UrbanOhio.com

General Discussions => Current Events => Topic started by: mu2010 on November 09, 2017, 10:24:08 AM

Title: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on November 09, 2017, 10:24:08 AM
Starting this thread to discuss the Democrats as they attempt to sort themselves out leading into the midterms and into 2020. They are currently leaderless so I figured a thread for the party as a whole is appropriate and we will see who emerges.

I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people. I would hate to see the Democrats consume and destroy themselves like the Republicans did starting in 2009 with the Tea Party.

I hope the party can adopt a progressive centrism that can pick up a slice of Republicans who don't like Trump. They need to be pro-business while also taking relatively left positions on health care (Universal health care is a pro-business policy, actually - far-lefties just don't know how to make the argument because they, well, hate business.)

They need to be open to more pro-life and pro-gun Democrats in places where it makes sense.

I hope Northam's win can embolden the center-left wing of the party and I hope Brazile's book can help the party move on from Clinton. I liked Hillary a lot because I like wonky managerial types, and I think she would have been a great president, but she just had too much baggage and the party needs to move on from her as standard-bearer.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on November 09, 2017, 11:01:44 AM
The Republicans have destroyed themselves?  They sure picked a funny way to show it-- they're in charge of everything.  They've been wildly successful while the Democrats' Clinton-led move to the center has been a devastating failure.  Instead of maintaining a donor base of its own the party has chosen second place on Wall Street, offering Republican economic theory minus the hatred Republicans employ to sell it.  The results are in and that approach hasn't worked.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on November 09, 2017, 11:16:58 AM
The Republicans have destroyed themselves?  They sure picked a funny way to show it-- they're in charge of everything.

I said it and yeah I still believe it, I think that their victories are false victories (pyrrhic victories maybe?) and I think the Obamacare repeal debacle showed it more than anything. It was easy to see that coming, if you paid attention over the past 6 years. Now more moderates are retiring, it's Robespierre's reign of terror happening before our eyes. They will push themselves off a cliff unless Democrats run around them and jump off first.

I'm not saying they shouldn't incorporate Sanders and Warren's emphasis on inequality, stagnant wages, etc, and emphasize that more, they definitely should. But if they turn it into a litmus test where it's full-blown social democracy or you're kicked out of the party, they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2020.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on November 09, 2017, 11:24:09 AM
I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on November 09, 2017, 12:03:55 PM
Screw that, the Rs can keep their belief-based single issue voters.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on November 09, 2017, 12:15:39 PM
Screw that, the Rs can keep their belief-based single issue voters.

Al Sharpton.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 09, 2017, 12:58:11 PM

 I would hate to see the Democrats consume and destroy themselves like the Republicans did starting in 2009 with the Tea Party.

yeah, those Republicans have really destroyed themselves since 2009! lol

The Obama Legacy: Over 1,000 Democratic Seats Lost to Republicans

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/the-obama-legacy-over-1000-democratic-seats-lost-to-republicans/
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on November 09, 2017, 01:09:38 PM
^ To build on this a bit more:

Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/17/republican_party_the_strongest_its_been_in_80_years.html

In 2014, we put together an index to measure the electoral strength of the parties. Rather than focusing on the presidency, we broke partisan control into five categories: presidential, Senate, House, governorships, and state legislatures. We have updated our index using the mostly complete data for the 2016 elections and can conclude that the GOP is in the strongest position it has been since 1928. In many sub-categories, it is near an all-time high.

(http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/389115_5_.jpg)
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 09, 2017, 01:33:02 PM
^and to add to that...

12 months later, Trump would probably still win the 2016 election
By Aaron Blake
November 6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/06/12-months-later-trump-would-probably-still-win-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.a648865458c1
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 09, 2017, 01:37:47 PM
I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on November 09, 2017, 01:40:12 PM
I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?

I don't think you have to be a Tea Party member to post in the Tea Party thread.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on November 09, 2017, 07:33:07 PM
The question I ask to eastvillagedon and Ram23 is, if the GOP is so healthy and strong, why haven't they yet passed a health care bill?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on November 09, 2017, 08:55:40 PM
Because insurance companies have made a lot of effort to deal with Obamacare and it would be too much of a blow to the bottom line to deal with new pop-up changes.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on November 10, 2017, 03:44:41 AM
I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

I've been saying for awhile that both parties have an issue that gains them very few votes and costs them many.  For the Republicans it's abortion, for the Democrats, it's gun control. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 10, 2017, 09:19:24 AM
I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?

I don't think you have to be a Tea Party member to post in the Tea Party thread.

Not saying you have to be a member of the Democratic Party to post here...but maybe post items that are specific to Republicans in The Republican Party thread?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on November 10, 2017, 10:07:56 AM
I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?

I don't think you have to be a Tea Party member to post in the Tea Party thread.

Not saying you have to be a member of the Democratic Party to post here...but maybe post items that are specific to Republicans in The Republican Party thread?
Gotcha.

You know what, I'm not sure there is a general Republican party thread.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on November 10, 2017, 10:28:06 AM
I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

I've been saying for awhile that both parties have an issue that gains them very few votes and costs them many.  For the Republicans it's abortion, for the Democrats, it's gun control. 

I think both issues have that effect for the Democrats.  Lots of urban and/or union voters are against abortion; gun control is a tough sell in the small cities and rural areas.  Neither has any relation to the core economic message.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 10, 2017, 10:31:40 AM
Hillary won VA by 5.4% in 2016.  Gov. McAuliffe (who will run for the Senate in 2020 there) won by ~2% in 2013.  Ralph Northam won by 9% in 2017.

The Democrats picked up 15 (and perhaps one or two more depending on recounts) in Virginia's House of Delegates.  They were clinging to 33 seats and may start 2018 with a 50/50 split.

(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/dottle-va-liveblog.png?w=575&h=458&quality=90&strip=info)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-overperforming-in-special-elections-almost-everywhere/

As we look ahead to 2018, I think Democrats are very well positioned (though they still might not win the House back and the Senate is stacked against them based on the 1/3 of Senate seats up next year). 

Trump is locked in at a 37-38% approval rating.  That's historically bad this early in a presidency.  Democrats continue to lead by 8-10 points on generic Congressional ballots.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-sheer-number-of-democrats-running-for-congress-is-a-good-sign-for-the-party/

The Democrats are recruiting huge numbers of candidates.  That's been a problem in the past - simply giving up seats/districts where even fielding a candidate might have made it more competitive.

There is clearly a surge to the Democrats right now - in part (perhaps even mostly) because of anti-Trump sentiment - but they need to convert that enthusiasm into votes.  Obviously on the horizon is 2020 where there is no clear leader or set of leaders in place yet (it's early so that makes sense) but I think for 2018 to be a success it can't just be "Hey, I'm a Democrat and I'm not pro-Trump."  We'll see what they come up with for the midterms.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on November 10, 2017, 10:46:30 AM
A lot of Trump voters will be dead in 2020.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: andrew0816 on November 10, 2017, 10:56:26 AM
Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years
(http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/389115_5_.jpg)
I think it is interesting that the Republican strength seems to dissipate whenever a Republican is president. And I would assume that a graph showing the strength of Democrats would just be the inverse of the one you posted. It does look like the trend line for Republicans is overall positive, but, as can be seen with Hoover, a particularly catastrophic president (or other exterior forces/economic trends/geo-political movements) can destroy the strength of a political party.

But with all of that said I think it's important to point out that with a two-party system with winner take all elections there will always be this ebb and flow between the two parties in charge. The two parties in charge might change over time as they evolve and dissolve, but our political system ensures that there will always be two parties that dominate, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.

