We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Future of Democratic Party?

What do Democrats need to do.

  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

#1 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:00 PM

Democrats Must Become America’s Anti-Gerrymandering Party-

 

"The opposition party should embrace a sweeping reform agenda that embraces the promise of voting rights, competitive elections and genuinely representative democracy.

 

Combining support for the assault on gerrymandering that Beyer has proposed with support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (as proposed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and others in the Senate and House) and with support for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to vote and to have that vote counted (as Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison have proposed) would go a long way toward branding the Democrats as the party of reform that America needs.

 

By becoming the party of democratic renewal — promoting bold and meaningful changes that empower voters to end the malaise in Washington and state capitals nationwide — Democrats can make themselves the party of the future.....

 

http://billmoyers.co...andering-party/

 

We have Constitutional Amendments guranteeing the right to vote.

 

Here’s FairVote’s assessment of how the Beyer plan would work:

From the article:  "Smaller states with five or fewer members will elect all representatives from one statewide, at-large district. States with more than six members will draw multiwinner districts of three to five representatives each. Congress will remain the same size, but districts will be larger.

The districts themselves will be drawn by state-created, independent commissions made up of ordinary citizens. These larger districts would be nearly impossible to gerrymander for political advantage — and would force politicians to seek out voters with different perspectives and remain accountable to them."

Technically, the elections for House members are at-large now-in all states.  The Supreme Court determined this some time ago as being Constitutional.  The state legislatures established districts, but you do not have to live in the district you represent.

Would the people accept all the representatives coming from the most populous region of a state?  No.  Of course most states have more than five representatives now.

Who determines who is on the "independent" commissions?  Partisan politicians at the state or local levels.

"Ordinary citizens"  Who are they?

Personally I would prefer some computer generated districts, utilizing non-partisan data and based on size and compatability or voters.  Add in certain other economic factors, etc.

Regardless, it is not going to happen in my life time, Bill Moyers' or anybody else'sposting on this board.



#2 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,602 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 02:59 PM

Democrats Must Become America’s Anti-Gerrymandering Party-

 

"The opposition party should embrace a sweeping reform agenda that embraces the promise of voting rights, competitive elections and genuinely representative democracy.

 

Combining support for the assault on gerrymandering that Beyer has proposed with support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (as proposed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and others in the Senate and House) and with support for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to vote and to have that vote counted (as Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison have proposed) would go a long way toward branding the Democrats as the party of reform that America needs.

 

By becoming the party of democratic renewal — promoting bold and meaningful changes that empower voters to end the malaise in Washington and state capitals nationwide — Democrats can make themselves the party of the future.....

 

http://billmoyers.co...andering-party/


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#3 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,602 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 02:54 PM

Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons-

 

"One of the most under-discussed yet consequential changes in the American political landscape is the reunion between the Democratic Party and the country’s most extreme and discredited neocons. While the rise of Donald Trump, whom neocons loathe, has accelerated this realignment, it began long before the ascension of Trump and is driven by far more common beliefs than contempt for the current president.

 

A newly formed and, by all appearances, well-funded national security advocacy group, devoted to more hawkish U.S. policies toward Russia and other adversaries, provides the most vivid evidence yet of this alliance. Calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, the group describes itself as “a bipartisan, transatlantic initiative” that “will develop comprehensive strategies to defend against, deter, and raise the costs on Russian and other state actors’ efforts to undermine democracy and democratic institutions,” and also “will work to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin’s ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.”

 

It is, in fact, the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials and the world’s most militant, and militaristic, neocons.......

 

What we see .... are leading Democratic foreign policy experts joining hands with the world’s worst neocons to form new, broad-based policy advocacy groups to re-shape U.S. foreign policy toward a more hostile, belligerent and hawkish posture......

 

https://theintercept...sh-era-neocons/

 

:unsure:


  • BelleLeGrand1 likes this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#4 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,403 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 12 July 2017 - 11:05 AM

This appears to be good news, but I have not been able to find out much about the Democrats.  One is a retired school teacher and appears both ran on a pro-eduction platform (who doesn't though).

 

I wonder how much fracking has to do with this outcome.    The number of over 4.0 earthquakes has increased on a massive scale and correlates to the increase in fracking and this as severely impacted the quality of life in many areas of the state.   In addition these earthquakes don't discriminate by messing only with the homes of Dems.     


  • TheCid likes this

#5 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,931 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 12 July 2017 - 08:56 AM

I got the perfect shot in the arm for the democrats...

 

sanders supporters burning hillary in effigy.

:lol:


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#6 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 12 July 2017 - 08:32 AM

"(Dems) can take heart from a pair of stunning victories in the usually dark red Oklahoma state legislature...

