Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

No, you really can't compare Bernie's movement to Corbyn's. The policy positions are similar, and yeah, Bernie had more young voters than Clinton, but Bernie still got washed out of the Democratic primary by millions of votes, whereas Corbyn stomped his rivals when he was elected the leader of his party twice in a row (59% and 61%). Beyond that, he recently had the biggest youth turnout in decades (72%) and was put within striking distance of becoming the PM. Bernie has never been a Democrat and hasn't had to work within a party; Corbyn, meanwhile, has been in Labour for decades. He has demonstrated that he can negotiate, compromise, and build relationships with others within his party, while at the same time being one of the most rebellious MPs in Labour's history.

You don't follow UK politics much, do you?

 

[Ekai]

Like you said, the US isn't the UK.



No, you really can't compare Bernie's movement to Corbyn's. The policy positions are similar, and yeah, Bernie had more young voters than Clinton, but Bernie still got washed out of the Democratic primary by millions of votes, whereas Corbyn stomped his rivals when he was elected the leader of his party twice in a row (59% and 61%). Beyond that, he recently had the biggest youth turnout in decades (72%) and was put within striking distance of becoming the PM. Bernie has never been a Democrat and hasn't had to work within a party; Corbyn, meanwhile, has been in Labour for decades. He has demonstrated that he can negotiate, compromise, and build relationships with others within his party, while at the same time being one of the most rebellious MPs in Labour's history.

If Bernie were anything like Corbyn, he could have beaten Clinton.

I mean, this requires ignoring the fact that Labour's politicians by and large do not like Corbyn and tried to oust him twice and actively didn't work with him. It also requires ignoring that he only even got a chance because some in Labour thought it would be a funny joke that turned into the party membership, the voters, actually hating the centrist politicians within Labour who disliked Corbyn that put him up as a joke in the first place. Corbyn was treated just like Bernie was by the DNC, tbh. Only difference is the UK's thirst for leftist policies is a bit more than the US's. Hopefully that fucking changes. Centrists, if they lead the message, are a huge blight on our chances. The answer isn't to be "center-right", it's to offer people an actual option.

The sheer amount you don't know in regards to UK politics is astounding to be perfectly honest.


Hbomb has a good video on all of this

 

[StormKing]

The Democrats do not necessarily need to move left to win back voters. However, they do need to abandon incrementalism and this idea that certain things just can't be done. If Democrats can explain how their centrists policies will make peoples lives much better, then they won't need to go farther left. Right now, they're the party of Can't Do It.

 

[Skyball Paint]

What good is a livable minimum wage when it's still legal for so many businesses to discriminate against the LGBT and the backroom racism that discriminate people of color from jobs? What good is universal healthcare when black lives are being shot and killed for no reason? What good is publicly funded high education when our school to prison system holds back so many minorities from even getting passed high school? These policies are good, yes, but right now it's not going to benefit a majority of minorities at all.

These arguments are baffling to me. I get the sense that Dems must throw economic or social justice issues under the bus to address the other, for reasons I can't fathom.
Honestly, why can't the Dems do both?

 

[Ekai]

The Democrats do not necessarily need to move left to win back voters. However, they do need to abandon incrementalism and this idea that certain things just can't be done. If Democrats can explain how their centrists policies will make peoples lives much better, then they won't need to go farther left. Right now, they're the party of Can't Do It.

As a minority who is continually shoved under the bus by centrists, hell no. Centrist policies, center-right ones at that, and compromise with the enemy do nothing but harm the masses. We need to offer an actual option to the people. I'm sick and tired of centrists. We need an actual left-wing in this country.

These arguments are baffling to me. I get the sense that Dems must throw economic or social justice issues to address the other, for reasons I can't fathom.
Honestly, why can't the Dems do both?

Cause addressing both means the Democrats have to realize they need to actually move even slightly left of center-right.

And you know, actually giving the people an option which we can't do. We must continually remain ineffectual, don't you know?

 

[Tarydax]

You don't follow UK politics much, do you?

I'll confess I used to have more interest in it. Why do you ask? Did Corbyn not win the Labour nomination twice or something? Or were he and his policy proposals not at all responsible for Labour's recent gains? It wasn't just May being awful, was it?

I mean, this requires ignoring the fact that Labour's politicians by and large do not like Corbyn and tried to oust him twice and actively didn't work with him.

That doesn't change the fact that Corbyn has been a part of Labour for a long time. He has worked within an organization. Bernie is still an independent.

It also requires ignoring that he only even got a chance because some in Labour thought it would be a funny joke that turned into the party membership, the voters, actually hating the centrist politicians within Labour who disliked Corbyn.

It might have been a joke the first time, but he won a second time against a single opponent, correct? Was it still a joke, then?

Corbyn was treated just like Bernie was by the DNC, tbh.

Corbyn was treated worse by far, but he as far as I can recall he didn't directly attack Labour as an institution. I could be wrong.

Only difference is the UK's thirst for leftist policies is a bit more than the US's.

Labour came very close to winning, even when Corbyn was perceived as a liability. I would say a 'bit' more is underselling it.

The sheer amount you don't know is astounding to be perfectly honest.

I mean, this is probably true. I'll admit that. But even I can see that Corbyn has still done better than Sanders at every turn.

Cause addressing both means the Democrats have to realize they need to actually move even slightly left of center-right.

And you know, actually giving the people an option which we can't do. We must continually remain ineffectual, don't you know?

Do you really think the Democratic Party is center right?

 

[Steel]

The Democrats do not necessarily need to move left to win back voters. However, they do need to abandon incrementalism and this idea that certain things just can't be done. If Democrats can explain how their centrists policies will make peoples lives much better, then they won't need to go farther left. Right now, they're the party of Can't Do It.

Incrementalism is the way things actually end up happening. The democrats do need to have some big grand charismatic speeches, but at the end of the day they'll still have Republicans sitting across from them. If they take back Congress, Trump won't work with them. If they get the presidency in 2020 and somehow have a fillabuster proof majority, they'll lose it within 2-4 years.

They'll get some stuff done, but expecting fundamental paradigm shifts overnight is nonsense. Even in the great depression and a world war as political capital with massive dem majorities and republicans more than willing to go along with FDR's ideas, it took years for the new deal to even coalesce into what it became.

Do you really think the Democratic Party is center right?

As vapid as it is, they do. They'll argue the wars that we're in(I'd like to see another country that has the millitary power of the U.S. make those decisions and compare, otherwise they're not even at the table for those things) and the fact that they are pushing for a government option for healthcare rather than single payer.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

And the Republicans still let Henry fuckin' Kissinger, who predates the existence of the United States, into the White House each time they get back in

13 years as a Democrat Hero Unit is p damn small compared to that.

The only person who didn't want Henry Kissinger around anymore was Bernie Sanders no?

 

[Ekai]

I'll confess I used to have more interest in it. Why do you ask? Did Corbyn not get win the Labour nomination twice or something? Or were he and his policy proposals not at all responsible for Labour's recent gains? It wasn't just May being awful, was it?



That doesn't change the fact that Corbyn has been a part of Labour for a long time.



It might have been a joke the first time, but he won a second time against a single opponent, correct? Was it still a joke, then?



Corbyn was treated worse by far, but he as far as I can recall he didn't directly attack Labour as an institution. I could be wrong.



Labour came very close to winning. I would say a 'bit' more is underselling it.



I mean, this is probably true. I'll admit that. But even I can see that Corbyn has still done better than Sanders at every turn.

You literally said that he worked with people within his party when he factually didn't because they actively tried to get rid of him at every single turn. The centrists in the UK are pissed to all hell that Corbyn is leader at the moment. They STILL don't like him and want to get rid of him when it's leftist policies that got them the closet they've been in YEARS while centrist policies lead to the death of the party. The parallels to America are all over the place. You can respond to individual points all you want but it ignores that it refutes your overall point at the end about claiming Labour were open to Corbyn. They weren't. They actively jumped into bed with Tory bs in order to try to defame him.

Hell, I recall some centrists on Gaf buying into the lies centrists and the Tories spread about Corbyn and used him as proof that leftist policies are a death knell in order to refute leftist leanings in the States. Corbyn does as well as he does numerous times and suddenly we can't compare the US and the UK? It's ridiculously hypocritical.

 

[boiled goose]

Says who? What I do know is that in the last primary, Bernie lost due to minority, moderate and female voters voting for Hillary. Meanwhile, Bernie had no problem endorsing a pro-lifer, and is awfully silent when it comes to matters like racial equality.

First point mostly wrong. Age is biggest factor.
Second point. Purity test?
Third point. Outright lie.

Finally, none of those support your claim that turnout would be lower

 

[Future]

Young liberals will find flaws in every major candidate. They demand flawless voting records, charismatic speeches, non stop loud and vocal support for all minorities and people in need, impeccable history of interviews and conversations speaking very progressively on every matter possible under the sun. I honestly don't think it's gonna be easy to change this brand because the audience is just too demanding.

 

[boiled goose]

Incrementalism is the way things actually end up happening. The democrats do need to have some big grand charismatic speeches, but at the end of the day they'll still have Republicans sitting across from them. If they take back Congress, Trump won't work with them. If they get the presidency in 2020 and somehow have a fillabuster proof majority, they'll lose it within 2-4 years.

They'll get some stuff done, but expecting fundamental paradigm shifts overnight is nonsense. Even in the great depression and a world war as political capital with massive dem majorities and republicans more than willing to go along with FDR's ideas, it took years for the new deal to even coalesce into what it became.

As vapid as it is, they do. They'll argue the wars that we're in(I'd like to see another country that has the millitary power of the U.S. make those decisions and compare, otherwise they're not even at the table for those things) and the fact that they are pushing for a government option for healthcare rather than single payer.

Gradual change is what happens, but it's not the strategy to actually make change happen.

Google MLK on gradualism to get some perspective on how to actually drive change

 

[Ekai]

Young liberals will find flaws in every major candidate. They demand flawless voting records, charismatic speeches, non stop loud and vocal support for all minorities and people in need, impeccable history of interviews and conversations speaking very progressively on every matter possible under the sun. I honestly don't think it's gonna be easy to change this brand because the audience is just too demanding.

Or, y'know, the Democrats can just stop propping up centrists for once.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

How do you plan on fixing the first bolded statement? What tangible, realistically implemented policies enacted can fix that?

For the second bolded statement, you likely mean to say "disproportionately" as opposed to "only" and even then you'd need to demonstrate 1) the expected level of disproportionality and 2) why it's so bad that there's no reason to reap even the disproportionate benefits while combatting institutionalized racism.

EDIT: I mean... you ask what good is universal healthcare when black Americans are killed at a disproportionately higher rate by the police than all other racial groups, specifically at a rate roughly 2-3x more than white Americans? The answer is an obvious "undeniably incredible amount of good". Do you think police killings are among the top 3 causes of death or something?

This is what I ALWAYS think in these discussions. It's a similar response I have to the resistance to the idea of running anti-abortion Democrats in conservative districts. Like, yeah, they're anti-woman, but is it not obviously superior if the anti-woman fucks in Congress have SOME common ground with you, as opposed to the current status quo of virtually NO common ground.

 

[StormKing]

Incrementalism is the way things actually end up happening. The democrats do need to have some big grand charismatic speeches, but at the end of the day they'll still have Republicans sitting across from them. If they take back Congress, Trump won't work with them. If they get the presidency in 2020 and somehow have a fillabuster proof majority, they'll lose it within 2-4 years.

They'll get some stuff done, but expecting fundamental paradigm shifts overnight is nonsense. Even in the great depression and a world war as political capital with massive dem majorities and republicans more than willing to go along with FDR's ideas, it took years for the new deal to even coalesce into what it became.

You're right that incrementalism is usually what happens in reality but that does not mean that Democrats should not fight for more. What's the point of voting for a politician that only promises to implement small changes and gets even less done. The "Republicans won't let me do it" is weak and demotivating. Democrats need to stand up for their policy positions and explain how they make more Americans lives better repeatedly and tirelessly.

 

[Steel]

Young liberals will find flaws in every major candidate. They demand flawless voting records, charismatic speeches, non stop loud and vocal support for all minorities and people in need, impeccable history of interviews and conversations speaking very progressively on every matter possible under the sun. I honestly don't think it's gonna be easy to change this brand because the audience is just too demanding.

All you need to give them is Obama or Bill Clinton-level charisma, full stop. Just hire actors for speeches, write a script and they can become president. The number of people who could even coherently debate policy positions are a very small part of the electorate. If they wanted flawless voting records, Gore would've won in a landslide. But, no, it's just the charisma.

Obama got in with barely any experience, because he was a great speaker. Bill got in despite numerous scandals and being pretty obviously a centrist because he was a great speaker. That's also why Regan won with such a landslide, certainly wasn't his qualifications.

Gradual change is what happens, but it's not the strategy to actually make change happen.

Google MLK on gradualism to get some perspective on how to actually drive change

Civil rights are an exception in U.S. history, not the rule. And even that was worked on for decades, gradually, before it became a reality.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Young liberals will find flaws in every major candidate. They demand flawless voting records, charismatic speeches, non stop loud and vocal support for all minorities and people in need, impeccable history of interviews and conversations speaking very progressively on every matter possible under the sun. I honestly don't think it's gonna be easy to change this brand because the audience is just too demanding.

I feel like it speaks to a lack of understanding of how government works. People point to GOP voters being uneducated. And they may be. But they certainly understand how government works and basic civics enough to show up and vote for the person with the R next to them even if they say they hate them otherwise.

Young voters don't seem to get that. I get wanting high standards. We should demand that of our politicians. But at the same time, we are an extremely slow moving country where our internal processes for the most part resist fast moving change. This is a very intentional design decision that is at the core of US governance. So this throwing hands up and walking away from the process when progress is slower than you want it helps nobody.

