballot initiatives in the very same election.

Hillary got as many votes as she did because she was running against a Russian puppet being courted by Nazis. No other reason.

Also, you're greatly over-estimating the liberalism of Europe. Weed and assisted suicide are both still illegal in the vast majority of European countries. Actually, American states are leading the way on both of those issues, weirdly. Oregon was one of the first places on the entire planet to legalize assisted suicide, second only to Switzerland.

So, actually, American liberals are REALLY liberal on a lot of things, even compared to some of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
How about [all] the people?



(Bolded) Thus the problem in Washington, they see it as you are either with us or against us and alienate about half the people on most issues and actively work against the interests of those people. Instead of excluding people because their views do not align with how we envision things should be done why instead do we not ask how we might possibly achieve both or as close to a middle it as possible? Why must it be seen as only one way or the other?

To use your example, I am a states rights advocate and believe education is state jurisdiction but this does not mean that the Federal government couldn't incentivize better policies on a state level. But do you think anyone in Washington would be willing to even consider this route? Probably not because they have already excluded state rights individuals.
Click to expand...

Your obviously not an individual that sees irony. You just proved my point. If a politician doesn't do it your "states rights" way, then they are not working for all the people. Of course not everyone sees it that same way, thus you can't ever work for all the people.

I am all for politicians working together more and bipartisanship, but the fact remains that people want different things so there will always be some partisanship.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, not at all. Look at some of the links given bur Surreal on page 1. Sanders-style liberalism is popular.

And they AREN'T tolerating the conservative-acting Dems, and they DON'T want a centrist. That's why they haven't been voting for them, even when they vote for liberal ballot initiatives in the very same election.

Hillary got as many votes as she did because she was running against a Russian puppet being courted by Nazis. No other reason.

Also, you're greatly over-estimating the liberalism of Europe. Weed and assisted suicide are both still illegal in the vast majority of European countries. Actually, American states are leading the way on both of those issues, weirdly. Oregon was one of the first places on the entire planet to legalize assisted suicide, second only to Switzerland.

So, actually, American liberals are REALLY liberal on a lot of things, even compared to some of Europe.
Click to expand...

I have said this before on here, but for my entire life liberal ideas have polled as being popular. However, when you try to translate those liberal ideas to actual bills, the electorate, the same same electorate that those ideas were popular with when they are big abstract notions, all of a sudden freaks out and everyone that votes for it practically gets crucified in the next election.

From the late 60s until the early 90s the Democratic Party moved further and further to the left embracing the kind of leftwing populism that Sanders proposes. Had it not been for Watergate, they would not won the presidency for 25 years. They lost in landslides. Then came the whole 3rd Way centrism / New Democrats and they started winning again. The country is not liberal. It can look that way in polling, but electorally its just not. Why do you think Democrats are in their worst shape since the 1920s? Do you honestly think that moving to the left will help them win again in suburbs and small cities?

Moreover, the difference between hardcore liberalism in America or center left 3rd way type politics are not the goals, they are just in how we get there. For example, in the Clinton years back in the 90s, the poverty rate went down every single year reaching its lowest level in American history. Millions of minority families were moved out of poverty. The median income went up every single year - the only time that has happened in decades. Over 20 million new jobs were created, millions of poor children were insured for the first time, crime rates dropped for the first time in decades, millions of acres of public land was protected.... I mean come on, from the perspective of a liberal, that was everything we want. I am not saying mistakes were not made, he signed financial deregulation bills late in his presidency that had some severe ramifications later, but on balance statistically its the best record in American history.

Finally, had it not been for Democrats nominating socially liberal judges, not only would we still not have same sex marriage, we would still have sodomy laws.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
I have said this before on here, but for my entire life liberal ideas have polled as being popular. However, when you try to translate those liberal ideas to actual bills, the electorate, the same same electorate that those ideas were popular with when they are big abstract notions, all of a sudden freaks out and everyone that votes for it practically gets crucified in the next election.

From the late 60s until the early 90s the Democratic Party moved further and further to the left embracing the kind of leftwing populism that Sanders proposes. Had it not been for Watergate, they would not won the presidency for 25 years. They lost in landslides. Then came the whole 3rd Way centrism / New Democrats and they started winning again. The country is not liberal. It can look that way in polling, but electorally its just not. Why do you think Democrats are in their worst shape since the 1920s? Do you honestly think that moving to the left will help them win again in suburbs and small cities?
Click to expand...