 

...Democrats control the governor’s office and both houses in just five states against twenty-five wholly Republican controlled states.

 

If we are going to take this country back, we must contest every district. We need to listen to voters, not donors, and find a message that resonates with every American, no matter their demographic groups.

These victories in deep-red Oklahoma are a harbinger of a populist backlash against a President who shows no interest in governing and is too preoccupied with his own personal scandals to care about the people who put him in office – and we have to be ready to take advantage of his failures...

 

http://washingtonjou...cial-elections/

This appears to be good news, but I have not been able to find out much about the Democrats.  One is a retired school teacher and appears both ran on a pro-eduction platform (who doesn't though).



#7 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,602 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 12:20 AM

"(Dems) can take heart from a pair of stunning victories in the usually dark red Oklahoma state legislature...

 

...Democrats control the governor’s office and both houses in just five states against twenty-five wholly Republican controlled states.

 

If we are going to take this country back, we must contest every district. We need to listen to voters, not donors, and find a message that resonates with every American, no matter their demographic groups.

These victories in deep-red Oklahoma are a harbinger of a populist backlash against a President who shows no interest in governing and is too preoccupied with his own personal scandals to care about the people who put him in office – and we have to be ready to take advantage of his failures...

 

http://washingtonjou...cial-elections/


  • TheCid and film lover 293 like this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#8 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 10 July 2017 - 02:51 PM

So you're saying that back in 2010 the majority of Dem House and Senate members that voted for the ACA went against the wishes of the majority of voters in their district (for a House member) or state (for a Senate member)?

 

Clearly that is what you're implying by saying the ACA was viewed as extremely liberal (extremely);    Sorry but that makes no sense from a political perspective unless a majority of voters in Dem district \ states are extremely liberal.

 

In addition it runs counter to your POV that in most areas Dems can't be viewed as too liberal if they wish to win elections (something I agree with).     

Most people vote for candidates for many reasons, not just one or two.  For example, they may be anti-abortion but vote for a pro-choice candidate because they like his/her other positions.  Or it may just be that he/she is better than the alternative.

 

The ACA was perceived as extremely liberal across most of the US.  Well, maybe not in CA and MA.

 

The ACA was a major cause of many Dem Sens. and House members losing their seats and for the GOP to gain control of both houses in 2012.

 

Some of the Dems who voted for it really did not believe in it, but it was their party duty to vote for it.  And don't forget all the backroom deals that were made to get it through.



#9 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,403 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 09 July 2017 - 06:32 PM

Regardless, the ACA was extremely "liberal" to the majority of American voters.

 

 

 

So you're saying that back in 2010 the majority of Dem House and Senate members that voted for the ACA went against the wishes of the majority of voters in their district (for a House member) or state (for a Senate member)?

 

Clearly that is what you're implying by saying the ACA was viewed as extremely liberal (extremely);    Sorry but that makes no sense from a political perspective unless a majority of voters in Dem district \ states are extremely liberal.

 

In addition it runs counter to your POV that in most areas Dems can't be viewed as too liberal if they wish to win elections (something I agree with).     



#10 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 09 July 2017 - 10:47 AM

The ACA is centrist policy:  Pushing for single-payer or removing for-profit private Insurers from the system,  would have been liberal \ progressive policy.

 

Obama was also a centrist on immigration deporting more illegal immigrants than GWB and being labeled deporter-in-chief by illegal immigration advocates.    It wasn't until Obama won re-election that he changed ICE policy to reduce deportations and implemented DOMA.

 

In 2008 Obama ran as a liberal but governed mostly from the center.   Obama won in 2008 despite running as a liberal mainly because enough voters didn't wish to continue with another GOP administration  (and in my case it was Palin that made me vote for Obama).  

 

In those first 4 years he governed mostly from the center because he agreed with your overall point here Cid:  That generally a Dem can't run as a liberal \ progressive for the office of President and expect to win.    The only reason Obama didn't implement liberal \ progressive policy in his lame-duck years is because the GOP controlled the Congress.    

Guess it comes down to definition of CA liberal vs. Deep South liberal.  Obama and many Dems are perceived as liberal and many of the things they did are perceived as liberal In the South, the East, the Mid-West, Southwest, etc.

I'm sure if you listed all the actions that were taken and laws that were passed in 2009 and 2010, many would be classified as liberal by many voters.

Regardless, the ACA was extremely "liberal" to the majority of American voters.

I'm not saying they weren't good things; just that too many voters perceived them as too "liberal."

 

As for Value Democrats as described by Vautin, these were things that the majority of American voters questioned.



#11 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,222 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:42 PM


White Knights, Manginas and Simps, oh my!