It seems that right now both parties are in a crisis of sorts, I do not think that the recent wins by Democrats are a sign of momentum for that party. I think the Democrats are still a mess and have no strategy or clear direction (I don't think they will win by simply being anti-Trump), although I do think that Democrats are more popular but they won’t be able to truly gain momentum thanks to gerrymandering (and I’m not saying the Republicans are strong either, that party has its own issues). But with the reduction of competitive districts both parties have become increasingly polarized and unwilling to compromise with each other. Both parties are alienating a large segment of the population, discouraging them from coming out to the polls (this discouragement/apathy is not helped by our uncompetitive elections). I think both parties at some point are going to change…so many possibilities but I think it is likely that one party will diminish in relevance and that instead of switching to the opposing party a new party will emerge and we will have a shift in which two parties dominate our political system.

In my ideal world we would shift to a proportional representative system so that we can end this cycle of two party dominance and that would better represent the population, which would lead to more satisfaction (under a two-party system one party might win with 51% of the vote, but that still leaves 49% of the electorate dissatisfied).
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on November 10, 2017, 11:10:04 AM
^Yeah, and that would allow single-issue voters to migrate over to their own parties like in the rest of the world and stop dominating policy by proxy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 10, 2017, 12:32:30 PM
Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years
(http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/389115_5_.jpg)
I think it is interesting that the Republican strength seems to dissipate whenever a Republican is president.

Basically every party who holds the White House ends up losing in the midterm elections.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 10, 2017, 03:16:32 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359761-biden-moving-toward-2020-presidential-run-report

Joe Biden in 2020?  He'd be 77 in 2020 and 78 by January 2021.

https://shareblue.com/democrats-have-flipped-32-red-seats-across-the-country-under-trump-and-counting/

Quote
Tuesday’s victories bring the total number of state legislative seats gained by Democrats under Trump to 32, and that number could possibly get larger pending the final calls a few remaining districts in Virginia and New Jersey.

By contrast, Republicans have only managed to flip a single state legislative seat from blue to red since Trump’s election — a House district in Louisiana where their candidate was running unopposed.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: BCCLE1 on November 11, 2017, 09:06:17 AM
Nov. 7, 2017 United States elections
Off-year election facts

Congressional special elections
Seats contested
6 House seats and 1 Senate seat
Net change
0
All Congressional special election seats were retained by the Republicans.

Gubernatorial elections
Seats contested
2
Net change
+1 Democrat, -1 Republican
So, only one state Gubernatorial seat changed hands from R to D.

Of the 50 states, after the 2017 elections, the number of states that the Republicans control vs the Democrats on the state Senate level is 36-R vs 14-D. The Republicans lost control of 1 state Senate. On the state House level, the Republicans have a 30-R vs 18-D lead.

Of the 7383 state legislative seats as of Nov 1, 2017, the Republicans have an approx. 1k seat lead over the Democrats. I do not think losing 32 state seats in the Nov. 7, 2017 elections means the Republicans have anything to worry about.

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2017


Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on November 11, 2017, 09:10:39 AM
^West Virginia Governor Jim Justice flipped from D to R earlier this year in order to make his Trump Central state happy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on November 12, 2017, 09:48:02 PM
I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

I've been saying for awhile that both parties have an issue that gains them very few votes and costs them many.  For the Republicans it's abortion, for the Democrats, it's gun control. 

I think both issues have that effect for the Democrats.  Lots of urban and/or union voters are against abortion; gun control is a tough sell in the small cities and rural areas.  Neither has any relation to the core economic message.

A lot of female voters would consider the GOP a lot more strongly if it wasn't for abortion, you may be right that the Dems also lose some votes but I suspect the balance is in their favor.   I doubt very much that many (if any) voters would switch from the Dems to the GOP if the national party quit supporting gun control, but they'd likely gain quite a few. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on November 15, 2017, 07:07:29 PM
Another immoral politician...

Ohio Senate Dems' chief of staff resigned after staff reported inappropriate behavior
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2017/11/ohio_senate_dems_chief_of_staf.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on November 15, 2017, 10:41:03 PM
Another immoral politician...

Ohio Senate Dems' chief of staff resigned after staff reported inappropriate behavior
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2017/11/ohio_senate_dems_chief_of_staf.html

It's bipartisan:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/11/ohio_rep_wes_goodman_resigns_o.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on November 16, 2017, 09:36:45 AM
Both parties are in divisive crises.

This is in some sense an artifact of our first past the post electoral system.  The parties are inherently coalitions because you need to be one of the top two parties in this country to wield real power (or check the power of the other top party), but there are of course more than two opinions represented among our 250 million or so eligible voters.  So the coalition politics that would occur at the level of the legislature itself in a proportional representation system occurs at the party level in a first-past-the-post system.

If we had a proportionally representative Congress with a 10% voting threshold, you'd see both the Republicans and Democrats split hard at this point, almost immediately.  Rand Paul and John McCain would not be in the same party.  Bernie Sanders and Doug Jones would not be in the same party.  Many of the traditionally Democratic voters who voted for Trump based on anti-globalist issues would form a more openly nationalist party (and more socialist one, despite the ugly historical connotations of mixing nationalism and socialism).  You'd have a Clintonite left-leaning globalist party straight out of the New York Times editorial page, a right-leaning globalist party in the WSJ/NR school, a left-leaning nationalist party (hard to say what its current voice would be, which is one reason why the voices of its likely members were completely missed in the run-up to the 2016 election, but likely something akin to the Social Democratic Party in Germany), and a right-leaning nationalist one in the Breitbart/Townhall camp.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on November 16, 2017, 09:40:25 AM
^I think you might have some other "parties" as well but they would be very minor.  But you have a pretty good analysis.  I would argue that the current GOP coalition and DNC coalition is each about 3- 5 parties with some overlap in the center.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on November 16, 2017, 09:51:02 AM
So the coalition politics that would occur at the level of the legislature itself in a proportional representation system occurs at the party level in a first-past-the-post system.

That's exactly it, and that's why I advocate for Democrats (and Republicans too) to cut the purity politics. Voters should understand not everyone in their party will be the same as them.

Proportional representation would be great. I actually was thinking a while ago, representation in a legislature based on geographical area of residence is sort of an arbitrary thing. It assumes everyone in a certain area has similar interests to each other and different interests to those in different areas. Why not, instead, have representation based on height, weight, profession, IQ, ethnic background, or Myers-Briggs Personality Type?

Proportional representation bypasses this need to categorize and basically gives people representation based on political views, instead of squeezing square pegs into round holes. It's more direct representation. It gives California evangelicals and Alabama socialists a voice.

Another relevant observation is if you just look at urban politics in our state, Cleveland City Council follows a ward system while Cincinnati and Columbus City Councils are at large. Political scientists have observed differences in outcomes between those systems.

But you're probably looking at changing 51 constitutions, so it's safe to assume our system is here to stay, and we need to figure out how to make it work.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on November 16, 2017, 10:02:57 AM
So the coalition politics that would occur at the level of the legislature itself in a proportional representation system occurs at the party level in a first-past-the-post system.

That's exactly it, and that's why I advocate for Democrats (and Republicans too) to cut the purity politics. Voters should understand not everyone in their party will be the same as them.

Proportional representation would be great. I actually was thinking a while ago, representation in a legislature based on geographical area of residence is sort of an arbitrary thing. It assumes everyone in a certain area has similar interests to each other and different interests to those in different areas. Why not, instead, have representation based on height, weight, profession, IQ, ethnic background, or Myers-Briggs Personality Type?

No dice.  Not enough high-IQ ENTJs to form a viable party.  I'd be SOL.

(And in seriousness, you don't want "ethnic background" to the basis, either, and I say that as one of America's still-dominant ethnic group of "various white European hodgepodge.")
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on November 16, 2017, 10:11:49 AM
Haha, I was just throwing stuff out there to make my point. Profession is an interesting one though.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 06, 2017, 11:44:57 AM
https://shareblue.com/first-time-candidates-26-point-win-breaks-gops-state-senate-supermajority-in-georgia/

Democrats are doing just fine.