No. What you should be saying is that today's 70-year-olds are not truly liberal. Those were the people from back when the Democratic party was struggling to implement liberal ideas, and still wrestling with its history of being complicit with Jim Crow. Sure, they freaked out about liberal reform sometimes. They still weren't completely sure they wanted that (although I think you're being a little silly to imply they were somehow entirely unsuccessful, given how liberal things like financial regulation and income equality were back then compared to today -- they had major victories that were a big part of America's most prosperous years). But those people are not today's liberals.

Have you noticed how insanely old the Democratic establishment is, compared to the average liberal? They're worse than Republicans. The Dems didn't field a single candidate who wasn't in their ****ing 70's for the presidential race. Listening to Nancy Pelosi try to connect with modern liberals is embarrassing -- she's so out of touch that it almost appears as senility. Even Warren is old. When the GOP is the one fielding all the up-and-coming young things, you know you got problems.

It's especially weird considering that most American liberals today are not 70-year-olds who remember segregation and remember when the Democrats sometimes supported it. They're middle aged and younger, and an enormous number of them are Millenials. Millenials are the biggest generation in American history, and all of them are old enough to vote now.

They aren't afraid of liberal reform. They keep going to the ballot boxes and voting it into law, and fighting tooth and nail to keep it when the conservative establishment politicians try to take it away. They are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Even today's surburban parents can't understand why the hell we don't have universal healthcare and family leave, and that stuff is "too liberal" for today's Democrats. Soccer moms are more liberal than that, dude. So YES, I do think it will help them win suburbs and small cities.

Like I just said to Chromium, Americans are leading the way for the entire world on today's liberal issues, like drug policy reform and euthanasia. It's American voters who put those things into law and fight every single election to keep them. Yes, American liberals today are truly liberal.

It's time for the Democrats to move the hell on from pandering to aging former Blue Dogs who are increasingly finding themselves enamored with Republican paranoia politics. Let the Republicans have them. Move on to the vast majority of liberals, who now make up the majority of Americans.

But of course, they won't do that, because that's not where the money is. The money is in old, white establishment politicians. And they'll keep pandering to them until the day they all kick the bucket.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
As do most Americans evidently, which is what Bernie represents.



The theoretical is Trump vs Clinton. Having reviewed the map, I can't see any of the states Clinton won flipping Trump over a Sanders candidacy, but I can see plenty of Trump states flipping Sanders.

Remember a Dem Partisan caucus is not a general election, and Bernie actually polled better with Independents than the Dem party.




Claiming that what you represent is pragmatism and reason doesn't make it true, especially when it's increasingly obvious that third way corporatism is politically toxic and unfeasible.



It did in 2007-8 and is continuing to do so for everyone in practice but the well off. Again, you have to be willfully ignorant not to take stock of all the earlier stated metrics from the decline in standards of living to real incomes, to life expectancies for the typical person. Academically and technically the ground zero of 2007 onwards could not be considered a depression given the usual modes of assessment, but when we're talking about the average constituent, it very much is on a de facto, practical basis per those metrics.



I wouldn't say they're at all doing fine; they got slaughtered in the down ballot, and if the GOP fielded any kind of candidate with strength, say Kasich or Rubio as opposed to the only person as underwater in favourability as Hillary, I think it's fair to say that she would have been utterly annihilated.



Remember that Clinton was riding high off a tech boom he had exactly nothing to do with and was indispensable to setting up 2007-8 with Bush and the Republican congress of his tenure; definitely overrated.

While I agree that Sanders' ideas are expensive, there are certainly ample ways to pay for them; though we may disagree as to whether those investments are worth it, and whether the returns outweigh the costs, which is fair, they nonetheless consistently poll extremely well, as does Sanders and those closely aligned with him within the Dem party; which means his direction, rather than a return to Clinton style neoliberalism, independent of whether you personally think his ideas are good, is the more viable way forward, at least for the time being; the zeitgeist can always change.
Click to expand...

