2018 Democrats thread

[Dam8610]

2 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Jones and his help drove out the black vote in historic numbers, which was a deliberate effort. It was good strategy and it worked. Perez intentionally kept a low profile to avoid distracting nationalization of the race. Credit is due there.

 

But here's why primarying bad Dems is good (have seen similar results with Lipinski so far)

 

 

If we followed Reddy's advice, no one would ever challenge these people. There's always a threat, always a reason to "wait for later" or to wait for a better opportunity. What's missed with that is that when you keep propping up bad politicians who want to entrench the status quo, those opportunities won't ever even come because you'll be facing backlash from the failure to get what people want done. If whatever blue wave materializes is entirely centrist Dems obsessed with decorum and bipartisanship rather than pushing popular policy and opposing the right ward sprint of the GOP at all costs, people will be all the more frustrated and disillusioned in 2020.

THIS! ALL OF THIS! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS! There is no bad result of primarying a bad Dem. Worst case, you push them left and hold them to it with the threat of the primary.

[Reddy]

 

Cuomo actively prevents Dems from being in the majority in NYS and there's no realistic path where someone who doesn't suck as hard as he does (litreally any registered Democrat in the state lol) would lose a general election that Cuomo would win.

 

e: your obsession with Sanders is rearing again so I'm going to duck out

 

Y'all are the ones that brought this up and made it an attack on establishment Dems! Lol. 

[Reddy]

 

Jones and his help drove out the black vote in historic numbers, which was a deliberate effort. It was good strategy and it worked. Perez intentionally kept a low profile to avoid distracting nationalization of the race. Credit is due there.

 

But here's why primarying bad Dems is good (have seen similar results with Lipinski so far)

 

 

If we followed Reddy's advice, no one would ever challenge these people. There's always a threat, always a reason to "wait for later" or to wait for a better opportunity. What's missed with that is that when you keep propping up bad politicians who want to entrench the status quo, those opportunities won't ever even come because you'll be facing backlash from the failure to get what people want done. If whatever blue wave materializes is entirely centrist Dems obsessed with decorum and bipartisanship rather than pushing popular policy and opposing the right ward sprint of the GOP at all costs, people will be all the more frustrated and disillusioned in 2020.

I strongly disagree with Feinstein's decision to run again. But she made the decision, and since she's the strongest Dem in that race I'll support her. As much as I wish she'd stepped aside to allow for someone new to get some national exposure at a time when our bench is so thin.

[Reddy]

 

THIS! ALL OF THIS! A THOUSAND TIMES THIS! There is no bad result of primarying a bad Dem. Worst case, you push them left and hold them to it with the threat of the primary.

See: 2016

And I'm glad you agree that Perez deserves credit for his strategy in Alabama.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Reddy

[Dam8610]

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

See: 2016

And I'm glad you agree that Perez deserves credit for his strategy in Alabama.

So are you saying Hillary was a bad Dem or trying to blame Bernie for her atrocious campaigning, like going after Texas when there was no chance she'd win there instead of securing the three states that ended up being the difference in WI, MI, and PA? I hope it's the former, as the latter has no real basis in reality.

Also, I don't think sitting down and shutting up is something that's credit worthy, but maybe that's why you're so fond of the establishment. They're pretty good at that, especially when it matters to speak up and dissent.

[GoSox05]

3 minutes ago, Reddy said:

I strongly disagree with Feinstein's decision to run again. But she made the decision, and since she's the strongest Dem in that race I'll support her. As much as I wish she'd stepped aside to allow for someone new to get some national exposure at a time when our bench is so thin.

What does that mean? 

If she were to lose the primary, do you think De León would struggle in the national election?  It's California, there is almost no Republican party in that state anymore.  

I just don't understand that. 

[StrangeSox]

7 minutes ago, Reddy said:

See: 2016

 

when the safe establishment option lost to Donald Trump? when Even Bayh sank like a rock in Indiana?

 

9 minutes ago, Reddy said:

I strongly disagree with Feinstein's decision to run again. But she made the decision, and since she's the strongest Dem in that race I'll support her. As much as I wish she'd stepped aside to allow for someone new to get some national exposure at a time when our bench is so thin.

If I lived in California, I'd support her in the general if she won. I'd definitely not support her in the primary because her opponent is much better than her. That you'd back the garbage establishment over any challenger even in a state like California really speaks volumes. If the Democrats are at risk of losing that state with an actual progressive, then who cares, just pack it all in we're doomed anyway.

