TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

855 posts in this topic

43 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The Roberts were not trying to predict the future General election but instead influence the Dem Primary to ensure a self described socialist doesn't represent the party.  

As far as Dems ignoring Trump;  nothing could be further from reality.   E.g. the Dems that have declared they are running for the nomination are mostly attacking Trump and saying why they would be a better President than Trump,  instead of saying why they are better than the other Dems.

Note that the Emanual article stresses the same line;   don't attack each other,  don't try to settle major policies differences during the primary campaign.    Of course this is just wishful BS thinking from the DNC.   

 

 

The posts re: the Dems ignoring Trump was for the 2016 election - not the one coming up.  Regardless, the Roberts are correct at this point and it is never to early to build a winning foundation for an election.  A point upon which you agree.

Share this post


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

The Roberts were not trying to predict the future General election but instead influence the Dem Primary to ensure a self described socialist doesn't represent the party.  

As far as Dems ignoring Trump;  nothing could be further from reality.   E.g. the Dems that have declared they are running for the nomination are mostly attacking Trump and saying why they would be a better President than Trump,  instead of saying why they are better than the other Dems.

Note that the Emanual article stresses the same line;   don't attack each other,  don't try to settle major policies differences during the primary campaign.    Of course this is just wishful BS thinking from the DNC.   

 

 

I doubt a self-described socialist will be the Dem party candidate for president in 2020.

They seemed to focus a lot on AOC, but there's not much the Dems can do about her.

Sure the primary candidates will attack each other, they always do. That rarely has any

effect in the general election.

Share this post


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

I doubt a self-described socialist will be the Dem party candidate for president in 2020.

They seemed to focus a lot on AOC, but there's not much the Dems can do about her.

Sure the primary candidates will attack each other, they always do. That rarely has any

effect in the general election.

I agree that Bernie isn't likely to win the Dem nomination,  but many other Dems,  E.g. Harris,  have taken up his platform,  clearly many Dems running have moved to the left.      If to win states like CA (which I believe will be THE major factor in the primary since CA moved its primary from June to March),  Dems have to move even more to the left on all issues (e.g. immigration,  abortion even after viability etc...),   and a Dem that stated those views during the debates is the winner,   that Dem will likely lose those same battleground states that Clinton lost.     

It really is very basic;  what it takes to win the Dem primaries in CA, NY,  and other blue-blue states is what will cause voters in those battleground states to vote GOP.   So the Dem candidate will again receive more popular votes but lose the election.

 

 

 

   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree that Bernie isn't likely to win the Dem nomination,  but many other Dems,  E.g. Harris,  have taken up his platform,  clearly many Dems running have moved to the left.      If to win states like CA (which I believe will be THE major factor in the primary since CA moved its primary from June to March),  Dems have to move even more to the left on all issues (e.g. immigration,  abortion even after viability etc...),   and a Dem that stated those views during the debates is the winner,   that Dem will likely lose those same battleground states that Clinton lost.     

It really is very basic;  what it takes to win the Dem primaries in CA, NY,  and other blue-blue states is what will cause voters in those battleground states to vote GOP.   So the Dem candidate will again receive more popular votes but lose the election.

 

 

 

   

Since we don't yet know who the nominee will be or what their positions will be, we

don't know how far to the left they will or won't be. But yes, too far left will likely be a

loser in a general election, even against a dope like Donny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Democratic super PAC launches $50 million effort to weaken Trump with core supporters

The American Bridge group is expanding its budget nearly three-fold to target Midwest white working-class voters.

 

"We understand that we may not win these voters back entirely, but if we don't make inroads into these areas, we will win the popular vote, lose the Electoral College, and the Senate could be lost for a decade," the group wrote in a memo to prospective donors ..........

will go toward a massive paid advertising campaign on TV, digital, and radio, officials said, as well as other efforts to persuade rural and exurban voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — with the possible addition of Florida — that Trump has been harmful for their economic interests. .........

"If you want to win the election, you cannot afford to get beat 85-15 in northern Wisconsin, in western Pennsylvania, in north Florida," he said. "I don't dislike rural whites, I'm one, too. Why are we writing them off? That's not only politically stupid, I also think it's immoral." .........

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democratic-super-pac-launches-50-million-effort-weaken-trump-core-n985571?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 9:44 PM, Vautrin said:

I doubt a self-described socialist will be the Dem party candidate for president in 2020.

They seemed to focus a lot on AOC, but there's not much the Dems can do about her.

Sure the primary candidates will attack each other, they always do. That rarely has any

effect in the general election.

Unfortunately, the RNC and Republicans in general will be making copies of every commercial and statement made by the Dem candidates.  They will then use them against the ultimate winner.  Unfortunately, the Dem candidates will feel compelled to adopt the Leftist/Progressive/Socialist agenda - or at least parts of it to win the nomination.  Just as Republicans adopt the Rightest Extremist positions to win their party nominations.  

It will have an effect for the Dem candidate in the battleground states in Nov.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheCid said:

Unfortunately, the RNC and Republicans in general will be making copies of every commercial and statement made by the Dem candidates.  They will then use them against the ultimate winner.  Unfortunately, the Dem candidates will feel compelled to adopt the Leftist/Progressive/Socialist agenda - or at least parts of it to win the nomination.  Just as Republicans adopt the Rightest Extremist positions to win their party nominations.  

It will have an effect for the Dem candidate in the battleground states in Nov.

Fortunately Trump says enough idiotic things daily to make it easy to construct ads around

them, if the eventual Democratic nominee feels like it. And we still don't know what the various

investigations will dig up on Trump between now and the election. 

Share this post


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

Fortunately Trump says enough idiotic things daily to make it easy to construct ads around

them, if the eventual Democratic nominee feels like it. And we still don't know what the various

investigations will dig up on Trump between now and the election. 

I hope that your optimism is correct, but I doubt it.  People knew what Trump was in 2016 and it did not matter.  As for the investigations, the longer it goes on the less I believe they will find anything that will substantially affect Trump and his administration.  Just as they found nothing that really hurt Bill Clinton - and he lied under oath.

 

Share this post


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

I hope that your optimism is correct, but I doubt it.  People knew what Trump was in 2016 and it did not matter.  As for the investigations, the longer it goes on the less I believe they will find anything that will substantially affect Trump and his administration.  Just as they found nothing that really hurt Bill Clinton - and he lied under oath.

 

Some people assumed he might grow into the office instead of continuing to be a jackass.

The diehards won't care about that, but some voters will. Clinton didn't have Trump's decades

long history of shady business practices, things that were ignored for the most part for years.

They aren't being ignored now. I wouldn't make any 2020 predictions now as it's too long to

the election. I'll have to wait and see how things develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abolish the Electoral College? The filibuster? Both? 2020 hopefuls pitch major structural changes

At a forum in Washington, candidates said it wasn't enough to come up with new policy ideas, but that the system has to be changed to implement them.

 

"...........the We the People summit — a forum focused on so-called democracy issues — offered eight candidates a chance to speak one-at-a-time to progressive activists representing labor unions, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and other groups.

 

The candidates argued that little progress will be made on any issue without fundamental changes to a political system they called broken and corrupt.....

Other ideas floated included making Election Day a holiday to boost participation, publicly funding campaigns, and giving statehood — and thus two senators — to the heavily Democratic District of Columbia. .....

also forcefully rejected the influence of money in politics, and called for constitutional amendments to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed for the creation of super PACs, and to guarantee voting rights. ........

Every candidate received a warm reception, with no obvious boos or disruptions, though Sanders and Warren earned the most applause. ......

“There is much more at stake than just this presidential election,” he said. “I think it was nice and provided some closure in knowing that most of the candidates are feeling like, you know, that is the case.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/abolish-electoral-college-filibuster-both-2020-hopefuls-pitch-major-structural-n989821?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

:unsure:

Share this post


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

Abolish the Electoral College? The filibuster? Both? 2020 hopefuls pitch major structural changes

At a forum in Washington, candidates said it wasn't enough to come up with new policy ideas, but that the system has to be changed to implement them.

 

"...........the We the People summit — a forum focused on so-called democracy issues — offered eight candidates a chance to speak one-at-a-time to progressive activists representing labor unions, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and other groups.

 

The candidates argued that little progress will be made on any issue without fundamental changes to a political system they called broken and corrupt.....

Other ideas floated included making Election Day a holiday to boost participation, publicly funding campaigns, and giving statehood — and thus two senators — to the heavily Democratic District of Columbia. .....

also forcefully rejected the influence of money in politics, and called for constitutional amendments to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed for the creation of super PACs, and to guarantee voting rights. ........

Every candidate received a warm reception, with no obvious boos or disruptions, though Sanders and Warren earned the most applause. ......

“There is much more at stake than just this presidential election,” he said. “I think it was nice and provided some closure in knowing that most of the candidates are feeling like, you know, that is the case.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/abolish-electoral-college-filibuster-both-2020-hopefuls-pitch-major-structural-n989821?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

:unsure:

 

13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

 

13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Democratic presidential candidates Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee, and Kirsten Gillibrand spoke Monday at the annual "We The People" summit in Washington D.C.
 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/01/watch_live_democratic_presidential_hopefuls_speak_at_we_the_people_summit.html

None of it will happen.  Just a waste of time, money and energy that could be better directed.  As for the filibuster, if it had been eliminated, Trump and Company would have passed every single bill they wanted to and approved every single judge they wanted to. Be careful what you ask for.  Harry Reid learned this the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Says He Worries About Progressives Obsessing Over ‘Purity’

 

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States, maybe it's true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad,’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues,” Obama said at a town hall in Berlin, Germany.

“You have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100 percent of what you want,” Obama said. .........

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obama-says-he-worries-about-progressives-obsessing-over-purity

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

Barack Obama is stuck in the past. He represents the old Democratic party

".......Of course, Obama retorts, “You have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100% of what you want.” But the real problem the Democrats faced in 2016 wasn’t that they were too strident in putting forward a purist progressive vision. Rather, Clinton ran a campaign mostly about shielding Americans from the nightmare of Trumpism and not presenting dreams for the future. When people say they have been falling behind for the last 30 years and your retort is: “I can fix that, I’m experienced, I’ve been in politics for 30 years,” you might end up losing an election.

This primary, Sanders and Warren are actually giving people a positive, comprehensible agenda to vote for, one that can speak to the justified rage of so many who are not willing to settle for a world destroyed by climate change, another year without basic healthcare, or continued precarious employment ........

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/08/barack-obama-democratic-party-purity

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

Dems worry race for ideological purity will fracture field

"...Obama’s remarks reflect a growing sentiment among many establishment-minded Democrats, who see many in the party’s activist wing as overly concerned with ideological purity at a time when they had hoped the party would unite around a common goal of ousting President Trump.

That push for ideological rigidity, they say, threatens to yield a fractious and bitter primary contest — and, ultimately, a second term for Trump.

“The biggest problem for Democrats in 2020 are Democrats,” one Democratic operative said. “We gotta get out of our own way.”

While the party’s presidential primary contest has so far remained civil, skirmishes are already erupting among some Democrats in the House, where progressive members have publicly bucked party leadership and called for primary challenges to Democratic incumbents deemed insufficiently liberal.

The establishment has pushed back against those calls.......

 

"It’s what I hate about the Democratic Party in politics right now,” the official continued. “We’re going through our own Tea Party movement. We just haven’t named it yet.”

The Democratic Party has moved to the left on a handful of high-profile issues in recent years, and the field of primary contenders largely reflects that shift.

Virtually every candidate has vowed not to take contributions from corporate PACs, and once-fringe issues, like single-payer health care and court-packing, have become frequent talking points for 2020 hopefuls.......

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438148-dems-worry-race-for-ideological-purity-will-fracture-field

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

:unsure:

Dems worry race for ideological purity will fracture field

"...Obama’s remarks reflect a growing sentiment among many establishment-minded Democrats, who see many in the party’s activist wing as overly concerned with ideological purity at a time when they had hoped the party would unite around a common goal of ousting President Trump.

That push for ideological rigidity, they say, threatens to yield a fractious and bitter primary contest — and, ultimately, a second term for Trump.

“The biggest problem for Democrats in 2020 are Democrats,” one Democratic operative said. “We gotta get out of our own way.”

While the party’s presidential primary contest has so far remained civil, skirmishes are already erupting among some Democrats in the House, where progressive members have publicly bucked party leadership and called for primary challenges to Democratic incumbents deemed insufficiently liberal.

The establishment has pushed back against those calls.......

 

"It’s what I hate about the Democratic Party in politics right now,” the official continued. “We’re going through our own Tea Party movement. We just haven’t named it yet.”

The Democratic Party has moved to the left on a handful of high-profile issues in recent years, and the field of primary contenders largely reflects that shift.

Virtually every candidate has vowed not to take contributions from corporate PACs, and once-fringe issues, like single-payer health care and court-packing, have become frequent talking points for 2020 hopefuls.......

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438148-dems-worry-race-for-ideological-purity-will-fracture-field

Obama gets it.   AOC clearly doesn't.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama just wants what will get the people to vote in the next election. AOC, Sanders, Warren and the like are really unappealing to most voters. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:unsure:

Barack Obama is stuck in the past. He represents the old Democratic party

".......Of course, Obama retorts, “You have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100% of what you want.” But the real problem the Democrats faced in 2016 wasn’t that they were too strident in putting forward a purist progressive vision. Rather, Clinton ran a campaign mostly about shielding Americans from the nightmare of Trumpism and not presenting dreams for the future. When people say they have been falling behind for the last 30 years and your retort is: “I can fix that, I’m experienced, I’ve been in politics for 30 years,” you might end up losing an election.

This primary, Sanders and Warren are actually giving people a positive, comprehensible agenda to vote for, one that can speak to the justified rage of so many who are not willing to settle for a world destroyed by climate change, another year without basic healthcare, or continued precarious employment ........

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/08/barack-obama-democratic-party-purity

 

The Democratic Party is creating the same scenario that led to the Republicans forcing out moderates and the party becoming the Tea Party, extremist, party of Trump that we have now.  The Dems will go the other way.

However, the big difference is that the Republicans can use their catch phrases and apparent policies to charm the independent voters and achieve a 2016 result.  On the other hand, the Dems keep offending more and more people and giving them fewer and fewer reasons to vote Dem in 2020.

Sanders is going to finally release his taxes - after he edits and sanitizes and redacts them.  His still refuses to show how much his Medicare For All plan will cost and how it will be paid for.

Share this post


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

The Democratic Party is creating the same scenario that led to the Republicans forcing out moderates and the party becoming the Tea Party, extremist, party of Trump that we have now.  The Dems will go the other way.

However, the big difference is that the Republicans can use their catch phrases and apparent policies to charm the independent voters and achieve a 2016 result.  On the other hand, the Dems keep offending more and more people and giving them fewer and fewer reasons to vote Dem in 2020.

Sanders is going to finally release his taxes - after he edits and sanitizes and redacts them.  His still refuses to show how much his Medicare For All plan will cost and how it will be paid for.

Good points;   Yea,   a few days back I wasn't as pessimistic about Sanders' changes of winning the Dem primary as you were,  but now I'm there;  Sanders has really made some bonehead moves that will be hard to recover from.

Related to the Dem Presidential contest;   I wonder how much singular (or very narrow), historical 'goofs' will impact candidates.    E.g. CNN is providing a lot of coverage to the CA widow of a slain police officer that Harris refused to seek the death penalty for.    The coverage is designed to frame Harris has uncaring and much more interested in political grandstanding then 'serving her constituents.  E.g. she didn't talk to his women prior to holding a press conferencing announcing her decision.

Of course every candidate has some singular historical 'goofs';  I have no idea how much of an impact these will have on Dem primary voters once the gloves come off and each candidate tries to claim 'mine were not as bad as yours!'.

PS:  As for 'goofs',  I'm mostly referring to human interest type stories and the FEELINGS related to them that are not directly related to policy stances (e.g. will those that agree with Harris that there shouldn't be a death penalty still dismiss her based on how she handled this case,  and how this wife FELT?).

 

   

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