Surrealistik, I already liked you. I love your energy and enthusiasm! In spite of my ample wanderlust and many trips outside of Florida, I see the world from a Florida BabyBoomer's perspective. For the life of me, and I voted for Bernie, I cannot see a Bernie-style Socialist winning a single Deep South state. For the love of America's future, I pray you prove me wrong!
 
IMO, the Democratic Party has allowed extremists to take control of the party. Allowing, and even endorsing, (perhaps reluctantly) a Liberal Fascist approach to politics will only hasten it's move towards irrelevance.

Progressivism needs to be culled from the party if it hopes to be viable in the future. I don't believe Fascism will ever be accepted by the average citizen. Unless the Fascism found at the core of Progressivism is dealt with, losses will continue. That mean getting rid of the Fascist Progressive elements that have infiltrated the party.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your obviously not an individual that sees irony. You just proved my point. If a politician doesn't do it your "states rights" way, then they are not working for all the people. Of course not everyone sees it that same way, thus you can't ever work for all the people.

I am all for politicians working together more and bipartisanship, but the fact remains that people want different things so there will always be some partisanship.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I am not conveying my points across very well? I was only trying to use that as an example of how our parties and their narrow ideology based views leave little room for compromise and as a result anyone not in agreement are shut out and worked against. In my example I was trying to demonstrate how they would probably never consider working the betterment of education threw the state in order to get states rights advocates on bored. I was not trying to imply that the only option for me would be that option. I believe that is possible for any persons, regardless of their degree of disagreement, to find an agreeable center but only if both sides are willing to work with the other. The problem that we have in Washington is no one is willing to consider anything outside their own party and ideological spectrum.

I personally think we should remove the Federal government completely from Education but that does not mean I would not be willing to compromise on a Federal program if I felt it would better our system. I am willing to get a lot less than what I would like if I feel it is a step in a better direction.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No. What you should be saying is that today's 70-year-olds are not truly liberal. Those were the people from back when the Democratic party was struggling to implement liberal ideas, and still wrestling with its history of being complicit with Jim Crow. Sure, they freaked out about liberal reform sometimes. They still weren't completely sure they wanted that (although I think you're being a little silly to imply they were somehow entirely unsuccessful, given how liberal things like financial regulation and income equality were back then compared to today -- they had major victories that were a big part of America's most prosperous years). But those people are not today's liberals.

Have you noticed how insanely old the Democratic establishment is, compared to the average liberal? They're worse than Republicans. The Dems didn't field a single candidate who wasn't in their ****ing 70's for the presidential race. Listening to Nancy Pelosi try to connect with modern liberals is embarrassing -- she's so out of touch that it almost appears as senility. Even Warren is old. When the GOP is the one fielding all the up-and-coming young things, you know you got problems.

It's especially weird considering that most American liberals today are not 70-year-olds who remember segregation and remember when the Democrats sometimes supported it. They're middle aged and younger, and an enormous number of them are Millenials. Millenials are the biggest generation in American history, and all of them are old enough to vote now.

They aren't afraid of liberal reform. They keep going to the ballot boxes and voting it into law, and fighting tooth and nail to keep it when the conservative establishment politicians try to take it away. They are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Even today's surburban parents can't understand why the hell we don't have universal healthcare and family leave, and that stuff is "too liberal" for today's Democrats. Soccer moms are more liberal than that, dude. So YES, I do think it will help them win suburbs and small cities.

Like I just said to Chromium, Americans are leading the way for the entire world on today's liberal issues, like drug policy reform and euthanasia. It's American voters who put those things into law and fight every single election to keep them. Yes, American liberals today are truly liberal.

It's time for the Democrats to move the hell on from pandering to aging former Blue Dogs who are increasingly finding themselves enamored with Republican paranoia politics. Let the Republicans have them. Move on to the vast majority of liberals, who now make up the majority of Americans.

But of course, they won't do that, because that's not where the money is. The money is in old, white establishment politicians. And they'll keep pandering to them until the day they all kick the bucket.
Click to expand...

I do agree that the Democrats need new people. That is the problem with abandoning Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. They don't have the "farm team" system of state legislators to bring in new blood and new ideas. They fact that their leadership is Pelosi, Hoyer, and Schumer shows how out of touch they are anymore.
 
ocean515 said:
IMO, the Democratic Party has allowed extremists to take control of the party. Allowing, and even endorsing, (perhaps reluctantly) a Liberal Fascist approach to politics will only hasten it's move towards irrelevance.

Progressivism needs to be culled from the party if it hopes to be viable in the future. I don't believe Fascism will ever be accepted by the average citizen. Unless the Fascism found at the core of Progressivism is dealt with, losses will continue. That mean getting rid of the Fascist Progressive elements that have infiltrated the party.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with progressivism these days is that it's becoming more and more authoritarian.
 
I have a hard time focusing on ideology for the Democrats.

That's because ideology isn't the focus of the Democrats or even the Republicans.

The focus of the two major parties is power and how to get it and hold it.

So they scan the population and create their platform accordingly.

Hillary's resultant platform would have won with a total similar to Obama's in 2008 .. were it not for one mistake: Hillary.

The challenge for both parties is to keep in mind the Electoral College. The EC's spirit affects state and local races too.

The Democrats may slaughter in California and New York, but that's due to the phenomenon that the high density populations are more easily, successfully pandered to by anti-traditional-status-quo perspectives. In more rural and less population-dense states (greatly more square miles and number of states) traditional status quo wins.

The best strategy for the Democrats isn't to change anything message-wise, but to instead focus on two things: 1) field better qualified, more personable, and less controversial candidates, and 2) encourage a significant number of the population masses in NY and CA to move to big cities in TX, FL, IL, OH, IN, and PA to create a likely and more solid Democrat majority in those states. This will help them capture and forever control the White House, which will lead to eventual dominance in state and local contests.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.

There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.

1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.

Or

2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.

So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.
Click to expand...

Not that DP is a scientific poll but I'm saying that if the vote comes out around 50/50 Democrats are going to be for some more lean years. On the Republican side, moderates did not win and far righties did not win. An outside nationalist one. I don't think Democrats have anyone that fits that bill.
 
They need to move more to the left and promote social-democracy.
 
Henrin said:
The biggest problem with progressivism these days is that it's becoming more and more authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Given my experience here in California, it crossed that mark long ago, and now resides firmly in Fascism. The moto seems to be, do as your told, or else suffer the consequences.

That's not a good thing for anyone.
 
Ontologuy said:
The best strategy for the Democrats isn't to change anything message-wise, but to instead focus on two things: 1) field better qualified, more personable, and less controversial candidates, and 2) encourage a significant number of the population masses in NY and CA to move to big cities in TX, FL, IL, OH, IN, and PA to create a likely and more solid Democrat majority in those states. This will help them capture and forever control the White House, which will lead to eventual dominance in state and local contests.
Click to expand...

Yes, a more popular Dem candidate, including Bernie, would have beaten Trump, but that's assuming our best against their worst (Trump) in terms of the general, which isn't a fair basis of comparison; Biden vs say Kasich or Rubio would be a lot less certain. That said, it's more than just about the candidate; Dems got slaughtered down ballot too, because their collective message of status quo continuity contrasted against an obvious zeitgeist of change sucked.

Beyond that though I agree that winning and taking power is the goal of both parties, and that having been said, of the two ideologies fighting for the soul of the Dem party, progressivism is evidently more in tune with the general population and polls better than third way Clintonite corporatism.
 
"A candidate not named Clinton, but with the same positions, would most likely have soundly thumped Trump"

I don't agree. The Democrats lost because Clinton was seen as weak on security. Trump was seen as strong on security. I also think that the general public are tired of hearing the same old accusation from the left that anyone who is in favour of increased security or decreased immigration is racist.
 
Go with Saunders or like minded other individuals and stop listening to the conservatives.
 
Go back to their progressive, liberal roots and break with the neoliberal crap once and for all.

Not to the point of pure populism though.
 
If the Democrats wants to offer a serious political the should move towards the center. Left-wing populists like Bernie Sanders aren't suitable to make serious politics.
 
Van Basten said:
Go back to their progressive, liberal roots and break with the neoliberal crap once and for all.

Not to the point of pure populism though.
Click to expand...
What do you mean with "neoliberal crap" the economic system of the United States is based on as much freedom as possible and as much regulation as needed. And that's the reason, why the United States are such successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom