Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,951 to 3,000 of 4,260 << first < prev | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

GM Niles wrote:

Hey, I've read this thread off/on for a while now but I don't go back and read past pages so please forgive or ignore me.

I see a few peeps in the current discussion talking about Warren 2020 (I think Warren rubs quite a few people the wrong way and brings alot of the same baggage Clinton did) ...what's wrong with Cory Booker or Tulsi Gabbard in 2020?

Before grabbing at names for 2020, I'd like to see what is happening in the 2018 elections. I'd like to see what answers (if any) we hear from the party about our current political climate. 2020 is going to require a lot more than a big name. thats not a trap the dems should fall into again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Niles wrote:

Hey, I've read this thread off/on for a while now but I don't go back and read past pages so please forgive or ignore me.

I see a few peeps in the current discussion talking about Warren 2020 (I think Warren rubs quite a few people the wrong way and brings alot of the same baggage Clinton did) ...what's wrong with Cory Booker or Tulsi Gabbard in 2020?

I'm genuinely curious...what "baggage" does Warren share with Clinton?


If you asked 20 people in rural america to say the first thing they think of when you say "Elizabeth Warren" 7+ would answer

"dishonest"

HRC had the exact same issue. I'm not saying that's accurate, or fair just that it was. Also, Warren might not even run for reelection. And a presumptive Democratic nominee didn't work so well in 2016

Just a note, the "Reputation Audit" was conducted well before the 2016 election and before anyone started spending money to go after Warren, which is certainly what would happen in 2019-2020


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Having catchy monikers like Fauxcohontas or Lieawatha probably doesn't help either.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
I'm genuinely curious...what "baggage" does Warren share with Clinton?

Well, being female, obviously.

Beyond that, though, her possible exaggeration of her Native American heritage is problematic, especially since she's never been able to tamp down the allegations that she used it to advance her Harvard career.

She'll also be 71 when the 2020 election is held.


There's also the minor fact that she's repeatedly denied any interest in running.

And more importantly, as Pan said, 2018 is far more important for now than worrying about the top line for 2020. One of the big problems Democrats have had is too much focus on the Presidential race at the expense of others.

For now we need to worry about state and local races in (and before) 2018. And we need to worry about minimizing the damage Trump can do. It may well be that new leaders will come out of that.


Rednal wrote:

@Knight:

Quote:
Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
...?

According to Colbert, we've moved beyond "truthiness" and into "Trumpiness"


thunderspirit wrote:
Well, being female, obviously.

Of course, though I was trying to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

thunderspirit wrote:

Beyond that, though, her possible exaggeration of her Native American heritage is problematic, especially since she's never been able to tamp down the allegations that she used it to advance her Harvard career.

She'll also be 71 when the 2020 election is held.

If age counts, then Trump shares baggage with Clinton. :P

I'm not saying that the Native American thing isn't problematic. Nor am I saying that we should focus on 2020. But as far as I can see, drawing a line from Clinton to Warren only works if the lines goes through "female." Which is not OK.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
According to Colbert, we've moved beyond "truthiness" and into "Trumpiness"

It's hard to argue he's wrong. The media has been so effectively undermined, and the populace so polarized, that I kinda doubt *any* revelation about Trump, no matter how outrageous or well-documented, would move the needle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
If age counts, then Trump shares baggage with Clinton. :P

He absolutely did. Odd, isn't it, that it wasn't really an issue for him like it was for Clinton? Hmm, I wonder why...


thunderspirit wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
If age counts, then Trump shares baggage with Clinton. :P

He absolutely did. Odd, isn't it, that it wasn't really an issue for him like it was for Clinton? Hmm, I wonder why...

Well, it could be partly because we treat age differently in women and in men?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a video of Trump tossing infants into wood-chippers didn't change anything. Half of the Republican party would dismiss it as fake, and the other half would be like "well, at least they weren't aborted."


bugleyman wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
Well, being female, obviously.

Of course, though I was trying to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

thunderspirit wrote:

Beyond that, though, her possible exaggeration of her Native American heritage is problematic, especially since she's never been able to tamp down the allegations that she used it to advance her Harvard career.

She'll also be 71 when the 2020 election is held.

