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
442 replies to this topic

#41 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:29 PM

 Will Perez/Sanders attempt at unity 'tour' really do any good??

 

http://www.chicagotr...0419-story.html

 

No. Perez isn't real and we all know it.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#42 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,148 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:22 PM

 Will Perez/Sanders attempt at unity 'tour' really do any good??

 

http://www.chicagotr...0419-story.html


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#43 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:10 PM

If that were really true, he would have won the nomination in 2016 regardless of what Clinton and the DNC and others may have done.

 

He did win. He was cheated. His supporters were cheated.

 

He'll not "lose" next time - everyone is wise to the corruption now. If he runs again as a Dem and they cheat him again, there'll be no more Democratic Party left.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#44 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:30 AM

Poll shows that 80% of Democratic voters approve of Bernie - and it's driving the Establishment Democrats nuts!

 

 

If that were really true, he would have won the nomination in 2016 regardless of what Clinton and the DNC and others may have done.

While they may approve of Bernie, it does not mean that Sanders and his policies would win a presidential election or very many Congressional seats outside the Northeast and West Coast, if those.  Nor would they win any governorships or state legislatures.

There are thousands of Democrats who can achieve an 80% approval rating in their party, but does not mean they could win a major election.



#45 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 26 April 2017 - 07:26 AM

Doyle McManus, LA Times, has an excellent column explaining the problems confronting the Democratic Party.  Basically, the Sanders/"progressive" wing has got to realize they can control the party (maybe) or the party can control Congress.  But they cannot control Congress unless they cooperate more with the mainstream Democrats.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0423-story.html

 

Personally, I think the problem surfaced during the election. Sanders and his supporters only paid lip service to supporting Clinton, whereas the Republicans came out strong for Trump - any Republican is better than a Democrat.

Also think that Sanders is a politician and that he recognizes that any influence he might have is through the Democratic Party and therefore he is working with it - sort of.



#46 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 01:47 AM

Poll shows that 80% of Democratic voters approve of Bernie - and it's driving the Establishment Democrats nuts!

 


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#47 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:30 AM

"We have a new energy, but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November, when he unsuccessfully challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role. “I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election]" last week, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent. "We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”

 

Actually, it's progressives that have energy. The Democratic Party has nothing. Just Corporate money. That's it.

 

No purpose, no soul.

 

If progressives can take over the Party, it can be saved. If not, not.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#48 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:47 PM

100 days of Democratic rage-

 

Trump has enabled the Democratic Party to overlook its serious problems.-

 

"We have a new energy, but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November, when he unsuccessfully challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role.

“I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election]" last week, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent.

 

"We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”

 

The brand is only part of the problem — the party's central infrastructure itself is in need of an overhaul.....

 

http://www.politico....100-days-237555

I think he is correct about needing a new brand.  Disagree witht the "great candidate and great energy" statement.  Dems did not have either in the final analysis.



#49 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,148 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:09 PM

100 days of Democratic rage-

 

Trump has enabled the Democratic Party to overlook its serious problems.-

 

"We have a new energy, but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November, when he unsuccessfully challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role.

“I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election]" last week, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent.

 

"We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”

 

The brand is only part of the problem — the party's central infrastructure itself is in need of an overhaul.....

 

http://www.politico....100-days-237555


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#50 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 25 April 2017 - 05:54 PM

You make many good points but again,  I'm not so sure.   Ok,  I can see independents that voted for Clinton voting for Trump over Sanders due to his self defined socialist label.   BUT like I said it relates to the trade-offs.   Clearly "too many" Sanders supporters as well as those that voted for Obama decide to NOT support Clinton by NOT voting.    It all depends on which of the various sub-group trade-offs have the most numbers.

Don't disagree with possibility that if the Sanders and previous Obama supporters who didn't vote had voted, might have been a different result.  

But, still believe Sanders or Warren would have caused many undecideds to go for Trump in lieu of not voting at all.  They would have overwhelmed the Sanders and Obama supporters.



#51 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:05 PM

calling me a name in your response (as you have done countless times with others posters on these boards) is only further confirmation of what a totally low class human being you are.

 

Yeh, I know, why state the obvious?

 

Lots of people think they can score off a low class human being like me.

 

But, of course, who'd be "crazy enough to question your" obviousness?


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#52 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:55 PM

The lesson for the Dems. is that neither Clinton nor Sanders was the best candidate to put forth.  Of course, the whole Trump victory was a sea change in how Americans vote.

Against Sanders, Trump would have won all the states that he did win.  Then he would probably have picked up a few more.

The battle is always for the "independent" voter and in most elections, they trend centrist.  Sanders would have been offensive to that group, so they would not have voted at all or held their noses and voted for Trump.

In addition, he was not a real Democrat and made a career of rejecting the Democratic Party so a lot of the party workers would not have worked hard, if at all, for his election.

Most analysis that I have read that appear accurate indicate that the people who would have voted for Sanders did vote for Clinton. Of course, some of his supporters probably did not vote, but doubt that affected the Electoral College count at all. 

 

Michael Gerson, Washington Post, had a recent column where he mentioned David Wasserman giving an address to young Democrats in Northern Virginia.  That is the wealthy, suburban part of the state that generally pushes the state into the Democratic columns.

Wasserman referred to "Cracker Barrel voters."  Trump won about 75% of the counties that have a Cracker Barrel restaurant.  One of the attendees asked if he meant "Crate and Barrel."

Therein lies one of the problems for the Dems. (and DarkBlue).  The young liberals, millenials, etc. that Sanders appealed to must learn that to win the Dems. have to appeal to that centrist, center-right group of VOTERS.  Bill Clinton knew this and that is one reason why he won two presidential elections.

Sanders would not have appealed to these people at all.

 

You make many good points but again,  I'm not so sure.   Ok,  I can see independents that voted for Clinton voting for Trump over Sanders due to his self defined socialist label.   BUT like I said it relates to the trade-offs.   Clearly "too many" Sanders supporters as well as those that voted for Obama decide to NOT support Clinton by NOT voting.    It all depends on which of the various sub-group trade-offs have the most numbers.



#53 TomJH

TomJH

    I know what gold does to men's souls.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,380 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:36 PM

You picked Clinton to win, you hole.

 

The most I ever said was she'd probably win, given the constant Media love and fake polls.

 

 

Right. You said she'd probably win. That's picking her.

 

In fact I said the same thing, she's probably win but Trump couldn't be ruled out, especially with Comey's interference.

 

And calling me a name in your response (as you have done countless times with others posters on these boards) is only further confirmation of what a totally low class human being you are.

 

Yeh, I know, why state the obvious?



#54 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

TruthFeed News‏ @TruthFeedNews

 

starring foul-mouthed DNC Chair Tom Perez, who is cussing like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

 

Who writes this garbage?

 

No offence, Jake - but so much of the stuff you link to is amateur crap like this.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#55 JakeHolman

JakeHolman

    Borders, Language & Culture. Defending the Christian Nation

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,583 posts
  • LocationGod's Country.

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:36 AM

FYuVNVh6_bigger.jpg

TruthFeed News @TruthFeedNews 3h3 hours ago

 


All glory is fleeting. General George Patton 

 

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under. President Ronald Reagan

 

In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.  Gen. Robert E. Lee

 

The American dream does not come to those who fall asleep. Pres. Richard Nixon  

 

The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects. What they thus lost they have never got back.  H.L. Mencken
 
The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.   Jefferson Davis
 
Movies are written in sand: applauded today, forgotten tomorrow. D.W Griffith
 
I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth. Steve McQueen
 
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. George Orwell
 
Perfect freedom has no existence. The grown man knows the world he lives in, and for the present, the world is Rome. Ben Hur 

A man's got to have a code, a creed to live by, no matter his job. The Immortal John Wayne


#56 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:37 AM

I'm not so sure.    The 'anyone but Trump' folks would have still come out to vote and I assume many (most?) hardcore Clinton supporters (e.g. those that voted for her in the Primary),   would have become 'anyone but Trump' types.     E.g.  Women groups that supported Clinton would have supported Sanders to ensure Trump (really the GOP) didn't gain the power to appoint the next Supreme Count justices.      

 

Sanders would have been able to rally his supporters to get out and vote and since the Sanders' campaign staff wouldn't have been 1\10 as arrogant as those leading the Clinton campaign, Sanders would have really fought for the office and visited key states like Wisconsin instead of assuming it was in the bag.

 

It all comes down to trade-offs and voter turnout especially in those key battleground states:  e.g. would have more Clinton supporters came out and voted for Sanders than Sanders supporters actually came out and voted for Clinton? 

 

PS:  In addition there is the Comey and the Russians 'card'.    Now I don't feel this hurt Clinton as much as others but for those that did,  Sanders didn't have the same baggage (but of course maybe some would have been found if he was the nominee). 

The lesson for the Dems. is that neither Clinton nor Sanders was the best candidate to put forth.  Of course, the whole Trump victory was a sea change in how Americans vote.

Against Sanders, Trump would have won all the states that he did win.  Then he would probably have picked up a few more.

The battle is always for the "independent" voter and in most elections, they trend centrist.  Sanders would have been offensive to that group, so they would not have voted at all or held their noses and voted for Trump.

In addition, he was not a real Democrat and made a career of rejecting the Democratic Party so a lot of the party workers would not have worked hard, if at all, for his election.

Most analysis that I have read that appear accurate indicate that the people who would have voted for Sanders did vote for Clinton. Of course, some of his supporters probably did not vote, but doubt that affected the Electoral College count at all. 

 

Michael Gerson, Washington Post, had a recent column where he mentioned David Wasserman giving an address to young Democrats in Northern Virginia.  That is the wealthy, suburban part of the state that generally pushes the state into the Democratic columns.

Wasserman referred to "Cracker Barrel voters."  Trump won about 75% of the counties that have a Cracker Barrel restaurant.  One of the attendees asked if he meant "Crate and Barrel."

Therein lies one of the problems for the Dems. (and DarkBlue).  The young liberals, millenials, etc. that Sanders appealed to must learn that to win the Dems. have to appeal to that centrist, center-right group of VOTERS.  Bill Clinton knew this and that is one reason why he won two presidential elections.

Sanders would not have appealed to these people at all.



#57 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,667 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:32 AM

Yeah, right, who'd be crazy enough to question your political expertise? You picked Clinton to win the last election.

 

To be fair, though, most of us were wrong on that one.

 

You picked Clinton to win, you hole.

 

The most I ever said was she'd probably win, given the constant Media love and fake polls.

 

Unlike you and your blinkered ilk, I knew all along that Sanders was a far superior candidate and continually said so.

 

As far as who's crazy - everyone that voted for Clinton in the primaries. Morons.


I may live badly but at least I don't have to work to do it.


#58 TomJH

TomJH

    I know what gold does to men's souls.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,380 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:14 PM

There's not a doubt in the world that Sanders would be President right now if the Democrats had gone with him instead of Clinton.

 

If he runs in 2020, he will win. Bet the farm.

 

Yeah, right, who'd be crazy enough to question your political expertise? You picked Clinton to win the last election.

 

To be fair, though, most of us were wrong on that one.



#59 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:37 PM

If Sanders had been the candidate, he would have lost bigger than Clinton did.

 

I'm not so sure.    The 'anyone but Trump' folks would have still come out to vote and I assume many (most?) hardcore Clinton supporters (e.g. those that voted for her in the Primary),   would have become 'anyone but Trump' types.     E.g.  Women groups that supported Clinton would have supported Sanders to ensure Trump (really the GOP) didn't gain the power to appoint the next Supreme Count justices.      

 

Sanders would have been able to rally his supporters to get out and vote and since the Sanders' campaign staff wouldn't have been 1\10 as arrogant as those leading the Clinton campaign, Sanders would have really fought for the office and visited key states like Wisconsin instead of assuming it was in the bag.

 

It all comes down to trade-offs and voter turnout especially in those key battleground states:  e.g. would have more Clinton supporters came out and voted for Sanders than Sanders supporters actually came out and voted for Clinton? 

 

PS:  In addition there is the Comey and the Russians 'card'.    Now I don't feel this hurt Clinton as much as others but for those that did,  Sanders didn't have the same baggage (but of course maybe some would have been found if he was the nominee). 


  • mr6666 likes this

#60 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 24 April 2017 - 04:29 PM

There's not a doubt in the world that Sanders would be President right now if the Democrats had gone with him instead of Clinton.

 

If he runs in 2020, he will win. Bet the farm.

If Sanders had been the candidate, he would have lost bigger than Clinton did.


  • Princess of Tap likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users