|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I don’t think primaries challenges are bad. I think they are bad when used as a threat outside primary season to leverage support for something that isn’t legislation. Like a bad response in an interview: calls for a primary challenge because of bad response. I’ve spoken to a lot of progressives I know and they said it is part of the discussion with the person in power. I don’t think there is a real understanding that the threat of a primary challenge is normally the end of that discussion.
|
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside. ^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing). That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.
Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.
EDIT: further, why hasn't a single "but my Socialism" candidate won anywhere? Suburban whites turned on Dems and Obama hard because they bought FOX narratives about Obamaphones and Obamacare. Why aren't the socialist candidates making any inroads on these disaffected whites? Socialism doesn't sell in America. It polls like crap at the ballotbox.
|
On August 23 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:
You are seeing it right now with Jeff Flake and his potential primary opponent. They are creating doctored images that show him shaking hands with Obama. That man is super conservative, but also didn’t back Trump. But they are coming for him for no other reason than he didn't 100% please the crowd. And a lot of that pressure is coming from outside his state from what reporters can tell.
Booker is another example. He dropped donations from companies in his state when it became an issue and does responds to criticism. He has a really approachable style and sat on the capitol steps just talking with people about healthcare. I think the Democrats in the senate are better with him. But there still is going to be a push to remove him via Facebook memes.
Jeff Flake is super conservative? Okay, now I've heard it all. Can you elaborate on that one? I’ll take a quick bullet point break down of where he falls short. On why he ranks on the leaderboards of least conservative members of the Senate? Or why his establishment and directionless vision led to Trump winning the primary in the first place? He's the kind of flake on conservative policy that acquainted people that conservatism more often than not ends upon election to the national legislature.
I will take any answer that does not come in the form of further questions.
|
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside. ^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing). That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.
They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).
|
Anyone who looks at how things went down in 2016 and says "we were fine, we just lost a few key voters in a few key states, otherwise we would've won the presidency" is a fool. It is only by virtue of the badness of Trump that it even was close; the fundamental weaknesses of the Democratic party all over the country, especially at the local level, was on full display. A widespread loss of rural voters all across the country may have been the tipping point for the presidency, but it is only by virtue of the personal charm of Obama that the loss of the working class base of the Democrats was not so readily apparent as it was when Trump beat Clinton.
|
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.”
Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.
Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.
Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.
Source
|
Any effort to take back congress is going to have to come from a focus on pocketbook issues and things that the entire country agrees on. GH is not wrong that making this election about Trump(though that will work in some areas) won’t lead to the gains democrats need. They need to fight over the whole country and focus on winning elections. Better candidates would help. Not running national candidates with negative approval ratings would be a great place to start.
|
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside. ^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing). That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money. They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).
Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:
Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus
Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smacks of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.
|
In minor science news...
You've been drawing the sun's corona ever since you were in pre-K — and that's probably the last time it made any sense. The sun is the 865,000-mile ball of gas that was the scribbly yellow circle in your drawing. The corona is the veil of luminous plasma streaming millions of miles into space, where you drew straight yellow rays. Things were never so simple again.
Studying the mysteries of the corona is not easy, for the same reason that looking at the sun itself isn't easy: the brilliance of the solar fires washes out everything else. Coronagraphs — black masks fitted in telescopes and other observing instruments — can cover up the solar disk and allow astronomers to focus just on the plasma. But diffraction of the incoming light makes the pictures imperfect.
It is only during a total eclipse, when the moon itself acts as the greatest coronagraph of all, that a truly good look at the corona becomes possible. That's exactly what will happen on August 21, when the event that is being called The Great American Eclipse tracks across the U.S. in a path of totality that will run from western Oregon to eastern South Carolina, traveling from coast to coast in just over 90 minutes. Those will be 90 minutes that scientists from NASA, the University of Hawaii, the Southwest Research Institute, and multiple other labs and universities plan to spend well, scrutinizing the corona until the moon passes by and the sun once again forbids such a clear gaze from Earth.
time.com
Just so we know that the eclipse is actually scientifically useful.
Incidentally, the ESA is launching its own artificial eclipse sat in the not-too-distant future.
|
On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
Really, it seems that "compromise" doesn't go both ways, as much as it is that the leading wing of the party wants the more extreme (left/right for Dem/Rep respectively) on the political spectrum to just compromise away their most consequential goals, in favor of little more than some symbolic and meaningless concessions. If the party refuses to cooperate, more active measures are certainly appropriate.
Exactly correct.
|
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Show nested quote +Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source
but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.
|
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.
The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.
You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside. ^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing). That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money. They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling). Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this: Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.
Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.
Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.
Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.
|
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
Really, it seems that "compromise" doesn't go both ways, as much as it is that the leading wing of the party wants the more extreme (left/right for Dem/Rep respectively) on the political spectrum to just compromise away their most consequential goals, in favor of little more than some symbolic and meaningless concessions. If the party refuses to cooperate, more active measures are certainly appropriate. Exactly correct.
I disagree; I'd say it's far from exactly correct; it has some partially correctness, and some inaccuracy.
|
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Show nested quote +Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source
Here is a good explainer of who the targets are for Democratic expansion. To the point about black voters staying home, there are a couple of issues there. First is Voter ID. Second is HRC not being the most inspirational candidate. Booker is plausible as the kind of guy who might reverse that trend.
And on the pocketbook issues mentioned above, note how traditional Democrats ran ahead of HRC. It wasn't by selling more socialism!
MANY REMAIN PERSUADABLE The C.C.E.S. found that 26 percent of Obama-Trump voters identified as Democrats in their postelection study, while 35 percent were Republicans and 37 percent were independents. Including those independents who lean toward a party, Republicans led by a wider margin of 45 percent to 30 percent. Even so, that’s a significant share who continue to identify with the Democratic Party despite voting for Mr. Trump.
Democrats were probably still winning a lot of these voters in 2016. The results speak for themselves to some extent. Jason Kander lost his Senate race in Missouri by just three percentage points, even as Mrs. Clinton lost by 20 points. Even Democrats who didn’t run ahead of Mrs. Clinton over all — like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin or Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania — nonetheless ran far ahead of Mrs. Clinton in traditionally Democratic, white working-class areas.
Mrs. Duckworth’s performance is probably the most telling. She won Illinois’s 12th Congressional District — a downstate, working-class district now held by Republican Mike Bost — by nine points. Mr. Trump won it by 12 points.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html?mcubz=1&_r=0
|
On August 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
Really, it seems that "compromise" doesn't go both ways, as much as it is that the leading wing of the party wants the more extreme (left/right for Dem/Rep respectively) on the political spectrum to just compromise away their most consequential goals, in favor of little more than some symbolic and meaningless concessions. If the party refuses to cooperate, more active measures are certainly appropriate. Exactly correct. I disagree; I'd say it's far from exactly correct; it has some partially correctness, and some inaccuracy.
Where are the inaccuracies ?
|
Editorials are going to happen. Blaming them for existing is just as bad as Clinton voters blaming the FBI investigation or CNN for its coverage.
Edit: also saying socialism is a winning stance nationwide has yet to be proven. If they can make it work in a deep red state like WV, then go for it. But don’t blame anyone else if it fails.
|
On August 23 2017 05:10 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:On August 23 2017 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
Really, it seems that "compromise" doesn't go both ways, as much as it is that the leading wing of the party wants the more extreme (left/right for Dem/Rep respectively) on the political spectrum to just compromise away their most consequential goals, in favor of little more than some symbolic and meaningless concessions. If the party refuses to cooperate, more active measures are certainly appropriate. Exactly correct. I disagree; I'd say it's far from exactly correct; it has some partially correctness, and some inaccuracy. Where are the inaccuracies ?
First, I'd say compromise does go both ways; one o fthe problems with the extreme factions is that THEY are the ones unwilling to compromise. they want what they want, and they're not willing to sacrifice some goals to achieve others, or just to make deals in general. This is quite apparent with the tea party in particular. They barely even get along with republicans, and loath dems greatly. That's why the Republicans, despite having majorities, can't govern. because the extreme wing isn't willing to go along with many things. I'm sure there are some issues with the center parts not compromising enough, but there's also plenty of problems with the wings not being willing to compromise; so the claims of compromise not going both ways are false.
I'd dispute that the concessions that have been offered to those wings are meaningless; i'd say they're of moderate value, though surely less than those groups would like. (which is how compromise works)
I woudln't call the anti-party actions entirely appropriate unless the wings had a decent, passably sound actual plan. Often they simply don't. They're raging against the "machine" without having an actual replacement in mind once they remove it. They don't have the ability to actually govern if called upon to do so. It's often based more on an ideologue stance and a hatred of government/some in power than an actual set of policy proposals.
It's easy to say things like "wall street bad" it's much harder to come up with concrete proposals to do something about it, and harder still to make proposals that have some potential to actually make it into law.
Many of the problems in governance today, the hatred and vitriol in society, the division, are a result of wing primary-pressures forcing candidates to be more extreme, rather than centrist and compromising.
|
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.
I agree that an unqualified comparison with Obama's numbers is uncalled for, but the point remains that boiling down Hillary's loss into a neat and tidy 70k easily identifiable voters such that the party can at-large ignore everyone else is not a good idea.
|
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.
EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside. ^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing). That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money. They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling). Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this: Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism. Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare. Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable. Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support. Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.
Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.
I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.
|
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.
Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside. ^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing). That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money. They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling). Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this: Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism. Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare. On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.
The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.
You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable. Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support. Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary. Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda. I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.
I vaguely remember a study long ago where people were against Obamacare and for the ACA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