If age counts, then Trump shares baggage with Clinton. :P

I'm not saying that the Native American thing isn't problematic. Nor am I saying that we should focus on 2020. But as far as I can see, drawing a line from Clinton to Warren only works if the lines goes through "female." Which is not OK.

Well, it may not be OK, but that doesn't mean it's not an actual problem when it comes to running for office. If it is a factor, should we pretend it doesn't exist?


thejeff wrote:
Well, it may not be OK, but that doesn't mean it's not an actual problem when it comes to running for office. If it is a factor, should we pretend it doesn't exist?

No, we shouldn't.

Should we just never nominate another female candidate because we know that, simply by virtue of her gender, she'll be at a disadvantage against a man?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, it may not be OK, but that doesn't mean it's not an actual problem when it comes to running for office. If it is a factor, should we pretend it doesn't exist?

No, we shouldn't.

Should we just never nominate another female candidate because we know that, simply by virtue of her gender, she'll be at a disadvantage against a man?

I didn't say that either. I don't have a good answer here.


thejeff wrote:
I didn't say that either. I don't have a good answer here.

I don't, either. But something about Clinton that seems to have been lost is that, even though she ultimately failed, her failure may well have been necessary to blaze a trail for the next female candidate. Perhaps someone had to "take one for the team." Even if nominating a woman did cost us the election, maybe it will be worth it in the end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
What would you say is the base of the democratic party?

90's republicans


Guy Humual wrote:
So what do you got to win the next election then? Because the not Trump ticket lost. Regardless of if the single most popular politician in the US would have won against the most hated is indeed useless speculation at this point. The obvious fact that Sanders is popular because his positions are popular seems lost on them. They seem to be looking for that Sander's charm to rub off on them, when all they need to do is start adopting some of his policies, but unfortunately a number of them are restricted by their donors, and so hanging out with Bernie, getting pictures with him, that's not going to make Sanders supporters like you.

Your point, the one I boldified, no one addressed.

This really needs to be addressed else the Dems will lose the next election as handily as they lost the last one.

Just because I'm a "Bernie Bro" doesn't mean everything I say is said out of spite over sour grapes. Bernie speaks the truth to power.

Hillary is part of the problem. If you want to say a woman "took one for the team"; then I'm going to assume you mean one of the women she excoriated for daring to accuse her husband of being a womanizer.


Quark Blast wrote:
If you want to say a woman "took one for the team"; then I'm going to assume you mean one of the women she excoriated for daring to accuse her husband of being a womanizer.

You're going to assume that...despite the fact that you obviously know that wasn't what I meant? :P


bugleyman wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
If you want to say a woman "took one for the team"; then I'm going to assume you mean one of the women she excoriated for daring to accuse her husband of being a womanizer.
You're going to assume that...despite the fact that you obviously know that wasn't what I meant? :p

Ha! :D

Made my day. Thanks bugleyman!

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
What would you say is the base of the democratic party?
90's republicans

Zing!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
. The obvious fact that Sanders is popular because his positions are popular seems lost on them. They seem to be looking for that Sander's charm to rub off on them, when all they need to do is start adopting some of his policies, but unfortunately a number of them are restricted by their donors, and so hanging out with Bernie, getting pictures with him, that's not going to make Sanders supporters like you.

You can assume that, but it's not so clear it's true.

I'd love for it to be true. I'd love to believe we've got an opening for a populist left uprising, that's only being held in check by the establish Democrats, but I really don't see it. My reading is that the Trump victory was mostly one of white identity politics and while Sanders tapped a lot of enthusiasm, the actual numbers aren't as impressive as the enthusiasm or his popularity suggest - popularity being a lot easier when there's nothing on the line.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

We can, just as soon as the Bernie fans stop claiming Sanders would have won despite no evidence beyond him not being Hillary Clinton.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Sadly, that is due in large parts to very successful branding by republicans and aided in large parts by Sanders. It's patently false, but they are quite good at getting large groups to believe patently false ideas.