Quote
On Tuesday night, most of the attention in Georgia went to a nail-bitingly close race for the mayor of Atlanta, with Democratic candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms winning by just a few hundred votes and a recount on the horizon.
But there was another, less noticed Democratic victory, in a special election that flipped a state Senate seat from red to blue — and ended a Republican supermajority in the chamber.
Georgia’s 6th Senate District, in north-central Atlanta, became vacant following Republican Hunter Hill’s resignation to run for governor. It will now be represented by Jen Jordan, a lawyer and first-time candidate who has fought for sexual assault survivors and victims of predatory lending in court, and sued to block Georgia voter suppression laws in 2006. She supports LGBT rights, public education, a $10.10 minimum wage, and health care expansion, and won numerous progressive endorsements from Daily Kos to NARAL.

Quote
The win is also significant because it officially ends the GOP supermajority in the Georgia Senate. Republicans already lost the supermajority in the state House of Representatives in November. This means if Democrats can win the governorship next year, Republican lawmakers will not have enough votes to automatically override vetoes, a scenario currently hamstringing Gov. Roy Cooper in North Carolina.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on December 06, 2017, 12:26:48 PM
That's not "fine" that's one vote short of a Republican supermajority.  The tortoise is so far ahead we can't even see it anymore.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 06, 2017, 12:29:23 PM
Only one seat for up for election.  This is the same pattern the GOP followed after the 2008 election.  2018 will be the test but we are seeing Dems make big gains.  They picked up 16 seats in VA alone.  The pendulum swings.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 06, 2017, 12:30:46 PM
^ Literally the type of sh*t that will keep them losing. First step of changing is acknowledging the need. You have before you a disenchanted fiscal conservative who would gladly vote for a Dem like Doug Jones. What I won't do, however, is get behind a party or movement led by an Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamela Harris, or Cory Booker.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 06, 2017, 12:32:51 PM
^ Sanders is not a democrat.  And the GOP has their share of kooks too.  Actually the kooks are running the GOP now.

also, whats wrong with Booker?  He is moderate AF.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on December 06, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
^ Literally the type of sh*t that will keep them losing. First step of changing is acknowledging the need. You have before you a disenchanted fiscal conservative who would gladly vote for a Dem like Doug Jones. What I won't do, however, is get behind a party or movement led by an Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamela Harris, or Cory Booker.

Honestly I think economic conservatism is how Democrats got in this mess.  So much focus on peeling off a Republican here and a Republican there while the Democratic base falls apart.  Politics is fundamentally about economics.  All the Democrats can offer now are weaker versions of Republican points.  What'll it be folks, free trade or FREE TRADE?  The one exception to this is global warming vs coal mines, and of course Democrats have fine tuned their stance to make the unions as angry as possible. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on December 06, 2017, 01:21:41 PM
Republicans also got very good at "Vote for us or no guns" "Think how we think or no guns" "Do as we say or no guns"
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 07, 2017, 10:24:22 AM
^ Sanders is not a democrat.  And the GOP has their share of kooks too.  Actually the kooks are running the GOP now.

also, whats wrong with Booker?  He is moderate AF.

A. Booker is not moderate for a Senator, not at all. McCaskill, Bayth, Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly... those are moderate dems.

B. If Bernie Sanders is not a Dem then why is the DNC bending over backwards to accommodate his agenda and also entertaining the idea of him running in 2020.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 10:30:38 AM
What is not moderate about booker?

Sanders is an independent - Not a democrat

The senators you mentioned are conservative democrats not moderates.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 10:39:15 AM
Sanders is going to be 79 in 2020.  Let's be real here, he's not going to be POTUS in Jan. 2021, let alone be a serious candidate in 2020.  Unless he has some magic elixir that is de-aging him.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 07, 2017, 10:41:28 AM
^There is little conservative about their voting record except save Donnelly and Manchin.

Additionally, Bernie ran as a Democrat, he caucuses as a democrat, and he uses the Democratic Party like a side piece whenever he needs some action.

Booker - while I concede he can be considered a moderate on some issues like neighborhood development via jobs and not government assistance, is in support of:

- $15/Minimum wage
- Single payer healthcare
- Staunchly pro-choice
- Cap and trade

Support for those four without exception will land you to the left.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 10:45:08 AM
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2015/senate/ideology

Booker ranked as the 25th most liberal Senator according to Gov Track in 2015 (take it fwiw). 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on December 07, 2017, 10:47:07 AM
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2015/senate/ideology

Booker ranked as the 25th most liberal Senator according to Gov Track in 2015 (take it fwiw). 

Booker has also shown a penchant for working with the other side, which in today's political climate I think is worth something.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0708/Rand-Paul-Cory-Booker-bromance-how-two-political-opposites-attracted
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 10:47:20 AM
Those four issues will put someone on the left for you. 

- Cap and trade was originally a conservative idea.  But this is when conservatives didn't pretend that science didn't exist and instead wanted to use market based solutions to deal with a real threat.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 07, 2017, 12:03:28 PM
^Lol true that re: cap and trade. However, ideas do shift, and the fact that it now lands firmly to the left doesn't change the fact that it indicates his liberal leanings.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 12:07:17 PM
Yabo - I like you but that makes no sense.  It was a conservative idea it still is a conservative.  It is based on market principles. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on December 07, 2017, 12:20:21 PM
Obamacare was originally a Republican idea, most of it anyway.  It places insurance profits above provision of healthcare, lets them walk away if unsatisfied, but its critics claim it's socialized medicine.  Republicans have done a good job of convincing everyone the old right is the new center, and eventually the new left.   

Yabo - I like you but that makes no sense.  It was a conservative idea it still is a conservative.  It is based on market principles. 

Perfect example.  It can't be a conservative idea because despite the market principles it's still a regulation.  If you really believed in market principles, you'd give polluters free reign.  They've been pushed around long enough.  Did I say pushed around?  i meant persecuted!  Only a left wing extremist would allow such torture to persist.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on December 07, 2017, 12:36:29 PM
Today's conservative economic thinking is based on staying home from class the day they talked about externalities.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 12:40:00 PM
American politics today is basically, if you admit that externalities and market failures exist, then you are a Marxist.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on December 07, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
At Ohio's 1912 constitutional convention, Teddy Roosevelt insisted he was not a communist but maintained that the bigger a business gets, the bigger the problems it can cause.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on December 07, 2017, 01:50:32 PM
This is a searing indictment of the Democrat party and the feminist excuses for Bill Clinton's horrific behavior at the time. It seems like their chickens have finally come home to roost. Re Franken: notice he didn't actually resign today, but "in coming weeks" hmmmm ;)

I Believe Franken’s Accusers Because He Groped Me, Too
The Democratic Party needs to stand with women who have been harassed—and not defend the politicians who abused them.

Dia Dipasupil / Getty / Katie Martin / The Atlantic
TINA DUPUY  DEC 6, 2017 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/i-believe-frankens-accusers-because-he-groped-me-too/547691/
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 01:54:46 PM
^ When is Blake Farenthold gonna resign? 

When is Donald Trump gonna resign?

