2018 Democrats thread

[StrangeSox]

House GOP Proposes Largest Restriction on Legal Immigrants Since the 1920s

 

[GoSox05]

George W. Bush's favorable rating has pulled a complete 180

 

Most of Bush's climb back to popularity came from Democrats and independents. His favorability mark among Democrats has soared from only 11% in February 2009 to a majority 54% now.

 

 

Why you do this!

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/202...frey/index.html

Biden and Sanders polling better against Trump than Oprah

[Dam8610]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/202...frey/index.html

Biden and Sanders polling better against Trump than Oprah

 

Of course they are. We're seeing the downside of a celebrity president right now, why on Earth would anyone rational want another one?

[Heads22]

It'll be interesting to see if Biden goes for it in 2020. He was my first choice for 2016 and is probably one of the dems best candidates in some of the rust belt states.

[caulfield12]

It'll be interesting to see if Biden goes for it in 2020. He was my first choice for 2016 and is probably one of the dems best candidates in some of the rust belt states.

 

That's ultimately going to be the test for a Democratic candidate, as it was for Obama in the 2008 Dem primaries.

 

Who can go into West Virginia, Kentucky, western Pennsylvania, southern Ohio and Indiana and win over those voters? It's impossible for me to imagine Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, etc., doing that. Sanders has the economic message, but he's still seen as a Northeasterner and has had his own difficulties appealing to African-American and Hispanic voters, partly because of the perception that the Bernie Bros movement is limited to college/high school students and White Millennials. (Fwiw, Sanders has attracted a lot of 50+ Dems who were turned off by the Clintons/Obamas and previously supported Howard Dean).

 

 

Biden's problem is that he will be 77 during the run-up to the 2020 election, and turn 78 not long afterwards. That's REALLY pushing it, in terms of age, and after what happened at the end of the Reagan years, as well as what is likely to occur at the end with Trump in his early 70's.

 

 

 

They spoke out against immigrants. So she unearthed their own immigrant ancestors

Scavino’s, Steve King’s and Tomi Lahren’s Family immigration stories unearthed

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/immigrati...trnd/index.html

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

The GOP as a whole continues it's sprint to the far-right

 

Rubio rejects bipartisan immigration gang

The Florida Republican is steering clear of bipartisan Senate talks to protect Dreamers — and pushing a more conservative approach.

[Balta1701]

I think this is exactly what I expect the opposing party's senate candidates to say.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate for Missouri Courtland Sykes blasted “women’s rights” this week.

 

In a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday, Sykes said that he had been asked if he “supports women’s rights.”

 

“I want to come home to a home cooked dinner every night at six,” Sykes said, referring to demands he makes of his girlfriend. “One that she fixes and one that I expect one day to have daughters learn to fix after they become traditional homemakers and family wives.”

 

According to Sykes, feminists push an agenda that they “made up to suit their own nasty snake-filled heads.”

 

The candidate said that he hoped his daughters do not grow up to be “career obsessed banshees who forgo home life and children and the happiness of family to become nail-biting manophobic hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the top of a thousand tall buildings they are [sIC] think they could have leaped in a single bound — had men not been ‘suppressing them.’ It’s just nuts.”

 

Sykes ended his rant by insisting that he supports women’s rights “but not the kind that has suppressed natural womanhood for five long decades.”

 

“But good news,” he concluded. “They’re finished. Ask Hillary.”

[BigSqwert]

Senate Dems no longer supporting Dreamers, per Slate. What a pathetic party.

Edited January 25, 2018 by BigSqwert

[caulfield12]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/dac...rump/index.html

 

Looks like the battle lines are now officially drawn, more or less.

 

Even if the Senate Dems give in to move the bill forward, it's going to be blocked on the extreme left and extreme right in the House of Reps (Freedom Caucus has 30 seats/Congressional Hispanic Caucus has 30 members + liberal Dems).

 

Of course, there's always the logical conclusion that the ENTIRE moderate wing of Congress on both sides could vote it through, but then they risk being primaried on both the left and right if they're perceived as "caving."

 

 

 

[greg775]

It'll be interesting to see if Biden goes for it in 2020. He was my first choice for 2016 and is probably one of the dems best candidates in some of the rust belt states.