Sovereign Court

thunderspirit wrote:
We can, just as soon as the Bernie fans stop claiming Sanders would have won despite no evidence beyond him not being Hillary Clinton.

again, not to get dragged into the 2016 campaign again, but Hillary Clinton didn't run on being Hillary Clinton, she ran on being not Trump and so suggesting that Bernie not being Clinton was his selling point doesn't really address anything. I've said repeatedly that I think Sanders is popular because of his policies and I suspect that he would have won because he was proposing things that people wanted. If we boil the election down to pure charisma, I hate to say it, but I don't think Bernie wins that race. Perhaps if Clinton and the DNC ever get the courage to run a post mortem on the election maybe we can address it then, but let's just leave it at that. I think Bernie could have beat Trump, you think otherwise, but that's neither here nor there. Point is we're supposed to be talking about what the democrats have to do going forward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an interesting article about why Bernie isn't doing particularly well with Democratic voters

Bernie Is A Democrat When It Is Convenient

He consistently argues that his values — and his alone — should define what it is to be progressive. (Which can’t help but remind one of Donald Trump’s unilateral defining of terms.)
<snip>
Sanders has most recently set out to define what it is to be progressive by refusing to campaign for Democrat Jon Ossoff in his contested congressional race in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. “He’s not a progressive,” Sanders told The Washington Post about Ossoff — who is pro-choice, supports increasing the minimum wage, is anti-war and supports immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sanders set off to campaign with Heath Mello, the Democratic nominee for mayor of Omaha, who has a strong anti-choice record including having introduced legislation restricting abortion, and was quick to call Mello a progressive.

Sovereign Court

Squeakmaan wrote:
Sadly, that is due in large parts to very successful branding by republicans and aided in large parts by Sanders. It's patently false, but they are quite good at getting large groups to believe patently false ideas.

Well they managed to brand themselves as being good on national security and the economy even after George W Bush's run as president.

Sovereign Court

CrystalSeas wrote:

Here's an interesting article about why Bernie isn't doing particularly well with Democratic voters

Bernie Is A Democrat When It Is Convenient

He consistently argues that his values — and his alone — should define what it is to be progressive. (Which can’t help but remind one of Donald Trump’s unilateral defining of terms.)
<snip>
Sanders has most recently set out to define what it is to be progressive by refusing to campaign for Democrat Jon Ossoff in his contested congressional race in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. “He’s not a progressive,” Sanders told The Washington Post about Ossoff — who is pro-choice, supports increasing the minimum wage, is anti-war and supports immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sanders set off to campaign with Heath Mello, the Democratic nominee for mayor of Omaha, who has a strong anti-choice record including having introduced legislation restricting abortion, and was quick to call Mello a progressive.

It's another political hit peace from Salon if anyone was wondering.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Sadly, that is due in large parts to very successful branding by republicans and aided in large parts by Sanders. It's patently false, but they are quite good at getting large groups to believe patently false ideas.
Which brings us back around to a comment I made on the third page of this thread.
BigDTBone wrote:
The problem is that Democrats suck at sales.


I'll throw my voice into the mix on dropping relitigation of the last election. What's more all the emphasis on presidential elections means crap really. A democrat president whose party doesn't control the House, Senate, SC, or the majority of state governments won't get anything done.

Honestly the biggest problem recently has been the democratic party just not having an effective campaign game in rural and suburban areas. Progressive has over time become more and more synonymous with urban. If decisions were based on population that's great, but they are not.

I honestly have no real idea how the democrats are going to do that, since it will mean going up against several decades of Republican messaging and will almost certainly mean that some sacred cows will have to be sacrificed in certain parts of the country. Certainly any sort of idealogical purity test is probably just going make things worse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
It's another political hit peace from Salon if anyone was wondering.

From my perspective it gets at some of the most troubling aspects of Sander's brand of "Democrat". Understand that I worked for Sanders locally during the primaries. And I voted reluctantly for Clinton in the general.

But Sanders has consistently told marginalized groups that they need to step back and take what crumbs that fall off the 'economic justice' table, because that's what we really need, but we just don't understand. But it's ok because if we just put our own priorities aside to work on his, he'll fix everything for us. He did that quite publicly with the Black Lives Matter group.

It's really quite paternalistic, and it silences many of us who think that there is a holistic approach that could be taken. I don't need yet another (elderly, white) man telling me not to bother my pretty little head over these rarified concepts because if I just trust him, he'll take care of me.


