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

[Fishking]

I think what the Democrats are having is a relatively healthy discussion in the public view that will only amplify during the debates. Pelosi and AOC don't actually hate each other. Its similar to what the GOP went through in 2016 but not quite as bad.

I dunno...the GOP in 2016 hated Trump, and probably still do but have to play nice and try and get stuff done.

 

[Xelor]

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.

Three million more people -- Dems, Indies and Never Trumpers -- voted for Clinton than for Trump. She, one of the worst candidates (though not one of the worst would-be executives) in modern history, lost, but how many more of those same voters do you think the Democratic party's nominee, someone who'll be a better-by-far candidate than was Clinton, will need in the "battleground" states Clinton lost?

 

[Nap]

IMO the entire election will come down to PA, MI, WI, IA, AZ, and NE-02 and ME-02. NC, GA, and FL will all give Trump or whoever the GOP candidate is a run for the money, but I predict that they will all go red. Note that if even one of them flip, however, the Democrats have a clear track to victory. Same for the Republicans if any of the three swing states in the Upper Midwest (not including Ohio) go red.



A big, big, big problem from 2016 is that the base learned so many wrong lessons. It took a sensationalist media, Russian propaganda, the electoral college, and the least supportive primary candidate since 1980 to bring Hillary down. Not saying she didn't make mistakes--she did, and contrary to popular opinion, she admitted it--but a fair analysis of her defeat requires not cherry-picking the facts.



This is subject to change, but right now the winning move for Democrats is a center-left woman candidate who can connect with the Upper Midwest, paired with a progressive running mate. This would do a few things: (1) Having a progressive VP candidate could be a sort of reverse Mike Pence effect, who was thrown in to appease white evangelicals (and it worked), but not that many other people chose who to vote for/against solely because of Pence; (2) A woman candidate would tap into the highly underrated force known as the woman vote that was stronger in 2018 than in 2016; (3) None of this is going to matter if the Democrats can't flip the Upper Midwest.

I have a couple names in mind but I don't want to say just yet who. Give me a few months and we'll see if they're still up to par.

I don't agree with you often but this wiss pretty spot on.

The only thing I would add is Tulsi Gabbard. She could be the Democrats way of sneaking a progressive candidate into office. She comes off as moderate despite pretty much checking off all of the progressive policy boxes. The fact that she is adamantly opposed to meddling in the ME and these pointless wars will help her (if the people are allowed to hear her of message of diplomacy over war, the problem is the government propaganda machine is in full swing to smear her). She doesn't come across as a partisan hack and willing to call out her side is going to draw quite a few independents and her anti war stance will draw in the righ-Libertarian wing from the Republican base. If she wins the nomination, she will destroy Trump in the general imo.

 

[Airyaman]

Democrats ran on sincerity and traditionally core Democratic principles and retook the House. I think your take is overly pessimistic. And while I don't doubt that Trump has strengths on his side, most of the advantages he had in 2016 won't be there for him in 2020, and there's the risk of overlearning the lesson.

Districts != electoral college wins

I guarantee that if a far left candidate wins the nom, the Ds will lose the WH.

 

[Airyaman]

Opposing AGW deniers who are bought and paid for by fossil fuels interests is not far left, it is coming to our senses. Painting an agenda that believes in climate science as "radical" only proves how out of touch you are. If the wealthiest country in the world can't afford to wean ourselves off fossil fuel than what hope do others have? We cannot keep releasing 800 billion tons of sequestered carbon every year without radically changing Earths climate into a far less habitable one.

The NGD is actually more than just about climate change.

 

[Airyaman]

Three million more people -- Dems, Indies and Never Trumpers -- voted for Clinton than for Trump. She, one of the worst candidates (though not one of the worst would-be executives) in modern history, lost, but how many more of those same voters do you think the Democratic party's nominee, someone who'll be a better-by-far candidate than was Clinton, will need in the "battleground" states Clinton lost?

Hillary, as bad as she was, is actually very moderate. That is the only reason she won the popular vote. Someone running left of her will not stand a chance.

 

[Cardinal]

Districts != electoral college wins

I guarantee that if a far left candidate wins the nom, the Ds will lose the WH.

I didn't say that districts are the same as EC wins. But the midterm results were a thoroughly national phenomenon, and are pretty useful because district results are good indicators of grass roots sentiment.

But strong anti-Trump sentiment is very strong compared to past candidates, and again, many of the strengths he had in 2016 won't be there for him in 2020. By no means do I suggest underestimating him. But don't turn him into god given human form either.

 

[Casper]

If I were a member of the Democratic herd, I wouldn't be all that concerned.