 

[Ekai]

I feel like it speaks to a lack of understanding of how government works. People point to GOP voters being uneducated. And they may be. But they certainly understand how government works and basic civics enough to show up and vote for the person with the R next to them even if they say they hate them otherwise.

Young voters don't seem to get that. I get wanting high standards. We should demand that of our politicians. But at the same time, we are an extremely slow moving country where our internal processes for the most part resist fast moving change. So this throwing hands up and walking away from the process when progress is slower than you want it helps nobody.

The progress will always be slow until the Democrats actually go full charge into leftism.

 

[jakonovski]

Instead of describing all the ways those Democrats suck, does anyone have some good ones in mind and can give reasons why they'd do well?

 

[Tarydax]

You literally said that he worked with people within his party when he factually didn't because they actively tried to get rid of him at every single turn.

So Corbyn worked with absolutely 0 people within his party? It was just him, 100% alone, at all times?

I'll take your word for it, but I still find it hard to believe.

The centrists in the UK are pissed to all hell that Corbyn is leader at the moment. They STILL don't like him and want to get rid of him when it's leftist policies that got them the closet they've been in YEARS while centrist policies lead to the death of the party.

I never denied any of that. I didn't even mention centrists.

The parallels to America are all over the place. You can respond to individual points all you want but it ignores that it refutes your overall point at the end about claiming Labour were open to Corbyn. They weren't. They actively jumped into bed with Tory bs in order to try to defame him.

I never said that Labour was open to Corbyn, just that he was knew how to work within a large organization. He's been part of Labour for decades. He has to know something about making connections and working with other people within the party, does he not?

Hell, I recall some centrists on Gaf buying into the lies centrists and the Tories spread about Corbyn and used him as proof that leftist policies are a death knell in order to refute leftist leanings in the States. Corbyn does as well as he does numerous times and suddenly we can't compare the US and the UK? It's ridiculously hypocritical.

But that's exactly my point. Corbyn as repeatedly done better than Bernie and I would argue that a big part of that is because of the man himself. Does Corbyn not have anything at all to do with Labour's successes? Is it only his policies that people like? Or is May so awful that she's the only one responsible for the fact her party had losses instead of gains?

Hbomb has a good video on all of this

So it seems like it was Corbyn vs. the world and he and his party still did better than expected, whereas Bernie gets handled with kid gloves on all sides and does worse?

I don't see how you can watch that video and compare Corbyn's treatment to Bernie's. Bernie was treated extremely well by comparison.

Or, y'know, the Democrats can just stop propping up centrists for once.

Bernie and Hillary agreed with eachother over 90% of the time. If Hillary is center right, is Bernie only center left?

 

[Steel]

May having the charisma of a brick and constantly shouting "strong and stable" does help things. And yet her party still got more votes than labour even with the whole brexit nonsense. But if Corbyn didn't appear to be as incompetent as he did, she wouldn't have called the election and lost seats in the process.

Bernie and Hillary agreed with eachother over 90% of the time. If Hillary is center right, is Bernie only center left?

You don't want to go down this rabbit hole because they'll say "yes".

 

[Ekai]

So Corbyn worked with absolutely 0 people within his party? It was just him, 100% alone, at all times?

I'll take your word for it, but I still find it hard to believe.



I never denied any of that. I didn't even mention centrists.



I never said that Labour was open to Corbyn, just that he was knew how to work within a large organization. He's been part of Labour for decades. He has to know something about it, does he not?



But that's exactly my point. Corbyn as repeatedly done better than Bernie and I would argue that a big part of that is because of the man himself. Does Corbyn not have anything at all to do with Labour's successes? Is it only his policies that people like? Or is May so awful that she's the only one responsible for the fact her party had losses instead of gains?



Bernie and Hillary agreed with eachother over 90% of the time. If Hillary is center right, is Bernie only center left?

Maybe not absolutely 0 but by and large his party did not like him. They even flip-flopped on opinion for him at a moment's notice in very contradictory manners. A lot of what was done was him on the ground and the few allies he had.

A big part is him and because he represents true leftism in the party. IE: the policies.
Something the ineffectual centrists don't like. There's also the factor that May is awful and shot herself in the foot hardcore here. She didn't even participate in debates and essentially told the people to vote Tory because it's inevitable and you have to. There's multiple factors but to ignore the leftist desire is similar to ignoring the leftist desire in the states and arguing to remain centrist.

Hillary was the first somewhat leftist candidate the Democrats have put up in decades. And even then she hid a lot of that leftism from the public at large until she adopted /"adopted" some of Bernie's platform into hers for the general. The response by some has been to keep being centrist because of her loss rather than acknowledging the thirst for leftism in the country. Rather than looking at the major issues as to why Hillary lost:
1) Sheer luck
2) Voter suppression
3) Her campaign arrogantly not stopping in some states for a while, especially towards the end.
they want us to keep being centrist.

