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

#21 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,607 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 02:59 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:

 


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#22 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,237 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 11:44 AM


White Knights, Manginas and Simps, oh my!

#23 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,346 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 05 July 2017 - 07:55 AM

John Crisp had an interesting column on why the Democrats should push left.  He recommends they start with health care.  He presents two examples of Republican physians running against incumbent Republicans in CA and TX.  They are both supporting a health care plan better than the ones presented so far by the GOP and closer to ACA apparently.

 

I disagree with him as the problem the Dems have is that they have been presented as liberal or leftist for far too long.  A couple of more moderate CA and TX districts do not present a successful plan for the Dems.

Also, could a Dem running on the same platform as the two Republicans win?  Probably not.

In addition, it is about more than just the issue of health care, but is about the whole range of governmental issues.

 

http://www.thedailyn...h-care-20170705

 



#24 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,237 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 11:06 PM

Democratic Party might lose the Nurses.

 

If Bernie should decide to go to the DraftBernies, the Dems will be skeerewwwwd.


White Knights, Manginas and Simps, oh my!

#25 HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 08:58 PM


  • darkblue likes this

#26 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,427 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:58 PM

All GOP members claim to be conservative.  Although I am sure someone could dig out a few who don't make the claim.

 

What you offer could be viewed as proof that the term 'conservative' used to brand a politician is viewed a lot less negative than the term liberal in the majority of states  (and I said 'majority of states' instead of majority of voters for a reason I'm sure you understand).

 

If the discussion here is if Dems politicians running for office should openly say "I'm a liberal'  the answer is clearly NO in most states.   Of course the GOP candidate will label them 'liberal' anyway and sadly that often works with uninformed voters (those that base their vote on branding more so then an actual candidate's stance on policy).  

 

Of course in CA for any statewide office 'conservative' is the kiss of death.    The last GOP candidate for governor ran as a businessman \ administrator and not as a conservative.    On social issues he took no traditional conservative positions.  He still was beaten badly by well known (and mostly loved),  moonbeam, Jerry Brown,   but that type of GOP candidate is the only one with even a chance to win a state office. 


  • LawrenceA likes this

#27 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,816 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:54 PM

Obama ran as a liberal, more or less. The GOP certainly painted him

as one and he still won. Of course the last few years of Bush II's

presidency were such a disaster that just about any Dem would likely

have won. The GOP moderate that comes first to mind is Senator

Susan Collins of Maine. At least that is her reputation, I don't know

about her actual voting record.


  • TheCid likes this

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


#28 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:26 PM

All GOP members claim to be conservative.  Although I am sure someone could dig out a few who don't make the claim.

 

Are there Republicans in Congress that aren't conservatives? Who would they be? 

 

Yes, I think they all claim to be conservative but some are probably what would have been considered moderate or even leaning slightly to the left (at least on social issues) before the right wing took over the party.  Now if they don't claim to be conservative they'll face a primary challenge on the right.

 

By the way, when we were talking about Reagan a while ago, I remember in 1980 Carter would not debate both Reagan and independent candidate John Anderson so Reagan and Anderson had their own debate without Carter.  It went quite well; Anderson held his own and Reagan looked good - willing to debate him while Carter came off petty.  I supported and voted for Anderson and attended one of his rallies in Chicago.  He did get enough votes to secure federal matching funds.  He was a moderate-liberal Republican (yes, there used to be such a thing) from downstate Illinois.



#29 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Caretaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,482 posts
  • LocationThe Overlook Hotel

Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:11 PM

I wonder what percentage of Dems label all GOP members as conservative:    

 

Funny when I ask some of my Dem friends about this they say 'well, this is different,  all GOP members are conservatives'! 

 

Anyhow, as it relates to voting those labels of 'liberal' or 'conservative' don't matter much to people in either major party since most tend to vote for party candidates, period.       But those labels can be used to mislead independents.

 

Are there Republicans in Congress that aren't conservatives? Who would they be? 



#30 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,346 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:10 PM

I wonder what percentage of Dems label all GOP members as conservative:    

 

Funny when I ask some of my Dem friends about this they say 'well, this is different,  all GOP members are conservatives'! 

 

Anyhow, as it relates to voting those labels of 'liberal' or 'conservative' don't matter much to people in either major party since most tend to vote for party candidates, period.       But those labels can be used to mislead independents.

All GOP members claim to be conservative.  Although I am sure someone could dig out a few who don't make the claim.



#31 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,427 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:06 PM

Yes, like John Ossoff was liberal Nancy Pelosi's puppet in the recent GA 6th district race.

 

I wonder what percentage of Dems label all GOP members as conservative:    

 

Funny when I ask some of my Dem friends about this they say 'well, this is different,  all GOP members are conservatives'! 

 

Anyhow, as it relates to voting those labels of 'liberal' or 'conservative' don't matter much to people in either major party since most tend to vote for party candidates, period.       But those labels can be used to mislead independents.



#32 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:59 PM

Bill Clinton was very successful in avoiding the liberal label.   And Bill ran as a centrist, pro-economy candidate.

You are right, the GOP considers any Democrat a liberal.  For most of them, LiberalDemocrat is one word.

 

Yes, like John Ossoff was liberal Nancy Pelosi's puppet in the recent GA 6th district race.


  • TheCid likes this

#33 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,346 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:55 PM

Yeah, I didn't even go into the Eagleton mess.  So, what's the answer?  Who's the answer?  Stay away from the "liberal" label?  You know whoever the Dems run, even if it's Joe Manchin, the Republicans are going to paint him/her as one of those liberals.

Bill Clinton was very successful in avoiding the liberal label.   And Bill ran as a centrist, pro-economy candidate.

You are right, the GOP considers any Democrat a liberal.  For most of them, LiberalDemocrat is one word.

What I am saying is stay away from the Pelosi, Sanders, Warren type people who are liberals and proud of it.  There are moderate Democrats, but they get drowned out by the "liberals."  

Hey, maybe we have a new complaint.  The mainstream media is ignoring moderate Democrats in favor of liberals?  Or maybe, the MSM is attacking the Democratic Party by protraying its leaders as all liberals?


  • ChristineHoard likes this

#34 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,427 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:53 PM

I don't think any state party organization has a process whereby it tries to select or advance certain candidates before the party's convention or primary.

Not to say that the leadership is not going to have favorites and try to support them as much as possible individually, the party org. will not endorse nor supply money until after the convention or primary.  They may do some general stuff to get out the vote.

 

That is my understanding also but I asked because I wasn't sure about other states.     Dem leaders did support Harris, over Sanchez,  here in CA in the general election for the CA US Senate seat but this was a unique election due to changes in CA election law, where the top two vote getters in the primary face each other in the general,  and in the primary those 2 Dems got more votes than the 3rd place GOP candidate.  So Obama, Pelosi and others openly endorsed Harris over Sanchez in the General.      This really upset Sanchez and she even made a comment that Obama only supported Harris because of their common skin color (and after that gaff, Sanchez was toast).     

 

I believe Dems leader supported Harris because they saw much more potential in Harris at the nation level.   (and she is a media darling as we saw in those Senate hearings). 



#35 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:46 PM

McGovern also had the Thomas Eagleton for VP fiasco.  But Nixon was weak as an opponent.

But if you look at information from the time of the elections, Reagan was having problems and had yet to solidify his position in people's minds as being better than he really was.  GHW Bush was a weak candidate, which is why he later lost to Bill Clinton even though Bush was only winner of a US war since WW II.  

Not disagreeing that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis were not good candidates.  But part of what made them weak was that they ran as LIBERALS or were at least successfully portrayed that way by GOP.

The point is liberals will not win a presidential election in US.  The proof is in how badly the three lost to what were not strong candidates at the time.

 

Yeah, I didn't even go into the Eagleton mess.  So, what's the answer?  Who's the answer?  Stay away from the "liberal" label?  You know whoever the Dems run, even if it's Joe Manchin, the Republicans are going to paint him/her as one of those liberals.



#36 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,346 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:40 PM

Yes, in most states the GOP and Dems use the primary system to determine their candidate.    My question was if,  in each state, there is a state specific Dem organization that raises fund and then applies funds to select Dem candidates in the Primary election or NOT (and if NOT,  therefore this state organization remains 100% neutral in the primaries: no endorsements \ provides NO funds). 

 

Avoiding costly primary challenges is a way to save money for the general election,   but if a state organization selects who they believe should be the candidate (often an incumbent) and potential candidates (typically newcomers)  decide they don't have a chance to win the primary because the deck has been stacked,  the primary election isn't very democratic.

I don't think any state party organization (Dem or GOP) has a process whereby it tries to select or advance certain candidates before the party's convention or primary.

Not to say that the leadership is not going to have favorites and try to support them as much as possible individually, the party org. will not endorse nor supply money until after the convention or primary.  They may do some general stuff to get out the vote.



#37 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,346 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:36 PM

TheCid, re' McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis:  Mondale was no match for The Great Communicator and Dukakis was a terrible candidate who probably would have lost to any Republican.  McGovern was up against Tricky Dick who made sure his top opponent, Muskie, was out of the race.  McGovern should have mentioned his heroics in WW2 but he wasn't the kind of guy to brag about that sort of thing.  Plus he got no help from big city Democratic machines.  Remember this is when convention delegate reforms were happening due to the debacle at the 1968 convention.  Nixon probably would have won no matter what which is one of the saddest things about the whole Watergate episode - it was so unnecessary.

McGovern also had the Thomas Eagleton for VP fiasco.  But Nixon was weak as an opponent.

But if you look at information from the time of the elections, Reagan was having problems and had yet to solidify his position in people's minds as being better than he really was.  GHW Bush was a weak candidate, which is why he later lost to Bill Clinton even though Bush was only winner of a US war since WW II.  

Not disagreeing that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis were not good candidates.  But part of what made them weak was that they ran as LIBERALS or were at least successfully portrayed that way by GOP.

The point is liberals will not win a presidential election in US.  The proof is in how badly the three lost to what were not strong candidates at the time.



#38 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:25 PM

Excellent commentary piece by Cokie and Steve Roberts re: Bernie Sanders:  Recipe for Disaster.

 

They remind us that Sanders is not and never has been a Democrat; he is a proud socialist-independent.

While pointing out Sanders contribution to Trump's victory, they also point out that turning left always ends in disaster for the Democratic Party.  

 

McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis all ran as "liberals" against relatively weak opponents and lost - big time.  When they ran, Nixon, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were actually not that strong as candidates.

 

Sanders, Warren, Pelosi, etc. will result in the Republicans continuing to control the House and Senate in 2018 unless moderate Democrats take control and develop a reasonable, moderate, somewhat left of center platform.

2020 would be a disaster if a "liberal" Democrat runs for president.  It would insure four more years of Trump.  If Pence is the candidate in 2020 (not likely), a liberal Democrat would absolutely insure massive Republican vicotories from the city halls to the White House.

 

http://www.uexpress....pe-for-disaster

 

TheCid, re' McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis:  Mondale was no match for The Great Communicator and Dukakis was a terrible candidate who probably would have lost to any Republican.  McGovern was up against Tricky Dick who made sure his top opponent, Muskie, was out of the race.  McGovern should have mentioned his heroics in WW2 but he wasn't the kind of guy to brag about that sort of thing.  Plus he got no help from big city Democratic machines.  Remember this is when convention delegate reforms were happening due to the debacle at the 1968 convention.  Nixon probably would have won no matter what which is one of the saddest things about the whole Watergate episode - it was so unnecessary.



#39 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,427 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 July 2017 - 12:58 PM

I think most use the primary system. S.C. does but generally only one Dem candidate and then lots of positions have no Dem candidate at all.

However, the party can recruit candidates and the funding to get them elected.

 

Yes, in most states the GOP and Dems use the primary system to determine their candidate.    My question was if,  in each state, there is a state specific Dem organization that raises fund and then applies funds to select Dem candidates in the Primary election or NOT (and if NOT,  therefore this state organization remains 100% neutral in the primaries: no endorsements \ provides NO funds). 

 

Avoiding costly primary challenges is a way to save money for the general election,   but if a state organization selects who they believe should be the candidate (often an incumbent) and potential candidates (typically newcomers)  decide they don't have a chance to win the primary because the deck has been stacked,  the primary election isn't very democratic.



#40 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,346 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:32 AM

As for getting more sound candidates than in the past:  this is where the DNC and Dem leaders like Pelosi come into play;  They can back (endorse \ provide funds to) a candidate in the Dem primary -  so will they back the best one?   (best one being the one most likely to beat the GOP candidate in the general election). 

 

I don't have faith in the judgment of the DNC or leaders like Pelosi in area;   Yea,  Pelosi is very good at raising funds but if, along with the DNC, those funds are spent on unwinnable candidates,  it is all for naught. 

 

As for State races;  Yes, Dems need to win there as well but I don't know how much the DNC has to do with that;  I assume each state has their own Dem organization that select which state candidates they wish to back.

I think most use the primary system. S.C. does but generally only one Dem candidate and then lots of positions have no Dem candidate at all.

However, the party can recruit candidates and the funding to get them elected.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users