I worship Biden. I know why he didn't run last time, but it's a shame. He would have defeated Trump and we'd all be loving life so to speak. We were stuck in Hillary mania and there was no way of knowing America would for sure veto Hillary. If Joe is healthy at 80, I still hope he runs if all we have are the usual lousy candidates. Of course I love Bernie as well but he's a bit more radical than Biden.

[Balta1701]

I worship Biden. I know why he didn't run last time, but it's a shame. He would have defeated Trump and we'd all be loving life so to speak. We were stuck in Hillary mania and there was no way of knowing America would for sure veto Hillary. If Joe is healthy at 80, I still hope he runs if all we have are the usual lousy candidates. Of course I love Bernie as well but he's a bit more radical than Biden.

With the way he treated Anita Hill I can understand why you like him.

[caulfield12]

Those increasingly embarrassing (from today’s perspective) hearings over Anita Hill/Thomas might be the thing that prevents Biden from running if women’s organizations supporting the Dems force the issue.

 

 

Air Force One's new refrigerators cost $24 million...for just two chilling units.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/politics/air...eing/index.html

 

Former senior adviser to President Barack Obama Eric Schultz mocked the high price tag in a tweet on Friday, saying, "we would have been impeached."

 

The Boeing fridge contract isn't the first time an administration has come under fire for the high cost of military aircraft upgrades -- the Obama administration was pressured to scuttle plans to build a new fleet of presidential helicopters in 2009 after reports emerged that they cost at least $11 billion.

 

When he was running for president, Trump boasted he would swap out Air Force One with his private jet and has been fiercely critical of the cost of the new Air Force One program in the past, stating "costs are out of control" and "cancel order!" in a December 2016 tweet.

Edited January 27, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Joe Kennedy III going to give Dem response to State of the Union address.

Can’t be any worse than Beshear last year.

 

 

January 26, 2018

Centrist Democrats Are Undermining Progressive Candidates

 

According to a major new report, the Democratic Party leadership is undermining progressive candidates and backing wealthier, centrist hopefuls that are following a failed strategy...with the main litmus test being able to get out your phone or Rolodex and raise $100-250,000 instantly.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...style=%27color:

Edited January 27, 2018 by caulfield12

[greg775]

With the way he treated Anita Hill I can understand why you like him.

You should have written you "can't understand" why I like him. By writing "can" you are attacking me. You are either saying I approve of bad behavior toward women or am racist or something you have no clue about to make those charges. In fact you are wrong if you feel I am either of those. I just read about Biden's treatment toward Hill. He said he wishes he'd have run the court sessions better. He said other were attacking Hill and he didn't do enough to stop it. Nobody's perfect. Biden to me doesn't seem like a bad guy. But your saying that about me is unacceptable and sad.

[caulfield12]

In researching that question, I came across a 1980 monograph titled “Racism: A Symptom of the Narcissistic Personality,” by Dr. Carl C. Bell, now an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Bell has written extensively on racism, and argued, unsuccessfully, for the profession to recognize it as a form of mental illness. With the caveat that he would abide by the “Goldwater Rule” that prohibits psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures they have not personally examined, Bell sent me the draft of a new essay in which he draws explicit parallels between racism and narcissism. Narcissists “are exploitative and they lack empathy,” the ability to take into consideration what another person is feeling. Those are also, Bell told me, “very much the characteristics of racist behavior.” Narcissists and racists “have vulnerable self-esteem issues, which makes them very susceptible to any form of criticism and makes them prone to counterattack impulsively. They are also prone to being denigrating and rageful toward others.”

 

Does that sound like anyone you’ve heard of recently?

 

 

 

Belief in the inferiority of certain groups has been a long-running theme in Trump’s public life, going back to his earliest days in business, when he and his father were sued by the federal government for systematically discriminating against black prospective tenants. It is the flip side of his frequent insistence that some people, namely he himself, are superior on the basis of their genetic endowments. And we can infer his views from more recent episodes, such as his response to the infamous Central Park Five case in New York, involving five minority teenagers who were accused of the brutal rape of a (white) woman jogger. Trump’s response — this was back in 1989, long before he had embarked on a political career — was to take out full-page ads in the New York newspapers calling for a return of the death penalty. “Maybe hate is what we need,” he said in an interview with Larry King. The issue resurfaced during his campaign in 2016 — years after someone else had confessed to the rape, the five had been cleared by DNA evidence, released from prison, and been paid a large settlement by the city. Trump, incredibly, refused to retract his original position. Sarah Burns, a co-director of a documentary about the case, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that “we are left with Mr. Trump’s presumption that because they were black and brown teenagers from Harlem, they must have committed a crime.”

 

On the other hand, we have the testimony of someone who knows Trump well, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who defended the president against charges of racism by telling CNN: “You could be dark as charcoal or lily white, it doesn’t matter as long as you’re nice to him.” (“You can be the pope and criticize him, it doesn’t matter,” Graham added. “He’ll go after the pope.”) That seems to speak to another trait that observers have imputed to Trump: narcissism. Could we have been misunderstanding Trump all along? Or could those traits be somehow linked?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/narcissism-racis...-234817474.html

[GoSox05]

Joe Kennedy III going to give Dem response to State of the Union address.

Can’t be any worse than Beshear last year.

 

 

January 26, 2018

Centrist Democrats Are Undermining Progressive Candidates

 

According to a major new report, the Democratic Party leadership is undermining progressive candidates and backing wealthier, centrist hopefuls that are following a failed strategy...with the main litmus test being able to get out your phone or Rolodex and raise $100-250,000 instantly.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...style=%27color:

 

 

I don't really think that these response speeches are that big of a deal, but lmao at the Democratic Party pushing Joe Kennedy as an exciting new candidate.

[Dam8610]

Joe Kennedy III going to give Dem response to State of the Union address.

Can’t be any worse than Beshear last year.

 

 

January 26, 2018

Centrist Democrats Are Undermining Progressive Candidates

 

According to a major new report, the Democratic Party leadership is undermining progressive candidates and backing wealthier, centrist hopefuls that are following a failed strategy...with the main litmus test being able to get out your phone or Rolodex and raise $100-250,000 instantly.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...style=%27color:

 

So they're not only not learning, they're doubling down on cutting their nose off to spite their face. Centrist democrats don't have the policy positions to differentiate themselves enough from Republicans for the electorate. The grassroots, progressive movement in the party is where the energized base is, and the policy positions are different enough from Republicans as to be distinguishable to the average voter.

 

[caulfield12]

So they're not only not learning, they're doubling down on cutting their nose off to spite their face. Centrist democrats don't have the policy positions to differentiate themselves enough from Republicans for the electorate. The grassroots, progressive movement in the party is where the energized base is, and the policy positions are different enough from Republicans as to be distinguishable to the average voter.

 

There are two dangers.

 

One is the old axiom, you always win by capturing the middle, and anyone that runs way to the left or right gets walloped (historically). That's colliding with an emerging one, as you mentioned, that if you alienate 1/3rd of your most dedicated and committed volunteers and voters on the progressive side, you'll end up with the same exact results as 2016.

 

Both parties are in danger of splitting in two...or you could argue that instead of 4, you would have progressive Democrats (25-30%), everyone in the middle of the country (Centrist/Moderate Dems and "Compassionate" Republicans who are more open on social issues and pseudo-libertarian on economics)....and then Trump's supporters (another 25-30%) on the far right.

 

That's the most fascinating aspect of all this upheaval. Do you end up with 4 or 3 political parties instead of the traditional two by the end of 2012? Or is it STILL just Dems and Republicans?

 

It really feels like another 3rd party candidate (like a Bloomberg/Cuban/Oprah....Ross Perot in 1992/6, Wallace in 1968/72) could emerge and split the electorate as I noted above. If you have a progressive and centrist Democrat both running, one independently, Trump would win again (if he hasn't been impeached/indicted/resigned).

[Soxbadger]

There are two dangers.

 

One is the old axiom, you always win by capturing the middle, and anyone that runs way to the left or right gets walloped (historically). That's colliding with an emerging one, as you mentioned, that if you alienate 1/3rd of your most dedicated and committed volunteers and voters on the progressive side, you'll end up with the same exact results as 2016.

 

Both parties are in danger of splitting in two...or you could argue that instead of 4, you would have progressive Democrats (25-30%), everyone in the middle of the country (Centrist/Moderate Dems and "Compassionate" Republicans who are more open on social issues and pseudo-libertarian on economics)....and then Trump's supporters (another 25-30%) on the far right.