P.S. I read the Salon piece after my last post. I find it incredibly ironic that the editorial chastens Sanders for deciding "who is a progressive democrat" while at the same time linking to other articles or also putting forward opinions that basically do the same thing. Which kind of perfectly enscapulates the identity crisis that the Democrats currently find themselves in.

Also some good uh...wishful thinking on just hoping that demographic change is going to magically turn lots of places blue.


MMCJawa wrote:

P.S. I read the Salon piece after my last post. I find it incredibly ironic that the editorial chastens Sanders for deciding "who is a progressive democrat" while at the same time linking to other articles or also putting forward opinions that basically do the same thing. Which kind of perfectly enscapulates the identity crisis that the Democrats currently find themselves in.

Because "We're republicans we're just not crazy about it" isn't really a position you can honestly run on?


So, I keep reading claims of how strongly anti-abortion Mello is, and the only corroborating evidence the articles provide is that he signed on to a law mandating doctors inform women that they have the right to look at an ultrasound.

Am I missing something? Because I don't see how campaigning for Mello is any different than campaigning for Kaine, which, of course, Bernie also did. (Also, I think they're both the wrong thing to do.)

I'm also curious about these accusations of Bernie ignoring black people. It seems odd to me that the progressive candidate for white people would do so well with millennials of color (and Native Americans). Also, it seems odd because of all the Bernie surrogates/celebrity supporters that spring to my mind (Nina Turner, Michelle Alexander, Keith Ellison, Tulsi Gabbard, Cornel West, Killer Mike, Larry Cohen) only the last one is a white man. I probably aren't as familiar with Bernie's supporters as I should be. Oh yeah, Mark Ruffalo.

Comrade Seas, what are you referring to when you say that Bernie told BLM to step back and wait for crumbs from the populist economics table? I must have also missed that


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's one of the earlier articles about that, a Vox explainer
Black Lives Matter vs. Bernie Sanders, explained

And then in 2016
Why Black Voters Don’t Feel the Bern

And some statistics about how the votes split in the primary
Black primary voters


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember those events well. None of them involved Bernie telling Black Lives Matter to step back and wait for crumbs from the table.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My opinion is that this was a particularly slimy talking point concocted by a pre-unity Perez on behalf of the Clinton campaign while he was serving as Secretary of Labor.

I much preferred Shaun King's piece back in February:

Destroying the myth that Bernie Sanders doesn't address race or racism


Jesus, and that piece cites Congressional Black Caucus support for the Crime Bill without even talking about how the Clintons had to strongarm them into doing so. Gross.


It's true that Sanders formal policy statement was much better than his initial responses to BLM protesters.
Racial Justice


Well, that's interesting:

Instead, on April 19, the Wall Street Journal ran a story noting that Mello, a practicing Catholic, is pro-life. The story also falsely claimed Mello had co-sponsored a bill 'requiring women to look at ultrasound image of their fetus before receiving an abortion.' A similar error was made by the Washington Post, which claimed that Mello had “previously backed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women considering abortions” and then again the following day by David Nir, political director of Daily Kos, who announced the site was withdrawing its endorsement of Mello—a move applauded by Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who’d launched a 12-part Twitter storm linking to the WSJ article and accusing Sanders and Perez of kicking off their tour with the message: “shame women; we’ll support u anyway.”

Here's the truth about Mello's record: back in 2009, he co-sponsored a bill requiring a physician performing an abortion to tell a woman an ultrasound is available (as most already did). It neither mandated the ultrasound be performed, nor, if performed, actually viewed by the woman—although it did require abortion providers to position the screen is such a way that the ultrasound was easily viewable. Daily Kos member Nova Land—a Tennessean who never heard of Mello before the controversy—posted a comprehensive, well-sourced correction to this effect the same day. That didn’t lead Nir to reconsider. Or stop Perez from issuing a statement announcing he “fundamentally disagree[s] with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health,” which was worded in a way that appeared to cast doubt on the sincerity of Mello’s pledge that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”

 Why Was Heath Mello Thrown Under the Bus?  Was the candidate for mayor of Omaha held to a different standard than other Democrats?

It then has a few more details about his anti-abortion record that I hadn't seen mentioned elsewhere...followed by his apparent conversion in 2012 and voting with Planned Parenthood 100% of the time since then and follows that up with a comparison to Tim Kaine...who among other things, signed a bill actually mandating women look at their ultrasounds! What the f@~*?!?

