Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

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.

Lol...

Dude... Sanders is ego just as much as anyone else.

But I'm impressed you managed to lump all the women under ego and the one man under ideology.

 

[FStubbs]

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

The Democratic side is way more vast than the Republican side. I mean, to boil it down, the Republican side consists of:

1. The rich
2. racists
3. evangelicals

These three groups often consist of the same people and overlap. The Democrats consist of.

1. The people the rich hate
2. The people racists hate
3 The people evangelicals hate

There's a much broader spectrum of people here, including people whose interests are even opposed at times. (Take African American Christians - the most religiously conservative people in America, and throw them into a party with LBGT. Quite awkward, huh.) Democrats can never truly get "on agenda" the same way Republicans can since the party has everyone from John Bel Edwards to Dennis Kucinich.

 

[jakonovski]

Lol...

Dude... Sanders is ego just as much as anyone else.

But I'm impressed you managed to lump all the women under ego and the one man under ideology.

It's not my post, but I have to ask: why do throw around unsupported accusations of misogyny? He was talking about only three people. Hardly evidence of systematic bias.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

As usual, Wonkette speaks for me.

Truth. It'll just jump to the next veteran Lady of War wonk on the national front.

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?

Pretty much.

The problem to this voter who hasn't been a Democrat voter most of his life is, "Why WOULD she be THE face of the Dems?" Oh right, the farm team has been left to rot. It's like a similar-but-different problem across the aisle, where there's tons who wont take Ryan's job, giving him security despite his problem (he's a garbo fraud).

Best we've seen is alot of old people who came up in the 70s and 80s. Just...I dunno, let Ted Lieu or Kamala Harris get in there and cut promos. Give more local/state politicians some limelight like what Ossoff and to a lesser extent Quist got.

But what it comes down to to me is 50 State Strategy. The Dems have become a regional party for much of the decade, despite what 06, 08, and 17 are showing us. People wanna vote for a variety of centrist-to-progressive candidates from all over. Find them. Promote them. Let them promote themselves to their district/state, then pick the biggest winners from that field.

This problem is much bigger than Pelosi, and they're still not getting it at the DNC despite now knowing there's a problem, but at least there's an open field for 2020 and no shortage of contestants.

The Democratic side is way more vast than the Republican side. I mean, to boil it down, the Republican side consists of:

1. The rich
2. racists
3. evangelicals

These three groups often consist of the same people and overlap. The Democrats consist of.

1. The people the rich hate
2. The people racists hate
3 The people evangelicals hate

There's a much broader spectrum of people here, including people whose interests are even opposed at times. (Take African American Christians - the most religiously conservative people in America, and throw them into a party with LBGT. Quite awkward, huh.) Democrats can never truly get "on agenda" the same way Republicans can since the party has everyone from John Bel Edwards to Dennis Kucinich.

Wisdom.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Re: Democrats being a wider party than Republicans, it isn't true. Almost all the polling evidence we have corroborates the idea that Trump's electoral coalition was less internally cohesive than Clinton's.

 

[Gattsu25]

Re: Democrats being a wider party than Republicans, it isn't true. Almost all the polling evidence we have corroborates the idea that Trump's electoral coalition was less internally cohesive than Clinton's.

Citation needed because they seemed to be pretty cohesive to me.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Sounds right to me.

 

[Plinko]

Liberal arts me if old

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-...bi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/

Honestly, this could be the best thing to happen to the Democratic party for 2020.