Her message certainly focused on helping the lower classes, similar to Bernie but they brought into the propaganda more. The fear-mongering. And that has to be combated. And some brought Trump's message because he was the "change" candidate and hearing that is all they need regardless of what actually happens or the actual substance at hand.

You don't want to go down this rabbit hole because they'll say "yes".

Oh please. I have always stated my issue is less with Hillary and more with her centrist supporters.

 

[Daria]

Or, y'know, the Democrats can just stop propping up centrists for once.

Obama was more of a centrist than anything.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The progress will always be slow until the Democrats actually go full charge into leftism.

The US is a center right to right leaning country. Full on leftism on a national level will do nothing but ensure the GOP grows even bigger.

Unfortunately there are not enough leftists in the US. You need centrists to get enough votes to even have a shot at office at a level that can actually sustain systemic changes nationally.

 

[StormKing]

Obama was more of a centrist than anything.

He governed like a centrist but presented himself as a progressive.

 

[Nekofrog]

People are blaming everyone they possibly can (young voters, Bernie voters, White voters, racist voters,) except you know, the people actually running these bad campaigns and shit. Bizarre. Let's keep running losers backed by losers with loser money, eventually the stupid voters will come around to us

 

[kirblar]

He governed like a centrist but presented himself as a progressive.

He did not. He ran to the right of Hillary.

 

[The Technomancer]

He did not. He ran to the right of Hillary.

On matters of "identity politics" he was definitely far less explicit than Clinton

 

[pigeon]

People are blaming everyone they possibly can (young voters, Bernie voters, White voters, racist voters,) except you know, the people actually running these bad campaigns and shit. Bizarre. Let's keep running losers backed by losers with loser money, eventually the stupid voters will come around to us

If America's full of racist voters, it's possible the thing that made these campaigns bad was that they talked about how racism is bad

 

[GoldenEye 007]

People are blaming everyone they possibly can (young voters, Bernie voters, White voters, racist voters,) except you know, the people actually running these bad campaigns and shit. Bizarre. Let's keep running losers backed by losers with loser money, eventually the stupid voters will come around to us

There aren't enough unicorn candidates in existence out there. So yeah at some point, people are going to need to stomach some of the flaws within candidates and vote for the person that will have the best chance of getting them closer to where they want to go.

Republicans understand this. Democrats don't.

Edit: And yeah, racism is bad. And White voters were the only racial demographic to have a majority vote for a racist. It certainly is a problem that deserves to be called out as much as possible.

 

[Steel]

Maybe not absolutely 0 but by and large his party did not like him. They even flip-flopped on opinion for him at a moment's notice in very contradictory manners. A lot of what was done was him on the ground and the few allies he had.

A big part is him and because he represents true leftism in the party. IE: the policies.
Something the ineffectual centrists don't like. There's also the factor that May is awful and shot herself in the foot hardcore here. She didn't even participate in debates and essentially told the people to vote Tory because it's inevitable and you have to. There's multiple factors but to ignore the leftist desire is similar to ignoring the leftist desire in the states and arguing to remain centrist.

Hillary was the first somewhat leftist candidate the Democrats have put up in decades. And even then she hid a lot of that leftism from the public at large until she adopted /"adopted" some of Bernie's platform into hers for the general. The response by some has been to keep being centrist because of her loss rather than acknowledging the thirst for leftism in the country. Rather than looking at the major issues as to why Hillary lost:
1) Sheer luck
2) Voter suppression
3) Her campaign arrogantly not stopping in some states for a while, especially towards the end.
they want us to keep being centrist.

Her message certainly focused on helping the lower classes, similar to Bernie but they brought into the propaganda more. The fear-mongering. And that has to be combated. And some brought Trump's message because he was the "change" candidate and hearing that is all they need regardless of what actually happens or the actual substance at hand.



Oh please. I have always stated my issue is less with Hillary and more with her centrist supporters.

If you're saying that Hillary lost because her policy positions weren't left enough then you'd also have to say that Trump won because of his policies... Which is... Well, contradictory. And, to be honest, if I had the ability to have a candidate with policy to positions that match mine it sure as hell wouldn't be Hillary, but that's not how politics work. especially not in a two-party system. But, regardless...

Here's a more simple version of why Hillary lost:

Hillary is undeniably not the public speaker her husband was, or either of the Obama's were, or even W Bush was. Charismaticly she's more akin to a Nixon. Which in itself wouldn't have lost her the election against Trump of all people who's Charisma is born from reality T.V. show stardom, still better than Hillary's but definitely no Kennedy.