#12 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,403 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:20 PM

Pres Obama did not govern as a centrist and the Democratic Party sure didn't.  The most obvious proof is the Affordable Care Act. There were also other left of center things that the Democrats pushed after Jan 2009.

As for "reaching across the aisle," every president does that or says they are.  Even Trump periodically states he is trying to reach across the aisle.  There were a lot of reasons why it did not work with Obama and the Democrats, but the best legislation in American history was created by reaching across the aisle.

 

The ACA is centrist policy:  Pushing for single-payer or removing for-profit private Insurers from the system,  would have been liberal \ progressive policy.

 

Obama was also a centrist on immigration deporting more illegal immigrants than GWB and being labeled deporter-in-chief by illegal immigration advocates.    It wasn't until Obama won re-election that he changed ICE policy to reduce deportations and implemented DOMA.

 

In 2008 Obama ran as a liberal but governed mostly from the center.   Obama won in 2008 despite running as a liberal mainly because enough voters didn't wish to continue with another GOP administration  (and in my case it was Palin that made me vote for Obama).  

 

In those first 4 years he governed mostly from the center because he agreed with your overall point here Cid:  That generally a Dem can't run as a liberal \ progressive for the office of President and expect to win.    The only reason Obama didn't implement liberal \ progressive policy in his lame-duck years is because the GOP controlled the Congress.    


  • mr6666 likes this

#13 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,811 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:09 PM

I think I noted that the Dems won a few House seats in 2016; not sure about Senate.  Regardless, they have lost control of both and face a very formidable challenge in reestablishing that control.

While they have lost before, the depth of the problem today is that not only have they lost the presidency and Congress, they have also lost most of state governorships and legislatures.  And it extends into the school boards, county councils, city councils, etc.

 

Not sure what a Value Democrat is.  Care to define?

Yes, they did pick up a few seats in the House, though they were expected to do

somewhat better. I can't remember how many Senate seats they gained--I think it

was about four or so, obviously not enough to have a majority and the Senate

map for 2018 favors the GOP. It will definitely take a long time for the Dems to

get back to par with Republicans in national, state, and local offices, but I don't

think Democrats are collapsing or even in decline. (Oops the Dems only picked up 

2 Senate seats. Thought it was more).

 

Value Democrats are progressives who believe in single payer, "free" college,

and a $15 an hour minimum wage and not taking any money from corporations.

I believe it was one of the Young Turks who was the main organizer and proponent

of this idea. Be interesting to see how they do in the next year and a half.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#14 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:33 PM

The last time I recall the Democratic party "collapsing" was after

the 1988 election, when the GOP won the presidency for the

third time in a row. The Dems were done, kaputt, D.O.A. That's

why I don't pay much attention to these the end is near narratives

for either party. And the Dems did pick up seats in Congress in

2016, one reason that Mitch has so little wriggle room on replacing

Obamacare. The Dems mildly agree with the GOP on economic

issues. I guess that's why the GOP legislation to replace Obamacare

hasn't picked up one Democratic vote. I think I know where the

Value Democrats can get some hefty contributions--from a very

grateful Republican Party. 

I think I noted that the Dems won a few House seats in 2016; not sure about Senate.  Regardless, they have lost control of both and face a very formidable challenge in reestablishing that control.

While they have lost before, the depth of the problem today is that not only have they lost the presidency and Congress, they have also lost most of state governorships and legislatures.  And it extends into the school boards, county councils, city councils, etc.

 

Not sure what a Value Democrat is.  Care to define?



#15 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,811 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:14 PM

The last time I recall the Democratic party "collapsing" was after

the 1988 election, when the GOP won the presidency for the

third time in a row. The Dems were done, kaputt, D.O.A. That's

why I don't pay much attention to these the end is near narratives

for either party. And the Dems did pick up seats in Congress in

2016, one reason that Mitch has so little wriggle room on replacing

Obamacare. The Dems mildly agree with the GOP on economic

issues. I guess that's why the GOP legislation to replace Obamacare

hasn't picked up one Democratic vote. I think I know where the

Value Democrats can get some hefty contributions--from a very

grateful Republican Party. 


  • Princess of Tap likes this

Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#16 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:17 AM

Pretty astute ...

Absolutely incorrect and guaranteed to establish a Republican Party with 60+ senate and 300+ House seats.  GOP may have lost six House seats last election, but what Nader and the commentator are advocating will cause huge losses for Democrats.

Nader was always a gadfly in the national scene.  While he does have some good points, his opinions are pretty lame.  Even his famous Unsafe at Any Speed was grossly inaccurate in some respects.  The centerpiece was the Corvair and by the time Nader wrote his book, the problems had been corrected.  It was also mostly a failure of owners to follow the instructions in the manual on how to care for and drive the car.  