What about pedophile Moore?

the Gross Old Perverts have ceded any moral high ground.  It would be best to lay low on sexual assault/ harassment bashing based on political parties when only one party is doing something,
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on December 07, 2017, 02:08:02 PM
Is there a complete running list handy somewhere? My assumption would be that for every Republican who has been accused in this new post-Weinstein world, there are 5-10 Democrats - mostly because the bulk of accusations have been made against wealthy Democrat donors and supporters in the entertainment and media worlds. It's interesting that we haven't really seen these accusations enter corporate or blue collar realms where you'd typically find Republican donors and supporters, yet they're becoming pervasive in Hollywood and the media.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 02:08:39 PM
Politicians who are resigning (announced in recent weeks): Al Franken, John Conyers

Politicians who are not resigning: Donald Trump, Blake Farenthold, Roy Moore

Hmmm.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 02:11:01 PM
^^ If you believe that there is an any appreciable difference in the rate of sexual assault/harassment by political affiliation then I assume you are trolling.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on December 07, 2017, 02:13:50 PM
Maybe Franken can still run for president.  Maybe this even helps.  "Three years ago I saw the light and did what was right.  Al Franken.  Paid for by Al Franken."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 02:15:28 PM
Why does he need to see the light?  Trump got elected bragging about sexual assault all the way to the White House.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on December 07, 2017, 02:33:22 PM
Why does he need to see the light?  Trump got elected bragging about sexual assault all the way to the White House.

making an off-color, offhand remark off-camera on some silly celebrity-driven entertainment show (for which he subsequently apologized) is hardly "bragging about sexual assault!" Let's try and maintain some perspective.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 07, 2017, 02:36:05 PM
^ He admitted to sexually assaulting women.  Don't let your partisanship blind you. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Sir2geez on December 07, 2017, 02:43:40 PM
"Grab'em by the p#$$y, you can do anything."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 07, 2017, 03:13:30 PM
Why does he need to see the light?  Trump got elected bragging about sexual assault all the way to the White House.

making an off-color, offhand remark off-camera on some silly celebrity-driven entertainment show (for which he subsequently apologized) is hardly "bragging about sexual assault!" Let's try and maintain some perspective.

Quote
I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.

I did try and fuck her. She was married.

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.

Quote
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.

This is sexual assault.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on December 07, 2017, 05:01:05 PM
Is there a complete running list handy somewhere? My assumption would be that for every Republican who has been accused in this new post-Weinstein world, there are 5-10 Democrats - mostly because the bulk of accusations have been made against wealthy Democrat donors and supporters in the entertainment and media worlds. It's interesting that we haven't really seen these accusations enter corporate or blue collar realms where you'd typically find Republican donors and supporters, yet they're becoming pervasive in Hollywood and the media.

Of course it's running ahead....Republicans like to pay off the women and sign them up for non-disclosures.   See Bill O'Reinstein and most of the rest of the Fox News on air staff.... ::)
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jmecklenborg on December 07, 2017, 05:16:37 PM
Politicians who are resigning (announced in recent weeks): Al Franken, John Conyers

Politicians who are not resigning: Donald Trump, Blake Farenthold, Roy Moore

Hmmm.

This is a pretty brilliant move by the Democrats.  Killing off Franken for offenses that were a fraction of what Moore and no doubt others have committed means they can put huge pressure on Moore to resign if he does win the special election, which I assume forces yet another special election. 




Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 08, 2017, 08:46:06 AM
making an off-color, offhand remark off-camera on some silly celebrity-driven entertainment show (for which he subsequently apologized) is hardly "bragging about sexual assault!" Let's try and maintain some perspective.

Stop. I played four years of college football and literally never heard a teammate talking about walking up to a girl and grabbing them by the pu**y. And I heard some VULGAR stuff in that locker room.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: TheCOV on December 08, 2017, 09:07:54 AM
Is there a complete running list handy somewhere? My assumption would be that for every Republican who has been accused in this new post-Weinstein world, there are 5-10 Democrats - mostly because the bulk of accusations have been made against wealthy Democrat donors and supporters in the entertainment and media worlds. It's interesting that we haven't really seen these accusations enter corporate or blue collar realms where you'd typically find Republican donors and supporters, yet they're becoming pervasive in Hollywood and the media.

Of course it's running ahead....Republicans like to pay off the women and sign them up for non-disclosures.   See Bill O'Reinstein and most of the rest of the Fox News on air staff.... ::)


I'm not sure why people are so surprised the accused seem to contain guys from the political and entertainment world. It's because they are famous or public figures. I'm pretty sure men are just as awful across the spectrum.....see Catholic priest scandal for more evidence.
None of my female friends who have experienced extreme harassment, up to and including rape, are going to generate the kind of media storm as if their perp had been a Moore or Franken.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 08, 2017, 09:26:31 AM
making an off-color, offhand remark off-camera on some silly celebrity-driven entertainment show (for which he subsequently apologized) is hardly "bragging about sexual assault!" Let's try and maintain some perspective.

Stop. I played four years of college football and literally never heard a teammate talking about walking up to a girl and grabbing them by the pu**y. And I heard some VULGAR stuff in that locker room.

Hey, all real men brag about rape with their friends.  What are you some kind of PC snowflake?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: TBideon on December 08, 2017, 10:47:42 AM
I've made similar comments on the Trump forum, but this whole "grab them by the p-ssy" was a vastly overblown issue, frankly a huge misfire by the left. Trump IS most likely a rapist (just ask his first wife) and without a question a sexual harasser, abuser, and overall pariah. No question about it, he's of the some ilk of Cosby, Sandusky, Ailes, Weinstein, Spacey... and almost certainly the vast majority of male Hollywood stars as well as political and financial leaders. People at that position are generally sociopaths who see abusing women as their right, and Trump certainly leads the charge.

BUT, I feel there is manufactured outrage with THIS particular controversy. I don't know if "locker room" talk is the right phrase, but a lot of guys, perhaps most, say some absolutely crazy shit sometimes, and that includes vile, sexual comments. I think we all do some version of the Aristocrats with our friends at some point; sometime it's a competition to see who can shock the other person the most; other times it's a way of feeding one's ego in trying to impress others. There is nothing new about verbal diarrhea, and I think you have to be crazy to see this hyperbole as a literal admission of rape or sexual abuse, despite the irony that Trump obviously has a history and proclivity of sexual harassment/violence.

And to these white knights claiming they haven't ever said something as bad as Trump here... I'm calling bullshit.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 08, 2017, 10:50:47 AM
I've made similar comments on the Trump forum, but this whole "grab them by the p-ssy" was a vastly overblown issue, frankly a huge misfire by the left. Trump IS most likely a rapist (just ask his first wife) and without a question a sexual harasser, abuser, and overall pariah. No question about it, he's of the some ilk of Cosby, Sandusky, Ailes, Weinstein, Spacey... and almost certainly the vast majority of male Hollywood stars as well as political and financial leaders. People at that position are generally sociopaths who see abusing women as their right, and Trump certainly leads the charge.

BUT, I feel there is manufactured outrage with THIS particular controversy. I don't know if "locker room" talk is the right phrase, but a lot of guys, perhaps most, say some absolutely crazy shit sometimes, and that includes vile, sexual comments. I think we all do some version of the Aristocrats with our friends at some point; sometime it's a competition to see who can shock the other person the most; other times it's a way of feeding one's ego in trying to impress others. There is nothing new about verbal diarrhea, and I think you have to be crazy to see this hyperbole as an actual admission of rape or sexual abuse, despite the irony that Trump obviously has a history and proclivity of sexual harassment/violence.

And to these white knights saying they haven't ever said something as bad as Trump here... I'm calling bullshit.

You think all of us men have bragged about sexual assault at some point.  Methinks you need to self reflect a bit or find some new friends.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: smith on December 08, 2017, 10:53:09 AM
I've made similar comments on the Trump forum, but this whole "grab them by the p-ssy" was a vastly overblown issue, frankly a huge misfire by the left. Trump IS most likely a rapist (just ask his first wife) and without a question a sexual harasser, abuser, and overall pariah. No question about it, he's of the some ilk of Cosby, Sandusky, Ailes, Weinstein, Spacey... and almost certainly the vast majority of male Hollywood stars as well as political and financial leaders. People at that position are generally sociopaths who see abusing women as their right, and Trump certainly leads the charge.

BUT, I feel there is manufactured outrage with THIS particular controversy. I don't know if "locker room" talk is the right phrase, but a lot of guys, perhaps most, say some absolutely crazy shit sometimes, and that includes vile, sexual comments. I think we all do some version of the Aristocrats with our friends at some point; sometime it's a competition to see who can shock the other person the most; other times it's a way of feeding one's ego in trying to impress others. There is nothing new about verbal diarrhea, and I think you have to be crazy to see this hyperbole as an actual admission of rape or sexual abuse, despite the irony that Trump obviously has a history and proclivity of sexual harassment/violence.