And that's really the whole establishment's mindset. When they're not just servicing their wealthy donors, they're terrified of ever actually taking a bold stand. It lets Republicans completely dictate the political battlefield, which they've done to disastrous effect since Reagan.

[Reddy]

 

So are you saying Hillary was a bad Dem or trying to blame Bernie for her atrocious campaigning, like going after Texas when there was no chance she'd win there instead of securing the three states that ended up being the difference in WI, MI, and PA? I hope it's the former, as the latter has no real basis in reality.

Also, I don't think sitting down and shutting up is something that's credit worthy, but maybe that's why you're so fond of the establishment. They're pretty good at that, especially when it matters to speak up and dissent.

1

That's not what he did, bud. The DNC operated covertly in that race, mobilizing in black communities without any fanfare so as not to draw attention to itself. It worked flawlessly.

[Reddy]

 

What does that mean? 

If she were to lose the primary, do you think De León would struggle in the national election?  It's California, there is almost no Republican party in that state anymore.  

I just don't understand that. 

No, I mean strongest as in has the best poll numbers. I love De Leon. The De Leon/Feinstein thing isn't a hill I'll die on. I don't really have a problem with people supporting him in a state like CA. I already said I disagreed with her decision to run.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Reddy

[Reddy]

I don't think any of you are listening. CONTEXT MATTERS. RIGHT NOW I support whatever Dem is doing the best in whatever place he or she is running. Period. That's it.

Once we're back in power and we're no longer facing an American existential crisis, by all means let's push the party left.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Reddy

[greg775]

23 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Even if Bernie does run again, I voted for him last time but I won't again. He was 75 in 2016, I think he's too old. It is incredibly rare to stay as sharp as he is now forever as one ages. 

Any chance of Bernie running independent? Even he should be concerned about possible backstabbing to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. I realize running Indy means you can't win though which saddens me. The USA politicians no longer care about the poor or middle class at all on either side, or students and their debt, so I want a radical like Bernie to give us free stuff. Why? It's better than paying, paying paying and getting nothing in return except high medical costs and impending breakup of SS and medicare. Thanks, government for everything.

[Reddy]

 

Any chance of Bernie running independent? Even he should be concerned about possible backstabbing to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. I realize running Indy means you can't win though which saddens me. The USA politicians no longer care about the poor or middle class at all on either side, or students and their debt, so I want a radical like Bernie to give us free stuff. Why? It's better than paying, paying paying and getting nothing in return except high medical costs and impending breakup of SS and medicare. Thanks, government for everything.

That would guarantee a Trump win.

[greg775]

Just now, Reddy said:

That would guarantee a Trump win.

Trump isn't going to be re-elected if there's a candidate out there not named Hillary Clinton. People aren't that dumb to give DT another term. He's evil.

[Reddy]

 

Trump isn't going to be re-elected if there's a candidate out there not named Hillary Clinton. People aren't that dumb to give DT another term. He's evil.

Trump is likely to be re-elected. It would be guaranteed if Bernie ran a third party bid.

[Dam8610]

9 minutes ago, Reddy said:

I don't think any of you are listening. CONTEXT MATTERS. RIGHT NOW I support whatever Dem is doing the best in whatever place he or she is running. Period. That's it.

Once we're back in power and we're no longer facing an American existential crisis, by all means let's push the party left.

The problem with this line of thinking is there will always be a reason not to, and that's what the establishment will seize on. Each. And. Every. Time. Meanwhile, the Republican party continues their rightward authoritarian deathmarch as progressive policies get more and more popular despite no politicians espousing them. This is a problem, one that doesn't get fixed by not challenging the status quo. 

[greg775]

2 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Trump is likely to be re-elected. It would be guaranteed if Bernie ran a third party bid.

The odds of Trump being impeached before the next election are greater than his winning again. The Russia thing will get him. If not the porn star thing could escalate, etc. He has too many ghosts to last long. Bernie actually would have beaten him. The Millenials were loving him and he was a huge thing. I think he actually got robbed out of the election by his own party and election fraud, etc. I'm a bernie backer, baby.

Edited May 25, 2018 by greg775

[Heads22]

10 minutes ago, greg775 said:

The odds of Trump being impeached before the next election are greater than his winning again. The Russia thing will get him. If not the porn star thing could escalate, etc. He has too many ghosts to last long. Bernie actually would have beaten him. The Millenials were loving him and he was a huge thing. I think he actually got robbed out of the election by his own party and election fraud, etc. I'm a bernie backer, baby.

He doesn't have a party

[southsider2k5]

24 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Trump is likely to be re-elected. It would be guaranteed if Bernie ran a third party bid.

If the Democrats can't beat Trump in 2020, they need to fold the party.

[Reddy]

49 minutes ago, greg775 said:

The odds of Trump being impeached before the next election are greater than his winning again. The Russia thing will get him. If not the porn star thing could escalate, etc. He has too many ghosts to last long. Bernie actually would have beaten him. The Millenials were loving him and he was a huge thing. I think he actually got robbed out of the election by his own party and election fraud, etc. I'm a bernie backer, baby.

Trump will not be impeached. 

Also, every other point you make in this paragraph is also wrong. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Reddy

[Dam8610]

18 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Trump will not be impeached. 

Also, every other point you make in this paragraph is also wrong. 

Why do you think that Trump won't be impeached? The special counsel investigation keeps expanding. If Trump actually committed crimes, I don't think even Republicans are dumb enough to not turn on him. If he committed crimes and he's not impeached, we might as well just throw the Constitution away, because it wouldn't mean anything anymore at that point.

[caulfield12]

42 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If the Democrats can't beat Trump in 2020, they need to fold the party.

Woudn’t we have said the same thing about his Republican primary opponents in 2016?

Combating a sitting president like Trump is something the Dems (and no American political party) has ever fully contemplated...someone who has no moral/ethical compass, who panders to his own base and deliberately tries to divide the country (Nixon is the closest modern example, but even that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny)...who constantly changes positions and who sucks up all the airtime because he draws ratings and makes the media immense profits.

Right now, Biden’s the only one capable of beating him.   None of the early Dem favorites like Gillibrand, Booker, Harris, etc., have yet been able to emerge was as the obvious “hot” choice like Obama already was in 2005/06 (dating back to his Dem.Convention speech).  You can identify as many followers for Kennedy as for Garcetti or even the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana.   Plus this current fracture between the progressives/pragmatists, and uncertainty over what Sanders/Warren will do, and who is the “heir apparent” to take up their cause of the younger generation.

Odds are the country will go into a recession (based on 2-3 economic cycles of QE/easy money) due to inflation fears and interest rate rises, higher gas prices, slightly higher wages and then the overhang of numerous Americans paying significantly more for their health care insurance (and Trump’s complete failure to fix it as promised).   Who knows where immigration and gun control are as issues at that point...but I’d still say the odds rest with the Dem’s over Trump winning another election, if for no other reason than so many Hispanic and African-American voters will be motivated to get out to the polls this time out...and so many older Americans are afraid to lose their SS/Medicare/Medicaid due to the GOP Congress.  Finally, the fact that Trump’s been relatively lucky so far with his foreign policy blunders not blowing up the world (YET).

[Nokona]

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

I don't think any of you are listening. CONTEXT MATTERS. RIGHT NOW I support whatever Dem is doing the best in whatever place he or she is running. Period. That's it.

Once we're back in power and we're no longer facing an American existential crisis, by all means let's push the party left.

Why?  This election is likely to be a blue wave.  There should be plenty of opportunities to pick up far-left candidates.  But the party isn't interested in that, they're interested in catering to their friends with big money.  I'm not sure how this party has gone from supporting the working class to saying things like "I'm for the good billionaires."  It's a disgrace.

 

If we continue down this road we end up with half measures like Obamacare, a 1980s conservative health care plan.  That's what this party is becoming: a party of Rockefeller Republicans.  

[StrangeSox]

The ACA didn't really have anything in common with the 90's heritage plan beyond the idea of a single mandate. It's still a half measure, but 80's Republicans weren't going to pass a massive Medicaid expansion among other key components.

[caulfield12]

Reddy, just don’t act like this in Iowa, lol...I grew up in the Quad Cities and spent the first 22 years of my life in that state...identity politics simply don’t work there (not unlike GA or rural Western PA).

Just follow everything Cheri Bustos has done and said on the other side of the Mississippi.   Or the South Bend mayor, if an openly gay man can win elections in rural Indiana, he’s doing SOMETHING correctly, yes?

Fwiw, the (old) district I lived in had one of the most popular (and centrist or left-leaning) Republican representatives in Jim Leach that you could ever find in the Heartland.   But remember it’s the state of Grassley, Branstad, Steve King and one of the toughest proposed abortion laws in the country...and one of the biggest states for born-again/evangelical Christians, especially for that region of the country.

[caulfield12]

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher loses endorsement for saying it's OK to not sell homes to gay people 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/politics/dana-rohrabacher-congressman-homeowners-lgbtq-people/index.html