Many think that Nader killed the Corvair.  Not so. It was killed by Falcon, Mustang and Chevrolet's introduction of the more American acceptable Chvey II.

 

As for Reagan defeating Carter, heck I didn't even vote for Carter the first time because he was not qualified to be president.  He proved me correct.  Also he had a terrible economy and the hostage situation in Iran weighing him down.



#17 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 08 July 2017 - 09:08 AM

There’s a Big Hole in the Center of the Democratic Party-

"...an underlying belief among party leaders that Democrats’ best bet is to stand in contrast to Republican extremism, rather than take strong, affirmative positions or moral stands on the issues that affect people’s lives....

 

Where are the calls to restore economic justice, rebuild the middle class, raise wages, end pointless wars, or to protect the women and people of color who live under daily threats of oppression and assault?...

 

(Dem) losses began in 2009, after Obama spent his first year governing as a centrist. After another year in which Obama ostentatiously attempted to “reach across the aisle,” Dems lost Congress in 2010. Obama pivoted to the left rhetorically in 2012, partly in response to the Occupy movement, and it probably saved his re-election campaign. (His numbers rose shortly afterward.) But he continued to govern as a Penn-style “centrist,” leading his party to another stunning set of midterm losses in 2014.....

 

"....Sure, their ideas have fallen out of favor. But there are a lot of deep-pocket funders who want to make sure that their ideology and their interest continue to control the Democratic Party. Don’t count them out yet.

Voters are embracing new ideas and new goals, and smart politicians like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison are helping advance the process. These are the people the party must look to if it is to become a meaningful political force once again.

 

Besides, we’ve already seen the other guys."

 

https://www.commondr...urce=socialnetw

 

:unsure:

 

Pres Obama did not govern as a centrist and the Democratic Party sure didn't.  The most obvious proof is the Affordable Care Act. There were also other left of center things that the Democrats pushed after Jan 2009.

As for "reaching across the aisle," every president does that or says they are.  Even Trump periodically states he is trying to reach across the aisle.  There were a lot of reasons why it did not work with Obama and the Democrats, but the best legislation in American history was created by reaching across the aisle.



#18 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,167 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 08 July 2017 - 07:57 AM

Pretty astute ...



#19 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,222 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 06:11 PM

Fantasy of Bill Clinton's Centrism Saving the Dems Never Gets Old-

 

"The Times has been telling this same story for years, always with the same thrilling leaps of logic."

 

It’s true that Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996—with 49 percent of the vote in a three-way race—but Democrats, in the real world, lost the House in 1994 as a result of Clinton’s right-leaning policies, particularly NAFTA, and Republicans held it for the next 12 years. Republicans took back the Senate in 1994 and controlled it for the remainder of Clinton’s administration, with the Democrats never having more than 50 seats until 2009. When Clinton took office, Democratic governors outnumbered their GOP counterparts, 30–18—and when he left office, it was 30–18 the other way....

 

https://www.commondr...e=socialnetwork

 

:unsure:

 

 

Greatest traitor to liberal values and the left of our lifetime.

 

But people love him. Clueless people of whom there is a majority. One here is on record as saying things were pretty damn good under Clinton - completely ignoring how everything started falling apart right after he left, thanks to his selling out the Party and the Democratic voters so completely.

 

When I think of how close he came to getting back into the White House with Hillary, I almost puke.


  • BelleLeGrand1 likes this
White Knights, Manginas and Simps, oh my!

#20 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,602 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 03:10 PM

There’s a Big Hole in the Center of the Democratic Party-

"...an underlying belief among party leaders that Democrats’ best bet is to stand in contrast to Republican extremism, rather than take strong, affirmative positions or moral stands on the issues that affect people’s lives....

 

Where are the calls to restore economic justice, rebuild the middle class, raise wages, end pointless wars, or to protect the women and people of color who live under daily threats of oppression and assault?...

 

(Dem) losses began in 2009, after Obama spent his first year governing as a centrist. After another year in which Obama ostentatiously attempted to “reach across the aisle,” Dems lost Congress in 2010. Obama pivoted to the left rhetorically in 2012, partly in response to the Occupy movement, and it probably saved his re-election campaign. (His numbers rose shortly afterward.) But he continued to govern as a Penn-style “centrist,” leading his party to another stunning set of midterm losses in 2014.....

 

"....Sure, their ideas have fallen out of favor. But there are a lot of deep-pocket funders who want to make sure that their ideology and their interest continue to control the Democratic Party. Don’t count them out yet.

Voters are embracing new ideas and new goals, and smart politicians like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison are helping advance the process. These are the people the party must look to if it is to become a meaningful political force once again.

 

Besides, we’ve already seen the other guys."

 

https://www.commondr...urce=socialnetw

 

:unsure:


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users