And to these white knights saying they haven't ever said something as bad as Trump here... I'm calling bullshit.

You think all of us men have bragged about sexual assault at some point.  Methinks you need to self reflect a bit or find some new friends.

AND... accepting the assertion that all men do this, which I'm not, is it so much to ask that OUR PRESIDENT be held to a higher standard??
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: TBideon on December 08, 2017, 10:58:15 AM
I don't think verbal diarrhea is anything new.

Politicians cheat. Some get caught, most don't. But they do.  And with the awful things Trump has said and done both during and before his presidency, this is significantly unimportant taken as a whole. He's been a far bigger bastard in many more impactful ways that should be the focus.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 08, 2017, 11:00:53 AM
^ Cheating and raping are 2 different things.  Kissing women without consent is akin to rape not cheating.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: TBideon on December 08, 2017, 11:08:47 AM
If you think kissing without consent is as invasive, traumatic, and life-changing as bodily rape, well, I see it a bit differently.

And there are certain power dynamics between men, especially those of high status, and women (who lack such status) in which cheating and sexual assault have a close connection. I think you have to be naïve to think that married men of power who womanize don't manipulate, harass, coerce, and even assault as well.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 08, 2017, 11:12:41 AM
^ A man who brags about kissing women without consent is a piece of work.  This is not regular guy talk no matter how much you to pretend that your friends are normal.  I agree that the power dynamics are important.  You are really making my point for me.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: smith on December 08, 2017, 11:15:05 AM
If you think kissing without consent is as invasive, traumatic, and life-changing as bodily rape, well, I see it a bit differently.

And there are certain power dynamics between men, especially those of high status, and women (who lack such status) in which cheating and sexual assault have a close connection. I think you have to be naïve to think that married men of power who womanize don't manipulate, harass, coerce, and even assault as well.

Sure, If someone cut someone else with a knife it also wouldn't be as life changing as stabbing them.  Doesn't make it any more acceptable. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Robuu on December 08, 2017, 11:42:18 AM
Prior to the Access Hollywood video coming out, women had come forward describing experiences with Trump victimizing them in ways similar to the ways Trump brags about victimizing women in the video. Maybe some men talk like that without meaning it, but the accusations and the talk together make it look like he was speaking from experience and inadvertently confirming the allegations.

When, independently, you have record of people saying he does this and record of him saying I do this, this amounts to extremely strong evidence to conclude that he does this.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: TheCOV on December 08, 2017, 12:29:02 PM
I've made similar comments on the Trump forum, but this whole "grab them by the p-ssy" was a vastly overblown issue, frankly a huge misfire by the left. Trump IS most likely a rapist (just ask his first wife) and without a question a sexual harasser, abuser, and overall pariah. No question about it, he's of the some ilk of Cosby, Sandusky, Ailes, Weinstein, Spacey... and almost certainly the vast majority of male Hollywood stars as well as political and financial leaders. People at that position are generally sociopaths who see abusing women as their right, and Trump certainly leads the charge.

BUT, I feel there is manufactured outrage with THIS particular controversy. I don't know if "locker room" talk is the right phrase, but a lot of guys, perhaps most, say some absolutely crazy shit sometimes, and that includes vile, sexual comments. I think we all do some version of the Aristocrats with our friends at some point; sometime it's a competition to see who can shock the other person the most; other times it's a way of feeding one's ego in trying to impress others. There is nothing new about verbal diarrhea, and I think you have to be crazy to see this hyperbole as a literal admission of rape or sexual abuse, despite the irony that Trump obviously has a history and proclivity of sexual harassment/violence.

And to these white knights claiming they haven't ever said something as bad as Trump here... I'm calling bullshit.

Not all, but I do think a lot of guys say ridiculous things around friends. But Billy Bush isn't Trumps close friend, and saying crap like that during the course of hanging out while being interviewed leads me to believe Trump is guilty of this. Or, he at the very least has suspect decision making skills to spout off in this context.
i wonder what Freud would think of Trumps behaviors??
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on December 08, 2017, 12:55:13 PM
I might have many friends who have said something along the lines of "i would like to do x" but what Trump said is "i habitually do x and get away with it because of my social status."

The locker room talk argument is trying to make the latter seem like the former and they're different.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on December 08, 2017, 12:58:56 PM
And as I think about this further, I might also have had friends who lie about sexual conquests. They say "I did x" when they didn't - that's definitely common.

But what makes Trump's comments so heinous is the "I get away with it because of my social status" part. Because if he was lying, there'd really be no reason to include that or even think of it. The only people who say that are those who know it and act on it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 08, 2017, 01:02:17 PM
^ I think bragging about sexual conquests, talking about what you'd like to do with women, and even crude comments about their bodies fall within the acceptable realm of "locker room talk."  I am no prude or white knight here.  I have done my fair share of that and still do to an extent when I get out with just the guys.  But bragging about sexual assault is something else altogether.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on December 08, 2017, 02:33:26 PM
But what makes Trump's comments so heinous is the "I get away with it because of my social status" part. Because if he was lying, there'd really be no reason to include that or even think of it. The only people who say that are those who know it and act on it.

In your mind, no, but in his mind, yes there is.  He's a narcissist.  From the narcissistic perspective, there is reason to make that brag whether or not it's true: It's your self-testimony that you're a "BIG DEAL."  You're "special."

EDIT: Remember that long-ago crazy thing he said (I know it's hard to keep up with more being added all the time) when asked about what foreign policy experts he'd likely consult for his administration?  He said "myself."  Same narcissistic mentality at work.  Guy probably can't find Syria on a map, maybe not even using Google Maps.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on December 08, 2017, 03:10:04 PM
But what makes Trump's comments so heinous is the "I get away with it because of my social status" part. Because if he was lying, there'd really be no reason to include that or even think of it. The only people who say that are those who know it and act on it.

In your mind, no, but in his mind, yes there is.  He's a narcissist.  From the narcissistic perspective, there is reason to make that brag whether or not it's true: It's your self-testimony that you're a "BIG DEAL."  You're "special."

EDIT: Remember that long-ago crazy thing he said (I know it's hard to keep up with more being added all the time) when asked about what foreign policy experts he'd likely consult for his administration?  He said "myself."  Same narcissistic mentality at work.  Guy probably can't find Syria on a map, maybe not even using Google Maps.

Considering the way he changed his tune vis a vis Islam between his early candidacy and his Presidency, at least he listens to those who know more.  Sometimes.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on December 08, 2017, 03:22:36 PM
But what makes Trump's comments so heinous is the "I get away with it because of my social status" part. Because if he was lying, there'd really be no reason to include that or even think of it. The only people who say that are those who know it and act on it.

In your mind, no, but in his mind, yes there is.  He's a narcissist.  From the narcissistic perspective, there is reason to make that brag whether or not it's true: It's your self-testimony that you're a "BIG DEAL."  You're "special."

EDIT: Remember that long-ago crazy thing he said (I know it's hard to keep up with more being added all the time) when asked about what foreign policy experts he'd likely consult for his administration?  He said "myself."  Same narcissistic mentality at work.  Guy probably can't find Syria on a map, maybe not even using Google Maps.

I'm fairly certain that pointing out his narcissism is a poor way to try defend him from the likelihood that he was discussing actual sexual assaults.  Narcissism is one of the prime correlations to likelihood that a man has or will commit sexual assault.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 11, 2017, 03:39:35 PM
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/11/16748716/chart-democrats-2018-midterms-elections

There are already a record number of Democrats running in the 2018 mid-term elections.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 12, 2017, 10:28:58 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Trump stumped for the pedophile and now he lost.  I was told pro-choice dems can't win.  One less senate vote for the trump agenda.   HAAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on December 12, 2017, 10:32:18 PM
Non-denominational holidays come early this year, happy holidays everybody!
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 12, 2017, 10:35:24 PM
How bad is this for Republicans?  Trump is so bad that he caused the GOP to lose a senate seat in Alabama.  If I'm Ted Cruz, I'm getting nervous.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on December 12, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
Rs are clinging to their admittedly excellent Senate map as a sign they'll be ok, but it's not hard to imagine all Senate Ds winning reelection. None of them are retiring, all will have incumbency advantage and it'll be a strong +D environment. Combine that with potential pickups in Arizona, Nevada, and hell maybe even Nebraska and Texas, we could have a Democratic Congress being sworn in a year from now.

Also one has to imagine what this means for Steve Bannon's freakshow. Mitch McConnell and the "establishment" probably regained some credibility tonight even as they lost a Senate seat.

One last thought - recall the Scott Brown special election in 2010.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 12, 2017, 11:35:09 PM
Breitbart's gonna be must-read for a few days. How many phony voter fraud stories will they run? https://t.co/1I5Ogow9fx
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 13, 2017, 07:16:30 AM
Mitch McConnell Vows Not To Seat Democratically Elected Doug Jones Until After Tax Vote
http://verifiedpolitics.com/mitch-mcconnell-vows-not-seat-democratically-elected-doug-jones-tax-vote/
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on December 13, 2017, 07:38:09 AM
How bad is this for Republicans?  Trump is so bad that he caused the GOP to lose a senate seat in Alabama.  If I'm Ted Cruz, I'm getting nervous.

His candidate (Luther Strange) would have won by 20.  His "support" for Moore was grudging at best.  Moore lost because he represents the GOP at its worst.  He's this year's Hillary.   Hell, Senator Shelby publicly refused to vote for him.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 13, 2017, 08:42:43 AM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on December 13, 2017, 09:31:51 AM
Ironic that the link is named "Verified Politics" when I can't verify that from any other source yet.  Or at least Google can't.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 09:33:25 AM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

McConnell has shown he doesn't give a **** about the Constitution.  He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination for a year just to give Obama the middle finger for....reasons?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 13, 2017, 09:35:03 AM
When my buddy's ask why I bailed on the GOP... it's sh** like that. We've been exposed as frauds who only care about the Constitution when it is politically expedient.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on December 13, 2017, 09:37:45 AM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

McConnell has shown he doesn't give a **** about the Constitution.  He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination for a year just to give Obama the middle finger for....reasons?

McConnell was fully within his constitutional prerogatives to deny Garland or any Obama nominee a vote.  The president cannot force the Senate to act any more than the Senate can force the president to act.  (Obama likewise would have been within his prerogatives not to nominate anyone.)
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 09:44:17 AM
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/joness-victory-shows-why-democrats-must-compete-everywhere.html

Doug Jones’s Victory Shows Why Democrats Must Compete Everywhere

Quote
The Democratic Party has long made a habit of forfeiting races in hostile territory. In 2016, Democrats didn’t even run congressional candidates in every district that Hillary Clinton won. And throughout last year’s campaign, Clinton raised money for the Democrats’ red-state parties — only to funnel virtually all of it back into her presidential bid.

Quote
By neglecting to run compelling, state-level candidates in red states, Democrats have prevented many left-leaning constituencies from developing that custom. The party’s demographic disadvantages would be significantly ameliorated if nonwhite Americans registered to vote — and then, showed up at the polls — at the same rates as their white counterparts. According to the Census Bureau, 74 percent of non-Hispanic whites are registered to vote in the U.S. For African-Americans, that figure is 69 percent; for Latinos, it’s 57.

"Yesterday, 18 people signed up to @runforsomething. Today, it’s not even 8am ET and 40 people have signed up to run. Wins help candidate recruitment which helps create more wins. ✨" via https://twitter.com/amandalitman/status/940925682070228992
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 13, 2017, 09:44:24 AM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

McConnell has shown he doesn't give a **** about the Constitution.  He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination for a year just to give Obama the middle finger for....reasons?

McConnell was fully within his constitutional prerogatives to deny Garland or any Obama nominee a vote.  The president cannot force the Senate to act any more than the Senate can force the president to act.  (Obama likewise would have been within his prerogatives not to nominate anyone.)

He was not within his Constitutional rights to deny a vote, however.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 09:47:37 AM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

McConnell has shown he doesn't give a **** about the Constitution.  He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination for a year just to give Obama the middle finger for....reasons?

McConnell was fully within his constitutional prerogatives to deny Garland or any Obama nominee a vote.  The president cannot force the Senate to act any more than the Senate can force the president to act.  (Obama likewise would have been within his prerogatives not to nominate anyone.)

Oh right...they literally CHANGED THE RULES TO MAKE IT CONVENIENT FOR THEMSELVES.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html?mtrref=en.wikipedia.org&gwh=3ADDFF5DD7598137404A926D53EEAC8D&gwt=pay

Playing politics with the Supreme Court of the land by sitting on a nomination for a year...yeah, tell me how much Republicans care about democracy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on December 13, 2017, 10:42:45 AM
When my buddy's ask why I bailed on the GOP... it's sh** like that. We've been exposed as frauds who only care about the Constitution when it is politically expedient.

They treat it the same way they treat The Bible.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on December 13, 2017, 12:11:53 PM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

McConnell has shown he doesn't give a **** about the Constitution.  He sat on Merrick Garland's nomination for a year just to give Obama the middle finger for....reasons?

McConnell was fully within his constitutional prerogatives to deny Garland or any Obama nominee a vote.  The president cannot force the Senate to act any more than the Senate can force the president to act.  (Obama likewise would have been within his prerogatives not to nominate anyone.)

He was not within his Constitutional rights to deny a vote, however.

?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 02:01:34 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ5i63uVoAAfcuB.jpg)

Roy Moore has a higher favorability rating in Alabama than Ted Cruz does in Texas.

Look out in 2018, Ted Cruz.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 13, 2017, 02:15:59 PM
@DarkandStormy ... I am happy Doug Jones, I am. I am truly proud of Alabama. But any other Republican candidate that didn't molest kids would won by 20,000 votes. The Cruz analogy doesn't hold up for that reason
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 02:26:05 PM
@DarkandStormy ... I am happy Doug Jones, I am. I am truly proud of Alabama. But any other Republican candidate that didn't molest kids would won by 20,000 votes. The Cruz analogy doesn't hold up for that reason

And 20,000 votes would have been the smallest margin of victory by a Republican Senate candidate in 25 years in Alabama.

Ted Cruz has a worse favorability rating than Moore, in a less-red state.  That seat is flippable if a Democratic wave happens in 2018.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 13, 2017, 02:37:42 PM
@DarkandStormy ... I am happy Doug Jones, I am. I am truly proud of Alabama. But any other Republican candidate that didn't molest kids would won by 20,000 votes. The Cruz analogy doesn't hold up for that reason

And 20,000 votes would have been the smallest margin of victory by a Republican Senate candidate in 25 years in Alabama.

Ted Cruz has a worse favorability rating than Moore, in a less-red state.  That seat is flippable if a Democratic wave happens in 2018.

You might be right. Fingers crossed, Southern Dems and Midwestern GOP tend to be my favorite types of Senators.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Foraker on December 13, 2017, 03:21:33 PM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

While I share your concern, I don’t think Republicans have said that they’re going to delay seating Doug Jones so that they can vote on the tax bill.  I think they’re just planning to call a vote on the tax bill before he is even eligible to be seated.  I don’t think we’re seeing anything nefarious here, yet. You can hold onto your pitchfork, but wait to march on Washington over this issue.

While I would like to see all 100 Senators present and accounted for for all votes, that's not a requirement.

My understanding is that the vote in Alabama won't be certified until after the absentee and provisional ballots are counted, and Alabama law says that a certain amount of time has to pass after election day before the vote is certified to allow for the counting to be completed.  In the current circumstances, the earliest the vote can be certified is December 26.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/too_soon_to_know_whether_recou.html

Congress plans to vote on the tax bill next week.  But Doug Jones won't be eligible to be seated in the Senate until the state of Alabama certifies the election results (on or after December 26).  I would prefer that they delay the vote, but so far we don't know that they are going to delay seating Doug Jones after he is eligible to push more votes through the Senate.


I haven't heard of any plans to refuse to seat him for a month after the certification.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 03:38:44 PM
This is important. Like, march on Washington important.

Mitch McConnel just announced that he is going to refuse to seat Doug Jones for a month, until after Republicans vote again on the tax plan.

This is just plain wrong.

While I share your concern, I don’t think Republicans have said that they’re going to delay seating Doug Jones so that they can vote on the tax bill.  I think they’re just planning to call a vote on the tax bill before he is even eligible to be seated.  I don’t think we’re seeing anything nefarious here, yet. You can hold onto your pitchfork, but wait to march on Washington over this issue.

Quote
In January 2010, Democrats were one final roll call vote away from enacting health care reform when Republicans unexpectedly won a special Senate election in Massachusetts. McConnell, who was then the Senate Minority Leader, took great umbrage at the idea that Democrats would let a lame-duck interim senator cast the deciding vote on historic legislation. Once the results of the special election were in, though, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) headed off the confrontation by pledging not to vote for any health care legislation until Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) had been sworn in.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 13, 2017, 03:46:35 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/13/16770972/doug-jones-senate-2018-elections

There is now a viable path for a Democrat majority in the Senate.

The keys hinge on holding every seat up for re-election - no easy task as that includes five incumbents in states Trump won in 2016 handily and five more in swing states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida).  That's 10 incumbents in states that Trump won just 13 months ago.

The two most obvious targets are Jeff Flake's seat in Arizona (retiring) and Dean Heller in Nevada (the only Republican up for re-election in a state Clinton won in 2016).  Hold the line and flip those two = 51-49 Democrat majority.

Of course, it's possible (even likely) the Democrats will lose a seat or two they currently hold in one of those Trump state.  Next, they'd look to Corker (also retiring) in Tennessee and Ted Cruz in Texas - Trump won by just 9 points in 2016 in what was an under-the-radar closer than expected margin.

There are just four other Republican seats up in 2018 - all in deeply red states (but so was Alabama).  Those likely stay red, but you never know.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on December 13, 2017, 09:05:16 PM
When my buddy's ask why I bailed on the GOP... it's sh** like that. We've been exposed as frauds who only care about the Constitution when it is politically expedient.

This has always been the way of the GOP.  Just like in 2009 when they were railing on Obama in front of TV cameras for the stimulus package, then cranking out funding requests letters for swamp bridges, ethanol studies and experimental fighter planes that the Pentagon didn't want.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 14, 2017, 12:00:52 AM
All Democrats need to campaign on a Second Voting Rights Act: automatic voter registration, restoring voting rights for ex-felons, repeal of voter ID laws, non-partisan redistricting commissions, and making Election Day a national holiday.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on December 14, 2017, 05:47:52 AM
@DarkandStormy ... I am happy Doug Jones, I am. I am truly proud of Alabama. But any other Republican candidate that didn't molest kids would won by 20,000 votes. The Cruz analogy doesn't hold up for that reason

200,000.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 18, 2017, 12:05:41 AM
It wont make any difference until we get a constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United: https://movetoamend.org/

Poll: Most voters now want Democrats to control Congress https://t.co/1mYYa2kDL0
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 20, 2017, 09:48:10 AM
https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/democrat-wins-virginia-house-seat-by-vote-ending-gop-s/article_bbb3bb17-b131-5643-afd0-a1a7aadad1e2.html

After a recount, Democrat Shelly Simonds won Virginia's 94th House of Delegates district by, get this, a single vote.  11,608 to 11,607.

This leaves Virginia's House of Delegates as a 50-50 tie between Republicans and Democrats, the first time in EIGHTEEN YEARS Republicans do not hold a majority in that state.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 20, 2017, 09:55:52 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/17/politics/doug-jones-sotu-cnntv/index.html

Doug Jones...what are you doing? 

Quote
Doug Jones: Trump shouldn't resign over sexual misconduct allegations

http://www.insidenova.com/news/politics/prince_william/medicaid-comments-muddy-northam-s-election-pledge/article_5f8cec54-e4f0-11e7-b91b-3b134689a855.html

Ralph Northam...what are you doing?

Quote
Northam told the Washington Post that he was wary of the costs associated with expanding the healthcare program under the Affordable Care Act, stressing that he wanted to explore ways to “provide better service and at the same time cut costs” by tinkering with the program’s eligibility requirements. He also suggested that he wants Medicaid recipients — which generally include low-income people, but also children and pregnant women — to get more training and enter the workforce rather than depend on the program for health insurance.

Quote
Gov.-elect Ralph Northam relentlessly promised to expand Medicaid in Virginia over roughly a year of campaigning, and many Prince William Democrats followed his lead — but is the man at the top of the ticket having second thoughts?

This isn't hard...if you run on liberal or progressive values, you should live up to that.  Democrat voters will be PO'd at you if you start "triangulating" your positions like Clinton.  Run as yourself, whatever that may be, campaign on what's important, but then actually LIVE UP TO THOSE CAMPAIGN PROMISES.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 20, 2017, 10:07:43 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/17/politics/doug-jones-sotu-cnntv/index.html

Doug Jones...what are you doing? 

Quote
Doug Jones: Trump shouldn't resign over sexual misconduct allegations

Trying to keep a Democratic hold on an Alabama Senate seat. Brilliant politicking.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 20, 2017, 10:34:03 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/17/politics/doug-jones-sotu-cnntv/index.html

Doug Jones...what are you doing? 

Quote
Doug Jones: Trump shouldn't resign over sexual misconduct allegations

Trying to keep a Democratic hold on an Alabama Senate seat. Brilliant politicking.

He hasn't even been seated.

If you're going to take a stand that sexual assault is wrong, we should listen to women, etc. etc.  you shouldn't come out and basically say that these women's stories don't matter.  Or "leave it up to voters."  Be better than that.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 20, 2017, 10:37:51 AM
^ I think he is trying to play the game.  Come across as a reasonable moderate to the voters of Alabama and maybe have a chance to hold the seat.  It's a good strategy because I would prefer the seat to remain in the hands of a moderate democrat than any southern Republican.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 20, 2017, 10:41:11 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/17/politics/doug-jones-sotu-cnntv/index.html

Doug Jones...what are you doing? 

Quote
Doug Jones: Trump shouldn't resign over sexual misconduct allegations

Trying to keep a Democratic hold on an Alabama Senate seat. Brilliant politicking.

He hasn't even been seated.

If you're going to take a stand that sexual assault is wrong, we should listen to women, etc. etc.  you shouldn't come out and basically say that these women's stories don't matter.  Or "leave it up to voters."  Be better than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx4suHvb4cI


Here... what good is a seat if you cant achieve your legislative agenda... heed Mr. Lincoln's words.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on December 20, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
In fairness to President Lincoln, for issues that don't rise to the level of national survival and civil war, or to Big Issues like slavery, holding the seat without being able to achieve your legislative agenda is still worth more than half a loaf if it stops your opponents from being able to enact their own legislative agenda.  Even if Doug Jones becomes an even more conservative Democrat than Joe Manchin, think of the judicial confirmation hearing math.  I guarantee you that math is not lost on McConnell or the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 20, 2017, 01:21:12 PM
My point with the Lincoln post was this...

Democrats get soooo tied up with the symbolism of things - i.e. bathroom rights, trigger warnings, and everything else the right makes fun of them for... that they forget that it is legislation that makes the impact on people's lives.

Calling for Trump's resignation is great, sure. But you - and Doug Jones - know very well that isn't happening. So, why would he alienate the support and political capital he is going to rely on in one of the darkest red states in the union over something that will be a non-issue?