Now, obviously by itself this is a problem, but she was a bit arrogant in her campaigning ignoring spots that obviously needed to be attended to, making a few bad soundbites like "I'll get rid of coal jobs" etc. But even this, by itself, does not overcome the travesty of campaigning that was the Donald.

No, what finally made the difference of the few thousand votes that tipped the election is the fact that she had the media equivalent of watergate stirring in the background with her emails being leaked and the FBI publically chastising her, dropping the investigation, and then reopening it at the last minute. Not to mention Ben Ghazi's murder at her hands.

Nonetheless, the Republicans lost seats in the house and Senate, and she won the popular vote. Now, obviously if she had campaigned better, or spoke more passionately this final thing wouldn't be a problem. But I'm failing to see where policy comes up in this.

Like, go up to someone in the street and ask them what the difference is between a government option and single payer. I actually did this a few times with some people I was working with on a business trip. The answers were: "Well, isn't Obamacare single payer?", "Isn't single payer universal healthcare and a government option medicare?", "No clue" respectively. And these are middle class people with educations. The vast majority of people don't understand the nuance of policy. It doesn't freaking matter outside of "Support guns? Y/N" "Support abortion? Y/N" for most people.

I'll say it again, it's more about how you say something than what you're saying in politics, which Hillary utterly failed at.

 

[Trouble]

The US is a center right to right leaning country. Full on leftism on a national level will do nothing but ensure the GOP grows even bigger.

Unfortunately there are not enough leftists in the US. You need centrists to get enough votes to even have a shot at office at a level that can actually sustain systemic changes nationally.

What people here seem to fail to understand that the two big parties in this country are coalitions, not monolithic parties. The left needs the centrists, and vice versa, if any of them want to get anything done.

Or a portion of the party can try to hold the rest hostage and no one gets anything.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

There aren't enough unicorn candidates in existence out there. So yeah at some point, people are going to need to stomach some of the flaws within candidates and vote for the person that will have the best chance of getting them closer to where they want to go.

Republicans understand this. Democrats don't.

Edit: And yeah, racism is bad. And White voters were the only racial demographic to have a majority vote for a racist. It certainly is a problem that deserves to be called out as much as possible.

Republicans say virtually verbatim the same thing your saying about "getting it" when they lose.

 

[Cagey]

This is what I ALWAYS think in these discussions. It's a similar response I have to the resistance to the idea of running anti-abortion Democrats in conservative districts. Like, yeah, they're anti-woman, but is it not obviously superior if the anti-woman fucks in Congress have SOME common ground with you, as opposed to the current status quo of virtually NO common ground.

Right? The choice between an anti-abortion politician whom you agree with on 95% of remaining issues and one whom you disagree with on 95% of remaining issues seems obvious.

The need to prop up the false third choice of pro-choice politician whom you agree with on that issue + 95% of others, who will undoubtedly lose and thus choice #3 is choice #2 in an alluring disguise, is baffling.

Particularly when that individual's stance on the issue won't be relevant come time for meaningful votes on meaningful legislation on that one issue.

Abortion here is a madlib for any issue. Believe in free public college tuition? If the choice is between two viable candidates who don't support that, but one is far more palatable, don't throw every other damn issue you care about out the window to promote a bound-to-lose candidate who has that position.

 

[KingV]

The Democrats do not necessarily need to move left to win back voters. However, they do need to abandon incrementalism and this idea that certain things just can't be done. If Democrats can explain how their centrists policies will make peoples lives much better, then they won't need to go farther left. Right now, they're the party of Can't Do It.

This exactly.

Democratic candidates lose the candidates because they pre-negotiate with themselves into centrist positions, either to avoid conflict with the more liberal wing and/or appease donors that don't really want liberal policies.

Instead of fighting for $15, they're like "maybe $10 is good enough for you poors".

Instead of Medicare for all they're like "well the Republicans came up with a pretty nice health care plan like 20 years ago in Massachusetts"

They need to come up with policies that are good for people and advocate for them. Instead they negotiate themselves into a position that's watered down before they even start to discuss the idea publically. if $10 or $12 is better than $15, make that case instead of just saying "well, it would be filibustered in the Senate"

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Republicans say virtually verbatim the same thing your saying about "getting it" when they lose.

Maybe. But they've been doing a lot less losing for the last decade plus at every level of government outside of the presidency. But even then, Bush got two terms.

Technically the Dems made gains in 2016 in the House and Senate, but GOP has had the majority for awhile now. State level government is even more dire for Dems.

 

[Steel]

Republicans say virtually verbatim the same thing your saying about "getting it" when they lose.

Like most things the Republicans parrot, one is based on fact the other fiction. Fact: Democratic voters are less likely to show up in a midterm election unless something major that effects their lives is in front of them.