 

That's the most fascinating aspect of all this upheaval. Do you end up with 4 or 3 political parties instead of the traditional two by the end of 2012? Or is it STILL just Dems and Republicans?

 

It really feels like another 3rd party candidate (like a Bloomberg/Cuban/Oprah....Ross Perot in 1992/6, Wallace in 1968/72) could emerge and split the electorate as I noted above. If you have a progressive and centrist Democrat both running, one independently, Trump would win again (if he hasn't been impeached/indicted/resigned).

 

Any progressive who "sits out" because the candidate isnt progressive enough is a fool. Its like being given 2 options: 1) If you stand up, Ill give you $10 dollars or 2) if you do nothing, I get $10 from you. And the person keeps asking for option 3.

[Real]

Any progressive who "sits out" because the candidate isnt progressive enough is a fool. Its like being given 2 options: 1) If you stand up, Ill give you $10 dollars or 2) if you do nothing, I get $10 from you. And the person keeps asking for option 3.

 

Victim blaming, nice.

 

Instead of s***ting on progressives for not supporting neoliberal corporatists who are essentially moderate republicans, how about you come at this from the correct angle and blame the politician for not EARNING their votes. Nobody owes anybody their vote.

[Soxbadger]

Victim blaming, nice.

 

Instead of s***ting on progressives for not supporting neoliberal corporatists who are essentially moderate republicans, how about you come at this from the correct angle and blame the politician for not EARNING their votes. Nobody owes anybody their vote.

 

Victim blaming? How are they "victims?"

 

I am trying to speak rationally to people who theoretically hold a similar view to me. What is the point of "earning" votes, if you lose 2 votes for every 1 you gain? What is the point of forcing politicians to take positions that will result in losses at the national stage?

 

Nobody has to do anything. Which is why in the example, you can sit out and give me $10. That is their choice. They want to sit out, they dont want to vote, then dont complain when the outcome isnt what you like. Dont complain about immigrants, dont complain about SC nominees, dont complain about health care. They chose to sit out, they chose to be silent, so now dont whine about the outcome.

 

Thats not victim blaming, that is trying to explain the realities of life. Most of the time winning requires some amount of sacrifice or compromise. I dont know how better to explain this to people. Right now there are 2 choices to run the US govt. You either align with one of them, or you leave it to the whim of other people. So if 1 party has more align with you, vote that party. Dont think that sitting on the sidelines will somehow get that party to move with you. It wont. It will do the opposite, because that party will see you as unreliable and will go after the reliable votes.

 

Republicans are in control of House, Senate and President. Sanders (the more progressive candidate) lost to Clinton. Clinton crushed Sanders in Florida, Ohio and Penn, yet she still lost to Trump. There is a severe disconnect if you think being more progressive is going to win the necessary states to take back anything. Change takes time and a lot of people fear it.

[StrangeSox]

Assuming that always chasing after centrist and center-right votes will net you more votes than paying any attention whatsoever to your own base gets pretty damn annoying for the base after a while. Especially when you keep losing bigly.

 

The Republicans have listened to their base and sprinted farther and farther to the right after every election. Democrats have hemmed and hawed and offered nothing meaningful other than "hey, we're not Republicans" and keep getting their asses kicked.

 

Not voting won't accomplish anything, but at some point, you're going to kill the enthusiasm and the motivation for activists to actually get out and build the party if you keep running dogs*** policy to chase after people who aren't going to vote for you anyway (or to appease your big donors).

 

 

e: we've seen various results across the country in the past 14 or so months since "go hard to the center to chase after suburban republican votes" failed spectacularly for Clinton. We've had centrist/center-right candidates like Doug Jones win in Alabama (and then proceed to be fairly Republican-friendly in the Senate thus far, which is still miles better than Moore but a slap in the face to the progressive base that worked their asses off to get him a win). We've had a center-left candidate win VA Gov, and an outright socialist unseat the GOP Majority Whip in VA. A strong criminal justice reformer won DA in Philly. Extremely Centrist candidate Jon Ossoff lost in Georgia. More progressive candidates did fairly well across the country in recent elections.