The five or six who have thrown their hat in the ring so far have no chance of getting the nomination. They are nothing but cannon fodder. The Party Elites will decide when to trot out the nominee...and who it is...when they are ready, and it won't be anytime soon. Perhaps in the summer. It'll be clear who that is because the media will be all for the person.

In the meantime, the cannon fodder will spout off with their nonsense and that'll keep the Party plebes occupied. The Party Elites won't let them get too far out of hand.

So just be patient, Airyaman. You'll know who to vote for in due time. The media will tell you.

For the most part I agree, the front runner has not stopped up. That said, at least the Dems will have a choice, will the Repubs, or has the GOP determined to not even offer an alternative?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There's one thing missing from the Green New Deal and it is probably or possibly more important than almost any other carbon program.

Biochar

It is also important for other reasons, too:

Independently, biochar can increase soil fertility of acidic soils (low pH soils), increase agricultural productivity, and provide protection against some foliar and soil-borne diseases.

Soil fertility studies on biochar

If we see more stuff like this added to the GND, then we can take it more seriously.

 

[Mycroft]

For the most part I agree, the front runner has not stopped up. That said, at least the Dems will have a choice, will the Repubs, or has the GOP determined to not even offer an alternative?

Everyone has a choice. That's why they call it a vote.

 

[Mycroft]

There's one thing missing from the Green New Deal and it is probably or possibly more important than almost any other carbon program.

Biochar

It is also important for other reasons, too:



Soil fertility studies on biochar

If we see more stuff like this added to the GND, then we can take it more seriously.

Don't get your hopes up. The Green New Deal really has nothing to do with being "green". It's all about government control.

 

[Cardinal]

Hillary, as bad as she was, is actually very moderate. That is the only reason she won the popular vote. Someone running left of her will not stand a chance.

Yes, she was completely qualified, very centrist and she won the popular vote. She was also anti-charismatic. Find for me the last Presidential election in which the less charismatic candidate won. There are a multitude of factors at play and reducing it exclusively to whether someone is adequately centrist doesn't cut it.

 

[Casper]

Everyone has a choice. That's why they call it a vote.

Correct, now if only the American People remember that when the day comes to make that choice, meaning showing up and doing their Duty.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Don't get your hopes up. The Green New Deal really has nothing to do with being "green". It's all about government control.

Another person who hasn't actually read it! Good for you!

 

[Mycroft]

Another person who hasn't actually read it! Good for you!

I've read it.

What's "green" about a mythical "family living wage"?

 

[What if...?]

Stopped reading right there. First of all, get it right, it's the Democratic party. Second, it is clear that you have not payed any attention to anything that has happened in the last 2.5 years. Hell, probably not in the last decade. You do not know what the Democrats are for because you do not want to know what they are for. When any Democrat to the right of AOC steps forth and talks about how they want to reduce gun violence, improve public education, shift the tax burden onto the ultrarich, etc., you choose not to listen because you do not like the answers that do not pass your purity tests. You also choose not to listen to what's actually happened at the ballot box, who actually took back the House, and just how unpopular democratic socialist tactics are in America. This is why we have a good chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in November 2020.

Well, first of all, you are not a "democratic". My usage is correct in context.

And as to the rest, I think you are confusing me with someone else.

My tone is cynical, but money talks in DC. Over the voice of voters. Do you really think it's the party of business and the party of the "people"? Because I don't see that. This is the party that declared Hillary in the primary before the primary. Without really telling everybody they might as well just stay home and save the gas money.

And I pressured my wife on the Bernie boards to remind them of 2000, when Nader cost us Florida. To suggest they hold their nose and hold Hillary's feet to the fire with the promise to make her a one termer if she shifts back corporate after the election.

I know why there's so much hostility towards democratic socialism, where it came from, how it was "installed". And that capitalism is in desperate need of a four hundred year service.

I think we're far more fellow travelers than not. Not sure where the ugly tone comes from. I've been specifically voting against republicans for decades.

 

[iguanaman]

The NGD is actually more than just about climate change.

Yes it is a wishlist of solutions for every social ill too. But what is important is addressing climate change and using that effort to make new careers for millions of Americans. Making lemonaide when you get lemons so to speak. No one is saying it is going to be easy because it is not. It is going to take money too and the carbon polluters need to help fund it. The rest of the wish list is just that, there is no reason to think it is an unbreakable package deal. I do favor a program that would make at least a 2 year College diploma affordable to all who qualify too though. Making our young go into hock just to get a nursing certificate is very stupid.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I've read it.

What's "green" about a mythical "family living wage"?

Like others have said, it's not just about "green" energy, it's also about a New Deal.