On the other hand, there are less registered Republicans than Democrats. But those pubs always turn up. It's not about the base for republicans, it's whether or not they can: A: Get dems to not vote B: Get indies to vote for them. Which inevitably happens.

 

[Ekai]

If you're saying that Hillary lost because her policy positions weren't left enough then you'd also have to say that Trump won because of his policies... Which is... Well, contradictory. And, to be honest, if I had the ability to have a candidate with policy to positions that match mine it sure as hell wouldn't be Hillary, but that's not how politics work. especially not in a two-party system. But, regardless...

Here's a more simple version of why Hillary lost:

Hillary is undeniably not the public speaker her husband was, or either of the Obama's were, or even W Bush was. Charismaticly she's more akin to a Nixon. Which in itself wouldn't have lost her the election against Trump of all people who's Charisma is born from reality T.V. show stardom, still better than Hillary's but definitely no Kennedy.

Now, obviously by itself this is a problem, but she was a bit arrogant in her campaigning ignoring spots that obviously needed to be attended to, making a few bad soundbites like "I'll get rid of coal jobs" etc. But even this, by itself, does not overcome the travesty of campaigning that was the Donald.

No, what finally made the difference of the few thousand votes that tipped the election is the fact that she had the media equivalent of watergate stirring in the background with her emails being leaked and the FBI publically chastising her, dropping the investigation, and then reopening it at the last minute. Not to mention Ben Ghazi's murder at her hands.

Nonetheless, the Republicans lost seats in the house and Senate, and she won the popular vote. Now, obviously if she had campaigned better, or spoke more passionately this final thing wouldn't be a problem. But I'm failing to see where policy comes up in this.

Like, go up to someone in the street and ask them what the difference is between a government option and single payer. I actually did this a few times with some people I was working with on a business trip. The answers were: "Well, isn't Obamacare single payer?", "Isn't single payer universal healthcare and a government option medicare?", "No clue" respectively. And these are middle class people with educations. The vast majority of people don't understand the nuance of policy. It doesn't freaking matter outside of "Support guns? Y/N" "Support abortion? Y/N" for most people.

I'll say it again, it's more about how you say something than what you're saying in politics, which Hillary utterly failed at.

If you're not interested in responding then don't quote me.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Biggest flip the Democrats have had since Trump took office was in New York’s 9th Assembly District where Christine Pellegrino who won with a 39 point swing.

She was a Bernie Sanders delegate.

As for the 4 special elections go, the outlier was Thompson...

The DCCC gave him $0 compared to the $5 million they gave Ossoff.

All that graph says to me is that in district where the Democratic Party is generally unpopular, we need candidates to run local campaigns with little ostensible support from the national party.

Harder to do in special elections, probably easier in midterms.

 

[Steel]

If you're not interested in responding then don't quote me.

Are you talking about the left right thing? Cause I wasn't calling out you in particular on that, for the record. Just when the conversations turn to the left right divide and where people fall on it it always turns vapid. Some people who say Hillary is center-right will say Bernie would be a centrist or center-left or whatever other nonsense in europe.

That entire conversation isn't at all productive. The right left divide is so arbitrary, so changeable from country to country, from decade to decade that it means nothing, you can ask two people from the same european country what constitutes left and get two completely different answers, even if they claim to be on the same end of the spectrum.

 

[Steel]

They're not pushing for a government option, either, they're pushing the preservation and slight improvement of the ACA.

You can't criticize the military actions of a major power unless someone else comparable is doing the same shit or worse? Speaking of vapid...

Not what I meant I also didn't mean you couldn't criticize, at all, not even a little. And they have been pushing for a government option since the 90s, Obamacare is what it is because of a combination of the fillabuster, a Senator being on their deathbed and bluedog dems. What I meant is that a country has to have the ability to do the same shit for a politician from that country's position on the matter to have weight, they don't have to even think about pro's and con's, it's out of their hands. Canada doesn't have the millitary reach to even make that decision. Neither do european countries.

Hillary did run on expanding the ACA to include a public option if you paid attention.

 

[Steel]

Yes, that was added to the platform and she was ahead of the curve on the push for that for much of her career. It remained controversial and continues to get very little attention. I don't think it's really the kind of thing you can just outright pin down as what Democrats in general are pushing for.

First, in a two party system you have a broad spectrum of people in each party. The dems range from left to center, the republicans from right to far right.

Which is to say, it's impossible to get absolute agreements in either of these parties(Hell, you see that playing out on the Republican side right this minute, crippling their ability to get their big ticket legislation through). Precisely because of this you're not gonna see an absolute accord on issues, though they'll at least agree on the problems and that something needs to be done about them. That being said. if we're talking leadership, Pelosi has supported single payer repeatedly over her career, Bill Clinton wanted universal healthcare, Obama ran on having a public option, Harry Reid saw Obamacare as the first step toward Single Payer, which he supported.

