TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

859 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Marie Newman

@Marie4Congress

I'm a Democrat running for Congress in Illinois' 3rd District! #IL03

:unsure:

So Bernie is saying the other Dems running in the primary do NOT: "fight for Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and providing workers with paid sick leave, while protecting Medicare and Social Security"???? 

PS:  Just found out the district is already held by a Dem.    Therefor while a Sander's endorsement might help someone to win the Dem primary,  it likely hurts the Dems retain the seat in the General.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

All one has to do is click on @Marie4Congress and the mystery

will be solved.

Sorry, I don't click on things such as that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Sorry, I don't click on things such as that.

I know people have different opinions on that. I usually don't, but this

looked harmless. It just takes one to her twitter campaign page.

Goodbye NEWMAN.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything Wrong With the Democrats, in One Bill

The bipartisan push to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank reveals a minority party that can’t get it right on the policy or the politics.

".....But it’s not old-school legislating, not really. If it were, Democrats would participate in a give-and-take with Republicans. There would be parts of the bill that they could point to as significant Democratic wins. But as it stands, the bill is a giveaway to the banking industry in which consumers get very little. Even though it may be easier for some consumers to get loans, that comes with the tradeoff of a weakened financial regulatory system and fewer consumer protections.

While the bill’s backers have highlighted a number of fig leaf protections—most notably the ability to temporarily freeze one’s credit for up to a year—these are overshadowed by the bill’s regulatory rollbacks, which disproportionately benefit banks and put consumers at risk.....

...

The bill does not seriously address the recent Equifax data breach or the alarming deregulation efforts being pushed by the Consumer Financial Production Bureau—two areas where Democrats should be actively negotiating. In their eagerness to show voters that they’re not just obstructionists, Democrats have simply rolled over.

 

It’s not clear what, if any, political returns Democrats will gain from this....

https://newrepublic.com/article/147316/everything-wrong-democrats-one-bill

:unsure:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Sorry, I don't click on things such as that.

I don't either, but I Googled the endorsement and I found out that she's running against someone named Lipinski who is against abortion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

I don't either, but I Googled the endorsement and I found out that she's running against someone named Lipinski who is against abortion.

Lipinski is the incumbent,  since 2005 (and a Dem).    Therefore being against abortion didn't make him lose the seat in all those previous elections.

Therefore removing Lipinski, and running someone to the left of him, in that district,  only increases the odds the Dems will lose this seat to the GOP candidate  (again,  one he and the Dems have held since 2005).

This is a perfect example of what Cid and I has been talking about for months now;  replacing incumbents in a party's primary with a candidate that is less moderate (either left or right), than the incumbent,  often leads to that party losing the seat (especially if the other party runs a moderate).      Of course this depends on the district. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Therefore being against abortion didn't make him lose the seat in all those previous elections.

What does "being against abortion" mean here?

That he personally wouldn't want anyone he knows to have one - or that he would make it against the law to have one if he could?

This is an important distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Lipinski is the incumbent,  since 2005 (and a Dem).    Therefore being against abortion didn't make him lose the seat in all those previous elections.

Therefore removing Lipinski, and running someone to the left of him, in that district,  only increases the odds the Dems will lose this seat to the GOP candidate  (again,  one he and the Dems have held since 2005).

This is a perfect example of what Cid and I has been talking about for months now;  replacing incumbents in a party's primary with a candidate that is less moderate (either left or right), than the incumbent,  often leads to that party losing the seat (especially if the other party runs a moderate).      Of course this depends on the district. 

 

 

 

The GOPers circular firing squad tactic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, darkblue said:

What does "being against abortion" mean here?

That he personally wouldn't want anyone he knows to have one - or that he would make it against the law to have one if he could?

This is an important distinction.

Based on what I could find,  Dan Lipinski is conservative on social issues;  e.g. he says he is pro-life and was one of 6 Dems that voted for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Based on what I could find,  Dan Lipinski is conservative on social issues;  e.g. he says he is pro-life and was one of 6 Dems that voted for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks.    

Thanks, james.

I'm not sure if 20 weeks is exactly the right cutoff for abortion being lost as a choice, but I think it's probably close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrified by Progressive Enthusiasm Sweeping the Nation, Corporate Democrats Have Begun Planning a 'Counterrevolution'

 

"....... Ignoring survey after survey showing that progressive priorities like Medicare for All, a living wage, and tuition-free public college are overwhelmingly popular among the American public, Democratic politicians and operatives with the notorious think-tank Third Way used an invite-only event in Columbus, Ohio on Friday to tout an alternative agenda that centers on "opportunity" and access rather than equality—a platform that explicitly avoids alienating the ultra-wealthy. .....

....In terms of electoral strategy, Democratic insiders are advocating an approach that reaches out to so-called moderate Republicans who have supposedly broken with Trump, instead of placing the bulk of their focus on inspiring both non-voters and Democrats disgruntled by the party's corporate turn.

"Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump," as Seitz-Wald explains.

The problem with this approach, as many commentators have noted, is that it was tried in 2016—and it failed miserably....

As NBC's Alex Seitz-Wald notes, the "anxiety" centrist Democrats have felt about the rousing campaigns of democratic socialists and bold progressives like New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed "has largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors."

But now, with organized events and more frequent interviews with the press, corporate Democrats and strategists are beginning to openly state their plans to undercut surging progressive momentum, "with some of the major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop" Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) if he decides to launch another bid for the presidency, Seitz-Wald reports.....

As a counter to progressive ideas like a federal jobs guarantee, Medicare for All, and expanded Social Security benefits, NBC reports that Third Way has put forth an "apprenticeship program to train workers, a privatized employer-funded universal pension that would supplement Social Security, and an overhaul of unemployment insurance to include skills training."

Progressives were quick to denounce such proposals as a thinly-veiled push to privatize Social Security and undermine more ambitious—and far more popular—left-wing proposals that have been winning big in Democratic primaries across the nation....

"They need to wake up and pay attention to what people actually want. There are so many progressive policies that have widespread support that mainstream Democrats are not picking up on, or putting that stuff down." ..........

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/22/terrified-progressive-enthusiasm-sweeping-nation-corporate-democrats-have-begun?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

-_-

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Went to War With Partisanship

".........Though the first of two rallies held Friday was ostensibly in support of James Thompson, a candidate for Kansas’s 4th Congressional District, the gestalt of the day’s remarks was something bigger than any one race. The speeches — particularly Sanders’s — announced a unifying theme that felt too coherent to have been thrown together for a House primary or two. Individually, the remarks were compelling. Together, they comprised an unabashed declaration of post-partisan movement building — a rebuke to those in power who fetishize every identity-based division in order to diffuse the largest coalition in the country: the working class.

Backed by groups like Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Thompson and Brent Welder —

.... — both in Sanders’s surprising 2016 primary success, and in a recent Demos study, which showed that “persuadable” voters are best convinced by a narrative that calls out those who would divide working class people on the basis of race, while asking them to unite against a common corporate enemy. But the Democratic Party has, at times, been reluctant to name the 1 percent as an adversary — perhaps because corporate donors have come to comprise a significant section of the funding base, as labor has shrunk under the pressure of anti-union laws — .....

rarely is there critical attention paid to why voters chose to stay at home. And this is important given that disproportionate numbers of oft-vaunted black voters opted out in 2016.

Yes, Republicans have restricted the franchise, but two critical reasons Americans abstained in 2016 were: 1) they didn’t like the candidates or campaign issues, and 2) they didn’t feel like voting would make a difference — both factors that could be cured by a popular independent candidate.....

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-kansas-james-thompson-brent-welder/

:unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the future of the Dem party:  if as some talking heads have been saying Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Dem party,  the Dem party is in big trouble.    I wonder if she can even win her election; a House seat the Dems have held for decades. 

 

MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.
And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.

Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

When this country started, we were not a capitalist — we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

With regards to the future of the Dem party:  if as some talking heads have been saying Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Dem party,  the Dem party is in big trouble.    I wonder if she can even win her election; a House seat the Dems have held for decades. 

 

MARGARET HOOVER, HOST: Do you think that capitalism has failed to deliver for working-class Americans or is no longer the best vehicle for working-class Americans?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I think the numbers that you just talked about is part of the problem, right?

Because we look at these figures, and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low. Everything is fine,’ right?

Well, unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.

Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their kids.
And so, I do think that, right now, when we have this no-holds-barred, Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost.

Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

When this country started, we were not a capitalist — we did not operate on a capitalist economy.

She is a capitalist but yeah, America has been a bourgeois state since inception when the mode of production was still feudal in Britain. She is an idiot Social Democrat who can't even campaign properly. I saw that interview she did with Colbert and she seemed really dull.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

She is a capitalist but yeah, America has been a bourgeois state since inception when the mode of production was still feudal in Britain. She is an idiot Social Democrat who can't even campaign properly. I saw that interview she did with Colbert and she seemed really dull.

She also laughs anytime she is asked something difficult.   Clearly she is out of her league.    Crowley was a fool not to debate her since a politician with his type of experience would have cleaned her clock.

CNN was pushing her as the next great thing, but if she continues to make silly,  clueless comments,  they will no longer cover her to save themselves any more embarrassment. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, Bernie shouldn't hold her up as the real example of the progressives

too young & inexperienced

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr6666 said:

James ComeyVerified account @Comey 2h2 hours ago

 
 

Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left.

This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.

:huh:

John FugelsangVerified account @JohnFugelsang 1h1 hour ago

 
 

John Fugelsang Retweeted James Comey

Hey everybody James Comey is inserting himself into an election but it’s ok

because we know how deeply he thinks these things through

 

:blink::rolleyes:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to the above.  This is not the 2020 presidential race.  Dems should run whomever best suits the particular district.  In other words don't run an Elizabeth Warren type candidate in a swing district that Trump won by a mile.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that America in the late 18th and early 19th century was not truly

a capitalist economy. Little industrial production on a large, capitalist scale, a largely

agricultural economy, plus a large number of slaves who could not voluntarily

exchange their labor for wages. I would call this more a matter of historical interest

than a topic relevant to the 2018 election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I would agree that America in the late 18th and early 19th century was not truly

a capitalist economy. Little industrial production on a large, capitalist scale, a largely

agricultural economy, plus a large number of slaves who could not voluntarily

exchange their labor for wages. I would call this more a matter of historical interest

than a topic relevant to the 2018 election.

I highly doubt that is what this girl (and mentally that is what she is),  was referring too.    Look at what she is pushing for;  living wage, minimum guaranteed salary,   free college for everyone,  rent-control in all areas,,,,  implying that today we have a much more of a free-market,  laissez faire,  economic system then 'back in the day'.

Total nonsense;  we have Social Security and all the New-Deal programs,  a minimum wage,  workers-compensation,  etc..

Hey, I get that self-called Social democratic have identified legit concerns but this girl isn't the one to be the main talking head about them.      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

James ComeyVerified account @Comey 2h2 hours ago

Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left.

This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.

:huh:

Excellent advice.

17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

With regards to the future of the Dem party:  if as some talking heads have been saying Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Dem party,  the Dem party is in big trouble.  

Ocasio-Cortez:  "Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

When this country started, we were not a capitalist — we did not operate on a capitalist economy."

More proof that she knows less than Trump about history, US History and the economy.  America, even during the colonial period, has always been a capitalist society.  Even the agrarian society was capitalistic.  Farmers hoped to raise enough so they could trade for what they needed, if not actually sell it. 

The only time capitalism did not exist was when there were dictators.  Even then some forms of capitalism existed.  

13 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I would agree that America in the late 18th and early 19th century was not truly

a capitalist economy. Little industrial production on a large, capitalist scale, a largely

agricultural economy, plus a large number of slaves who could not voluntarily

exchange their labor for wages. I would call this more a matter of historical interest

than a topic relevant to the 2018 election.

Slavery and share-cropping were a part of agrarian economy, but also part of the capitalist economy.  See above also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I would agree that America in the late 18th and early 19th century was not truly

a capitalist economy. Little industrial production on a large, capitalist scale, a largely

agricultural economy, plus a large number of slaves who could not voluntarily

exchange their labor for wages. I would call this more a matter of historical interest

than a topic relevant to the 2018 election.

Even Marx admitted that "America was a bourgeois society from its very beginning." America has always had abstract labor, surplus value, and all of the other capitalist components. It was made up of petit bourgeois immigrants from Europe and never properly went through the slave society > Feudalist modes like in Western Europe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us