Family living wage isn't mythical at all.
You don't get to live well on it but you can survive, enough that you can do what it takes to better yourself and get a foothold to something better.
I don't know how old you are but in the 70's, even a minimum wage job as a dishwasher could pay rent on a crummy little efficiency apt, the light bill, put a few gallons of gas in your jalopy and allow you to buy basic groceries every month.

It's not something anybody wants for life but for a starving student, that's a pretty square deal.
It's enough that you can get by while you prepare and train or educate yourself in order to get a better job with higher pay.
If you're forty or under, or even 45, you never experienced that.
We had a better deal in our time than you did, and that's because we had access to a lot more upward mobility.

So much of our other problems take care of themselves if that problem is addressed.
It wasn't perfect back then but I am sure that a lot of kids today have a MUCH tougher time because upward mobility is almost nonexistent at the bottom level.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think we're far more fellow travelers than not. Not sure where the ugly tone comes from. I've been specifically voting against republicans for decades.

Yeah, I was wondering about that nastiness myself.
Geez whiz, Phys, what gives?

 

[Xelor]

Hillary, as bad as she was, is actually very moderate. That is the only reason she won the popular vote. Someone running left of her will not stand a chance.

I think that's a plausible proposition; however, I'm not a political analyst or expert, so I'm not well situated to posit whether, and if so, to what extent, Trump's 2017-to-the-present (or to November 2020) comportment and rhetoric may/will obviate the "obligation" of the Democratic party POTUS nominee to be "moderate." I just don't know. I know that I can envision a host of plausible pluralistic behaviors/mindsets the electorate may express or demand be catered to, and perhaps one or several of them will effect a majority of electoral college votes.

One thing about which I feel relatively certain is that materially fewer folks, particularly Indies and conservative Dems, will, in November 2020, "hold their noses" and vote for Trump.

 

[yankintx]

Me? I'm not a Democrat in any form or fashion.

That much is obvious

 

[Mycroft]

Like others have said, it's not just about "green" energy, it's also about a New Deal.

Family living wage isn't mythical at all.
You don't get to live well on it but you can survive, enough that you can do what it takes to better yourself and get a foothold to something better.
I don't know how old you are but in the 70's, even a minimum wage job as a dishwasher could pay rent on a crummy little efficiency apt, the light bill, put a few gallons of gas in your jalopy and allow you to buy basic groceries every month.

It's not something anybody wants for life but for a starving student, that's a pretty square deal.
It's enough that you can get by while you prepare and train or educate yourself in order to get a better job with higher pay.
If you're forty or under, or even 45, you never experienced that.
We had a better deal in our time than you did, and that's because we had access to a lot more upward mobility.

So much of our other problems take care of themselves if that problem is addressed.
It wasn't perfect back then but I am sure that a lot of kids today have a MUCH tougher time because upward mobility is almost nonexistent at the bottom level.

How much is it?

 

[bongsaway]

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and no one in 2016 (all candidates were horse ****).

What media outlets told me to vote that way?

You have to consider the source that comment came from. I love it when a conservative tells me what I'm thinking or who I'm going to choose since I have no idea at this point. Thank goodness for the party elites and the media or else I reckon I would be eternally confused as to whom to vote for. Arrogance and stupidity all wrapped up in one post.

 

[bongsaway]

Then hope for a Republican to beat Trump out. I think anyone rational would have a chance at ousting him. There is no hope when the likes of AOC, Booker, and Harris vie to carry the banner for the left.

You guys on the right do realize you're only blowing around a lot of hot air telling the dems who their standard bearers are, don't you?

 

[bongsaway]

I disagree.

Except for the harcore conservatives, and Trump supporters (the 2 are not the same)...the majority of the rest of America will like the aspects of democratic socialism, and will embrace the possibilities it offers.

We know what conservative "free market" economic policies offer.....we have seen the transition over the last 35 years.

The Wealthy get incredibly wealthy, corps squeeze out as much profit as possible, (damn the consequences to the working/middle class) and Wall street sets the standards, as they pretty much own the government. And those standards are simply, make more money, as that is all they do.

Greed is a motivator for a capitalistic society, but democratic socialism, or social morals...is needed to keep that greed in check.

It's all about the dollar and always has been. It's just that now the greed is in the open for all to see if one looks. Corporations, it's now said, main concern are their shareholders. Not about their product, not about the quality of their service, not about the consumer, it's the shareholders and screw everyone else. Profit above and beyond what's morally right, what's good for the average person, what helps the country move forward in a greener better way. None of that matters, it's all about money and how much can I get and to hell with everyone else. And people wonder what went wrong in america.