Then you have the dems in california passing single payer...

So... Tell me how this makes the party against a public option?

Sourcing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...ep-toward-a-single-payer-system/#d464f063af9d

Well, yesterday on PBS' Nevada Week In Review, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? ”Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes."

 

[Abounder]

Rather than looking at the major issues as to why Hillary lost:
1) Sheer luck
2) Voter suppression
3) Her campaign arrogantly not stopping in some states for a while, especially towards the end.
they want us to keep being centrist.


Oh please. I have always stated my issue is less with Hillary and more with her centrist supporters.

Here's a more simple version of why Hillary lost:

Hillary is undeniably not the public speaker her husband was, or either of the Obama's were, or even W Bush was. Charismaticly she's more akin to a Nixon. Which in itself wouldn't have lost her the election against Trump of all people who's Charisma is born from reality T.V. show stardom, still better than Hillary's but definitely no Kennedy.

Now, obviously by itself this is a problem, but she was a bit arrogant in her campaigning ignoring spots that obviously needed to be attended to, making a few bad soundbites like "I'll get rid of coal jobs" etc. But even this, by itself, does not overcome the travesty of campaigning that was the Donald.

No, what finally made the difference of the few thousand votes that tipped the election is the fact that she had the media equivalent of watergate stirring in the background with her emails being leaked and the FBI publically chastising her, dropping the investigation, and then reopening it at the last minute. Not to mention Ben Ghazi's murder at her hands.

Nonetheless, the Republicans lost seats in the house and Senate, and she won the popular vote. Now, obviously if she had campaigned better, or spoke more passionately this final thing wouldn't be a problem. But I'm failing to see where policy comes up in this.


I'll say it again, it's more about how you say something than what you're saying in politics, which Hillary utterly failed at.

Agreed that voters agree with Dem policies, and that Hillary/Co. was terrible at campaigning and communicating them. She should never have been allowed to run in the first place with her alltime toxic ratings + FBI investigation, such a stupid risk.

What really killed Hillary was her lack of campaigning. She did a lot of prep work only to coast to defeat by flying home every night, skipping states like WI, months of no press conferences, and letting her rival outwork her in all forms of the media/trail. Hell, Trump even visited the President of Mexico. If Hillary had even half the work ethic of Bill or Barrack she would've won.

 

[pigeon]

Biggest flip the Democrats have had since Trump took office was in New York’s 9th Assembly District where Christine Pellegrino who won with a 39 point swing.

She was a Bernie Sanders delegate.

As for the 4 special elections go, the outlier was Thompson...

The DCCC gave him $0 compared to the $5 million they gave Ossoff.

Well, they probably didn't think he would win, since he was a former Goldman Sachs banker. Do you think Bernie would've given him more money?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, they probably didn't think he would win, since he was a former Goldman Sachs banker. Do you think Bernie would've given him more money?

That's Parnell (SC-05). Thompson (KS-04), the most 'Berniecrat' of the group, is a civil rights attorney and a former soldier.

 

[pigeon]

That's Parnell (SC-05). Thompson (KS-04), the most 'Berniecrat' of the group, is a civil rights attorney and a former soldier.

Oh, my bad. Question still mostly applies though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Oh, my bad. Question still mostly applies though.

Sanders probably did give him funding, but Sanders has significantly less funds available than the DNC.

 

[Pizoxuat]

As usual, Wonkette speaks for me.

Sure, Republicans have a convenient foil in Nancy Pelosi, but if she’s removed, they’ll just find a new foil. They’re nasty people and their base voters are idiots. Look how they shush Kamala Harris and call Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” and how Fox News is never more than one rage fit away from calling Maxine Waters the N-word. (Wonder what all those women have in common, oh that’s right it’s being women.)

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi defends her role in the Democratic party: "I'm a master legislator. I am a strategic, politically astute leader."

Everything I've seen from Pelosi's reaction to even the suggestion that a new face is needed leads me to believe she would rather hold power over the party than win. Reminds me of Wasserman-Schultz, Clinton, and Sanders. Though what separates Sanders is that he is obsessed with his ideology while the others are obsessed with their egos.

 

[Neoweee]

Everything I've seen from Pelosi's reaction to even the suggestion that a new face is needed leads me to believe she would rather hold power over the party than win. Reminds me of Wasserman-Schultz, Clinton, and Sanders. Though what separates Sanders is that he is obsessed with his ideology while the others are obsessed with their egos.

She's not wrong. She was regarded as a great opposition leader during the Bush years, and she's doing a great job now. The notion of even a single Democrat voting for the AHCA wasn't even on the table.

What has Clinton done that makes you think she is obsessed with her ego?