 

There's not one clear roadmap that'll work in every race across the country. Primaryin Joe Manchin from the left is *probably* doomed to fail spectacularly in somewhere like West Virginia, but we can definitely push for more progressive candidates in places like NY, CA, and IL (looking at you Lipinski). And when Democratic leadership caves again and again to centrists or conservatives, well, it just keeps killing enthusiasm.

Edited January 30, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Assuming that always chasing after centrist and center-right votes will net you more votes than paying any attention whatsoever to your own base gets pretty damn annoying for the base after a while. Especially when you keep losing bigly.

 

The Republicans have listened to their base and sprinted farther and farther to the right after every election. Democrats have hemmed and hawed and offered nothing meaningful other than "hey, we're not Republicans" and keep getting their asses kicked.

 

Not voting won't accomplish anything, but at some point, you're going to kill the enthusiasm and the motivation for activists to actually get out and build the party if you keep running dogs*** policy to chase after people who aren't going to vote for you anyway (or to appease your big donors).

 

Again what does this even mean? Clinton smoked Sanders. She beat him by 3mil total votes. In the states that it are necessary to win for a Democrat to be elected, Hillary did better in at least half of them, if not more. So where is the basis for "If you go more left more people will vote." There is no empirical evidence to support this. Instead its the great myth that keeps getting pushed by the "more progressive" wing.

 

At the end of the day the way our system works is that one party "wins" and one party "loses". It doesnt matter if the party that loses has "great ideas" or "the greatest candidate ever", they are losers and the other side gets to dictate policy for X years. So instead of in fighting a great idea would be "vote for the candidate who is MOST inline with your belief." Then when that person gets into office, try and convince them that your position is better and that they should move towards you.

 

Think of politics as a a spectrum (1)------------------(10). Lets say I am a 10 and the candidates that are running are a 3 and 6. Is it more likely that the 6 will be convinced to become closer to a 10 or a 3?

 

Democrats didnt lose President because of "dog s*** candidate", Trump was likely much worse. The difference is that for whatever reason the Democrat strategy was misplaced and instead of making sure they had 270, they wanted to get like 320. You learn from your mistakes and move on. But now is not the time to go all crazy on ideology. Trump is disliked, its a mid term election. Everything is going for the Democrats. The only way they screw it up, is they start doing things that make middle of the road people say "WTF?"

Edited January 30, 2018 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

I don't even disagree with your utilitarian approach to voting, either! That's my own view, too, but there are a lot of people who don't agree with it. That may be frustrating, but that's still not going to get them to vote.

 

It's more than just bothering to go vote, though. It's about organizing, registering voters, getting good candidates on the ballot from local dog catcher on up. In so many races, people run completely uncontested. That's been changing with the groundswell over this past year+, but how long will that enthusiasm last if it doesn't really result in changes that the organizers and activists want? How well were Democrats able to hold together Obama's coalition? Candidates don't just materialize out of thin air. Why not push for better candidates in the first place rather than hoping they'll listen to you once they're in office (lol if you haven't donated at least four figures to their campaign)?

 

And what's the "crazy" ideology that the progressive base it pushing for? If you look at opinion polls, it's things that a majority of Americans want! Expanded, actual universal health care; Dreamers protection; a substantially more progressive tax structure; actual infrastructure investment, and more. But they do a terrible level of communicating this at the top, and a lot of people subscribe to a "pox on both houses"/"they're both the same" stance. When you always take wishy-washy stances and allow the opposition party to dictate the terms of the debate (how quickly has "chain migration" now become a talking point when it's been known as "family reunification" forever, both in policy discussions and legally, because white nationalists in the GOP want to make it sound scary to further limit legal immigration), you constantly lose ideological ground.

 

Lastly, Hillary was also an extremely dogs*** candidate for a whole host of reasons, some in her control (campaign strategy, run up the score, turn Texas blue!) and some not (decades of right-wing propaganda targeted at her made it more than comfortable for a lot of R's to hold their nose and vote Trump or at least sit out rather than vote for her). Trump may have been many, many times worse and it says a whole lot about this country that he was actually elected and still maintains tens of millions of supporters, but that doesn't mean Clinton wasn't dogs***. Hell, she lost to Trump!