To be clear, I'm for complete and unrestricted access to free abortion as part of a socialized health care system, but I also have a passing interest in how the center uses their version of identity politics against the left in defense of neoliberalism.


CrystalSeas wrote:

Here's an interesting article about why Bernie isn't doing particularly well with Democratic voters

Bernie Is A Democrat When It Is Convenient

He consistently argues that his values — and his alone — should define what it is to be progressive. (Which can’t help but remind one of Donald Trump’s unilateral defining of terms.)
<snip>
Sanders has most recently set out to define what it is to be progressive by refusing to campaign for Democrat Jon Ossoff in his contested congressional race in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. “He’s not a progressive,” Sanders told The Washington Post about Ossoff — who is pro-choice, supports increasing the minimum wage, is anti-war and supports immigration reform. Meanwhile, Sanders set off to campaign with Heath Mello, the Democratic nominee for mayor of Omaha, who has a strong anti-choice record including having introduced legislation restricting abortion, and was quick to call Mello a progressive.

Near as I can tell, Sanders didn't actually say Ossoff wasn't progressive. Most sources I've seen said he claimed not to know. Ossoff himself doesn't claim to be progressive. Most likely, whatever the policies, "progressive" isn't a vote-getter in his part of Georgia.


You can click through the links and get to the WaPo article where he is quoted as saying it.

Although, as my previous post indicates, WaPo got Mello's ultrasound bill wrong, so...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

You can click through the links and get to the WaPo article where he is quoted as saying it.

Although, as my previous post indicates, WaPo got Mello's ultrasound bill wrong, so...

Yeah, the WaPo article does say that. I've seen other contradicting sources. And frankly, I don't care enough to dig any deeper.

Sovereign Court

I am probably too late, but I hope purity tests don't take over the dems like it has the repubs. That's what all this Bernie is an independent and he backs pro-life liberals stuff appears to be. I hate that i'm about to defend Tomi Lahren but she pretty much got canned for stepping out of line. She is also simply a media commentator. I understand that a single issue can be of utmost importance to a person but in politics we all live in the same pool and their are hundreds of issues to consider.

The other issue is folks/politicians like to cherry pick issues and clobber people with them. Often, bills are loaded with hundreds of pages of legislation. Sure, there might be some awful "must view ultrasound" garbage in a bill, but it might also have low income housing/medical/education assistance attached as well. The media/commentators are great at hiding the larger picture.

I guess what i'm saying is when you see these laser focused criticisms make sure to stop and look into them before condemning someone whether they align with your viewpoint or not.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, that's interesting:

Instead, on April 19, the Wall Street Journal ran a story noting that Mello, a practicing Catholic, is pro-life. The story also falsely claimed Mello had co-sponsored a bill 'requiring women to look at ultrasound image of their fetus before receiving an abortion.' A similar error was made by the Washington Post, which claimed that Mello had “previously backed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women considering abortions” and then again the following day by David Nir, political director of Daily Kos, who announced the site was withdrawing its endorsement of Mello—a move applauded by Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who’d launched a 12-part Twitter storm linking to the WSJ article and accusing Sanders and Perez of kicking off their tour with the message: “shame women; we’ll support u anyway.”

Here's the truth about Mello's record: back in 2009, he co-sponsored a bill requiring a physician performing an abortion to tell a woman an ultrasound is available (as most already did). It neither mandated the ultrasound be performed, nor, if performed, actually viewed by the woman—although it did require abortion providers to position the screen is such a way that the ultrasound was easily viewable. Daily Kos member Nova Land—a Tennessean who never heard of Mello before the controversy—posted a comprehensive, well-sourced correction to this effect the same day. That didn’t lead Nir to reconsider. Or stop Perez from issuing a statement announcing he “fundamentally disagree[s] with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health,” which was worded in a way that appeared to cast doubt on the sincerity of Mello’s pledge that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”

 Why Was Heath Mello Thrown Under the Bus?  Was the candidate for mayor of Omaha held to a different standard than other Democrats?

It then has a few more details...

You left out his voting FOR a ban on abortions after 20 weeks in 2010.

2,951 to 3,000 of 4,260 << first < prev | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards