EPTUS Politics Mega-Blog - Page 82
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On November 15 2018 08:00 xDaunt wrote: Looks like we can finally cross Avenatti off of the list. He was never serious about running/winning, just exploiting the process for profit and notoriety. I hope Democrats never seriously considered him either. Regardless of whatever that story (wouldn't load but I can read the site name) says. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On November 15 2018 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote: This makes me laugh. They are not at all beholden to their progressive wing. They pretty much don't get along with party leadership at all and it's sorta a hobson's choice for progressives. Either you vote for the conservative Democrat or you just get the conservative without the Democrat. But the Democrat primary is just a dog and pony show anyway. The point is to gin up enthusiasm, not to have a vote to determine the best representative for the party/country. I honestly don't know what "progressive" legislation you'd be worried about anyway. The Democrats exist strictly as opposition to Republicans, if they had all three branches most of the country has absolutely no idea what their top 3 pieces of legislation would even address, let alone anything like "the wall" that Trump had everyone imagine and no one hold him accountable for doing nothing on (despite a border wall having bipartisan support). I agree with this generally. Would the 3 issues be: healthcare, income inequality, and clean air/water? They could throw in "justice to Trump and cronies" to feed the rabid. From my view though, Democrats need to remind people what the purpose of the federal government is - to better the lives of American citizens in ways that individual people/towns/states can't do themselves. Remind them of that, and then bring up healthcare, income inequality, and clean water/air every day. The republican party has for a while been the party of non-functional government. Democrats need to send the message that they have ideas and legislative ability that can and will improve the lives of American citizens. That which republicans fail to do every day, and in fact consistently legislate to do the opposite (bringing up how many times they tried to repeal the ACA, without a replacement, even though they said they had one for 6 years is a good start). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On November 15 2018 08:20 Dromar wrote: I agree with this generally. Would the 3 issues be: healthcare, income inequality, and clean energy? They could throw in "justice to Trump and cronies" to feed the rabid. From my view though, Democrats need to remind people what the purpose of the federal government is - to better the lives of American citizens. Remind them of that, and then bring up healthcare, income inequality, and clean water/air every day. The republican party has for a while been the party of non-functional government. Democrats need to send the message that they have ideas and legislative ability that can and will improve the lives of American citizens. That which republicans fail to do every day, and in fact consistently legislate to do the opposite (bringing up how many times they tried to repeal the ACA, without a replacement, even though they said they had one for 6 years is a good start). The first two are ez pickins for Democrats (but they don't want to cut insurance company profits), or redistribute their donors money to their voters. So their problem there will be that even if they manage to say they want to fix those things, it would take a great deal of ignorance, gullibility or both to believe it. I'd probably replace clean energy (not because I don't think it's critically important but because we're strategizing for a win) with campaign finance reform and frame income inequality as a matter of practical access to basic services and needs rather than redistribution. But the party leaders oppose all of that stuff, people will say it's because they can't support it without losing their seat but the truth is they simply don't support it. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On November 15 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote: The first two are ez pickins for Democrats (but they don't want to cut insurance company profits), or redistribute their donors money to their voters. So their problem there will be that even if they manage to say they want to fix those things, it would take a great deal of ignorance, gullibility or both to believe it. I'd probably replace clean energy (not because I don't think it's critically important but because we're strategizing for a win) with campaign finance reform and frame income inequality as a matter of practical access to basic services and needs rather than redistribution. But the party leaders oppose all of that stuff, people will say it's because they can't support it without losing their seat but the truth is they simply don't support it. Yeah, even as you were replying I edited my previous post to change "clean energy" to "clean air/water." That's something that's much more palatable as a message, and individual people can see the importance of, even if they aren't on board with the notion of climate change. Getting lobbyist money out of politics is also something I imagine has near-unanimous support among US citizens, so that's a great suggestion. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On November 15 2018 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote: This makes me laugh. They are not at all beholden to their progressive wing. They pretty much don't get along with party leadership at all and it's sorta a hobson's choice for progressives. Either you vote for the conservative Democrat or you just get the conservative without the Democrat. But the Democrat primary is just a dog and pony show anyway. The point is to gin up enthusiasm, not to have a vote to determine the best representative for the party/country. I honestly don't know what "progressive" legislation you'd be worried about anyway. The Democrats exist strictly as opposition to Republicans, if they had all three branches most of the country has absolutely no idea what their top 3 pieces of legislation would even address, let alone anything like "the wall" that Trump had everyone imagine and no one hold him accountable for doing nothing on (despite a border wall having bipartisan support). I've been saying it since the last primary. They have to stop running against Trump and start running for their agenda. Problem is Democrats agenda for the last 3 years hasn't gone past "have you seen Trump today!?" Candidate wise, a young trustworthy Bernie is the best bet but old sorta out of touch Bernie is the best we've got. Everyone else will be starting from way behind, except creepy uncle Joe. According to this Dems focused on healthcare more than any other issue during the midterms: Source That seems smart. I expect they will continue focusing on healthcare and also spend a lot of time on government corruption going forward. I really hope they don’t nominate Biden. Creepy is right. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 15 2018 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote: This makes me laugh. They are not at all beholden to their progressive wing. They pretty much don't get along with party leadership at all and it's sorta a hobson's choice for progressives. Either you vote for the conservative Democrat or you just get the conservative without the Democrat. But the Democrat primary is just a dog and pony show anyway. The point is to gin up enthusiasm, not to have a vote to determine the best representative for the party/country. I honestly don't know what "progressive" legislation you'd be worried about anyway. The Democrats exist strictly as opposition to Republicans, if they had all three branches most of the country has absolutely no idea what their top 3 pieces of legislation would even address, let alone anything like "the wall" that Trump had everyone imagine and no one hold him accountable for doing nothing on (despite a border wall having bipartisan support). Hillary's legacy power and influence was such a huge player in 2016 that I'm inclined to say nobody really knows the progressive influence within the party as it applies to presidential primaries post-Clinton. In favor of their influence, I call to mind all the animating force given by the base towards medicare for all, student loan forgiveness, abolish ICE. In opposition, so many of the most notable progressives lost in the recent midterm. I must confess I smiled to think the Democrat primary's point was to "gin up enthusiasm" rather than nominate a candidate to the presidency. Not one word for that aspect of the primary? I'm opposed to the progressive stances on their merits as I evaluate them. I can acknowledge the difficulties attendant upon executing even the most widely supported policies, given the current state of the party. I dare say the party will look very different after a successful strategy that manages to snag all three branches as they've only done recently in 1992 and 2008. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On November 15 2018 08:34 Mercy13 wrote: According to this Dems focused on healthcare more than any other issue during the midterms: Source That seems smart. I expect they will continue focusing on healthcare and also spend a lot of time on government corruption going forward. I really hope they don’t nominate Biden. Creepy is right. The problem with Democrats message on healthcare is that it again centers Republicans rather than what they want to do (beyond opposing Republicans) This new ad from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, airing in New York’s 19th District against Rep. John Faso (R), who voted for Obamacare repeal, is typical of the Democratic message: The Republicans voted to take away people’s health care and end Obamacare’s protections for people with preexisting conditions. It's not as simple as just talking about the issue that people care about, they need people to understand how Democrats in control of all three branches would make it better, so long as everything is framed as how they will prevent Republicans from making it worse they will fail to get the wins they need. It's all for not anyway if no one can come up with a viable path to a Democrat majority in the senate, which so far as I've seen doesn't exist even with Republicans looking to show more poorly than they were looking at the end of election night. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 15 2018 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote: He was never serious about running/winning, just exploiting the process for profit and notoriety. I hope Democrats never seriously considered him either. Regardless of whatever that story (wouldn't load but I can read the site name) says. Whoops, fixed it. I was posting from my phone, so it linked a mobile website. The gist of it is that Avenatti is sitting in jail on allegations that he beat the hell out of his ex-wife. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On November 15 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote: Whoops, fixed it. I was posting from my phone, so it linked a mobile website. The gist of it is that Avenatti is sitting in jail on allegations that he beat the hell out of his ex-wife. Man the irony. The guy that was parading around visiting every main stream media channel, the hero of the "resistance", telling us Trump mistreated woman and Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, is a woman beater. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12533 Posts
On November 15 2018 06:52 Mercy13 wrote: The issue is Democrats don't just need to win progressive states, they also need to regain some ground in the Midwest. They might think, with some justification, that a mainstream Democrat will have more success there. Also it seems like progressives struggled a bit during the midterms. What's your take on this? For the record I don't know what their best strategy is, I'm genuinely curious. The midterms were... really mixed. As you pointed out, I really wish that one of the red states Justice Democrats would have won, cause that would have been an excellent proof of concept. However they still did overperform compared to what other types of democrats have done in those districts in a lot of cases (Ojeda is the best case for this but Ojeda was kind of uniquely fun, but say, Kara Eastman in Nebraska came within two points, we're talking Nebraska here... Also, keep in mind that the group is two years old. Having seven victories after two years is pretty amazing in terms of politics, at the beginning they were aiming for one or two victories... The other side was mixed as well; it's true that you get a lot of the credit for the house seats flipped, but then again a lot of those were in blue states too, and you have the counterindication that all of the senators who lost ran on a platform of "Republicans are awesome, vote for me anyway I have a D for some reason", and someone like Sherrod Brown didn't and is still here. All in all I'd say it's inconclusive. I was expecting better results based on my theories, but it's not a complete rejection of what I believe. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 15 2018 09:03 GoTuNk! wrote: Man the irony. The guy that was parading around visiting every main stream media channel, the hero of the "resistance", telling us Trump mistreated woman and Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, is a woman beater. I wonder what he thinks now of his "All victims must be believed!" nonsense. Useless hypocrite. And I dunno about Avenatti not being serious about considering a run. We are living in the age of President Trump. I know the type of attorney that Avenatti is quite well. I could certainly see him running given all of the buzz that he was getting. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On November 15 2018 09:07 xDaunt wrote: I wonder what he thinks now of his "All victims must be believed!" nonsense. Useless hypocrite. And I dunno about Avenatti not being serious about considering a run. We are living in the age of President Trump. I know the type of attorney that Avenatti is quite well. I could certainly see him running given all of the buzz that he was getting. Exactly. Dems will pretend he was never a candidate, but he was already raising money and holding rallies. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On November 15 2018 09:07 xDaunt wrote: I wonder what he thinks now of his "All victims must be believed!" nonsense. Useless hypocrite. And I dunno about Avenatti not being serious about considering a run. We are living in the age of President Trump. I know the type of attorney that Avenatti is quite well. I could certainly see him running given all of the buzz that he was getting. Giving we are in the age of President Trump, provided he ran as a Republican he should do fine. On November 15 2018 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote: The problem with Democrats message on healthcare is that it again centers Republicans rather than what they want to do (beyond opposing Republicans) It's not as simple as just talking about the issue that people care about, they need people to understand how Democrats in control of all three branches would make it better, so long as everything is framed as how they will prevent Republicans from making it worse they will fail to get the wins they need. It's all for not anyway if no one can come up with a viable path to a Democrat majority in the senate, which so far as I've seen doesn't exist even with Republicans looking to show more poorly than they were looking at the end of election night. What about foreign relations? Is improving America's worldwide image a campaignable issue or is it just that pissing off everyone else is something Republicans like but Democrats are meh about? Side note: Any development on the horde of immigrants threatening to overrun the United States and end freedom as you know it? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On November 15 2018 09:11 iamthedave wrote: Giving we are in the age of President Trump, provided he ran as a Republican he should do fine. What about foreign relations? Is improving America's worldwide image a campaignable issue or is it just that pissing off everyone else is something Republicans like but Democrats are meh about? Side note: Any development on the horde of immigrants threatening to overrun the United States and end freedom as you know it? I'd love for Democrats to pick up fights like Republicans do and change opinions through sheer will and make not supporting ethnic cleansing campaigns by Israel and Saudi Arabia a central issue. Realistically speaking, they couldn't shift opinions on Trump being terrible so I have low expectations of their capabilities of making it a campaign issue. Any alternative to Trump will have to have a better grasp of FP than Trump but that's not exactly a high bar. So no I don't see foreign relations being an issue Democrats can campaign on effectively. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On November 15 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote: GH, you can't possibly be a fan of Obama's feckless foreign policy, can you? I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 15 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. I suggest to you that Obama’s foreign policy was fairly representative of mainstream democrat foreign policy, at least in terms of its goals. Regardless of whether you agree with the goals, Obama certainly failed to achieve them. In stark contrast, and again, regardless of whether you agree with his goals, Trump is succeeding in realizing his foreign policy goals. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14208 Posts
I'll repeat that for your Dems in the back who aren't paying attention. Trump can't attack her, she's a nice white midwestern woman. White men will see their mothers getting attacked and that shit don't fly. Trump won because he was able to flip the midwest. Klobuchar will sweep the midwest so hard Montana might even be in play. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On November 15 2018 13:52 Sermokala wrote: I really think Klobuchar is the Ideal candidate for the Dems at this stage. I have serious doubts that she'll get the chance she deserves coming from the midwest but a female midwestern senator with a great record in DC and universally loved to the point where even Kavanaugh had to apologize to her? She's the perfect leader to heal any divisions in the party and Trump can't attack her. I'll repeat that for your Dems in the back who aren't paying attention. Trump can't attack her, she's a nice white midwestern woman. White men will see their mothers getting attacked and that shit don't fly. Trump won because he was able to flip the midwest. Klobuchar will sweep the midwest so hard Montana might even be in play. Klobachar could be the palatable Democrat for the south to make it past tuesday. Which would make both potential presidential candidates from Democrats cops that unapologetically back the ethnic cleansing campaign being executed by Israel. I'm not sure either of them can rustle up more votes than Hillary got though, and I think Trump will perform better by a couple million votes. | ||
| ||