I'm a conservative, but I am proud that Doug Jones represents the American people in the Senate. His record of public service is impeccable. He will make an impact for the better in the United States, but that won't happen if he has no chance of retaining the mechanism with which he can make that change.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 20, 2017, 01:24:20 PM
TBF the conservatives have their trigger warnings, PC language and snowflakey behavior.  And bathroom rights are seriously important even if people get made fun of for it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 20, 2017, 02:10:30 PM
TBF the conservatives have their trigger warnings, PC language and snowflakey behavior.  And bathroom rights are seriously important even if people get made fun of for it.

They absolutely do. Whataboutism aside, my point was geared towards how Dems need to recognize that it's legislation, not holier than thou rhetoric that makes an impact on lives.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 20, 2017, 04:06:37 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/cnn-poll-democrats-advantage-grows-2018/index.html

Democrats open up 18-point lead in generic 2018 Congressional poll.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 21, 2017, 08:59:47 AM
https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/943596029068312576

A tidal wave is coming.  ^^This thread.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 21, 2017, 09:08:04 AM
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/943530754881015808

No, seriously, a tidal wave.

Quote
Live interview generic ballot polls in December
CNN D+18
Quinnipiac D+15
Monmouth D+15
Marist D+13
POS (R) D+12
NBC/WSJ D+11
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 21, 2017, 09:11:07 AM
If the midterm election were today, it would be a bloodbath for Republicans.  A lot can happen in a year.  We'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 21, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
If the midterm election were today, it would be a bloodbath for Republicans.  A lot can happen in a year.  We'll have to wait and see.

True, yes.  But the GOP has made it a point to pass some of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in modern history - their efforts to repeal ACA (a program with a 57% approval rating), passing of the tax bill (which has a sub-30% approval rating), failing the DREAMers, letting CHIP fall by the wayside...they haven't yet put themselves in a position to point to some positives for their constituents.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 21, 2017, 09:58:13 AM
^ let's see if they're stupid enough to after Medicare in the election year.  If so, look for a huge swing to Dems in the midterms.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 21, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
To paraphrase Machiavelli - if you want to keep power, you cant take away people's stuff
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 21, 2017, 11:38:34 AM
^ let's see if they're stupid enough to after Medicare in the election year.  If so, look for a huge swing to Dems in the midterms.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/mitch-mcconnell-does-not-expect-to-take-up-entitlement-reform-next-year.html

McConnell: "We're not doing entitlement reform in 2018."
Paul Ryan: "We want to do entitlement reform in 2018."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Hootenany on December 21, 2017, 12:45:53 PM
Republicans may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.  There is no way they'll tackle entitlement reform in 2018.  Unless Trump forces them to by using his bully twitter, but Trump promised during the campaign not to touch SS and Medicare so I don't see him pushing Congress on reform in the short term.  Of course, he also promised to get rid of the carried interest loophole and we all saw how that worked out.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 21, 2017, 12:46:27 PM
Republicans may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.  There is no way they'll tackle entitlement reform in 2018.  Unless Trump forces them to by using his bully twitter, but Trump promised during the campaign not to touch SS and Medicare so I don't see him pushing Congress on reform in the short term.  Of course, he also promised to get rid of the carried interest loophole and we all saw how that worked out.

Might not have a choice when the deficit hawks need to be re-elected too..
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Hootenany on December 21, 2017, 12:49:34 PM
^What deficit hawks?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 21, 2017, 12:51:21 PM
^What deficit hawks?

They'll come out of hibernation when it is in opposition of something democrats largely support.

They were exposed as frauds last month, but they'll be back. I promise.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: AJ93 on December 21, 2017, 02:10:26 PM
^What deficit hawks?

They'll come out of hibernation when it is in opposition of something democrats largely support.

They were exposed as frauds last month, but they'll be back. I promise.

Oh you're going to see them all en masse now. I heard Tom Cole from OK already start to talk up about how the only way to pay for these cuts is through entitlement reform. Suddenly the R's are going to get all deficit concerned once again with an eye on eliminating the critical benefit that anyone who isn't a millionaire will be relying on. It's how you keep the poors in their place.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on December 21, 2017, 02:19:43 PM
There aren't any deficit hawks.  It's just a different way to package the same idea of screwing the poor.  Real deficit hawks would vote against this tax bill period.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 27, 2017, 06:51:02 AM
We're finally lifting the shroud of mystery that hides the mastermind who's behind SOROS STUFF. What stuff? Watch and find out.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=753337701520301&id=451491168371624
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on December 27, 2017, 09:35:48 AM
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 27, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 28, 2017, 09:19:45 AM
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.

She did this against the backdrop of Russian interference and possible collusion by her opponent with a foreign adversary.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: wpcc88 on December 28, 2017, 09:36:56 AM
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.

She did this against the backdrop of Russian interference and possible collusion by her opponent with a foreign adversary.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.

Umm remember when it was proven that the Russians used facebook ads to smear Trump during his campaign and not the other way around, because that ACTUALLY happened.   She is insanely popular yes, but do we really want California telling us how to run our country?  Also let's not forget that DWS and the democratic party colluded against Bernie Sanders, who in my opinion would've actually beat Trump if he was given the chance.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 28, 2017, 09:38:06 AM
^ LOL
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 28, 2017, 09:39:54 AM
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.

She did this against the backdrop of Russian interference and possible collusion by her opponent with a foreign adversary.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.

Umm remember when it was proven that the Russians used facebook ads to smear Trump during his campaign and not the other way around, because that ACTUALLY happened.   She is insanely popular yes, but do we really want California telling us how to run our country?  Also let's not forget that DWS and the democratic party colluded against Bernie Sanders, who in my opinion would've actually beat Trump if he was given the chance.

Time to lay off the heavy stuff, man.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 28, 2017, 09:41:54 AM
Don't you know if you put stuff in all caps it makes it true.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on December 28, 2017, 10:57:49 AM

Umm remember when it was proven that the Russians used facebook ads to smear Trump during his campaign and not the other way around, because that ACTUALLY happened.   She is insanely popular yes, but do we really want California telling us how to run our country? 

Now we have Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia running the country and all is right.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on December 28, 2017, 11:42:50 AM
She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.

Can someone remind me, how many votes did Trump claim were cast fraudulently? Was it 3 million? His insecurities must've come up with that number... that, or complete coincidence.

By the way... Can anyone let me know how that voter fraud investigation went?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on December 28, 2017, 11:47:22 AM
^ He started out with a 3 million number and then changed it to 5 million because HRC beat him by almost 3 million votes.  On a side note, the only known voter fraud arrests were for Trump voters. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on December 28, 2017, 03:29:39 PM
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.
Gallup poll: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain the most admired man and woman in the United States — a 10-year trend for Obama and 16 years running for Clinton https://t.co/G0jWhvaIvp

I just have a very hard time believing the latter of those two.

She earned the most votes ever for President (more than Donald) of any woman in U.S. history.  She won the popular vote by ~3 million.

She did this against the backdrop of Russian interference and possible collusion by her opponent with a foreign adversary.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.

Her "time" might be up but she's still popular.  I don't think her personality fits well with 2018 or 2020, but she did earn the most votes for President just 13 months ago.

Umm remember when it was proven that the Russians used facebook ads to smear Trump during his campaign and not the other way around, because that ACTUALLY happened.   She is insanely popular yes, but do we really want California telling us how to run our country?  Also let's not forget that DWS and the democratic party colluded against Bernie Sanders, who in my opinion would've actually beat Trump if he was given the chance.

Better than having Alabama telling us how to run our country.  They came within a percent and a half of putting a pedo into the Senate.  At any rate, I want the American people all to have an equal say in running our country.  I don't really care what state they are from.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 01, 2018, 08:55:18 PM
Kinda fun. Which political party are you in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oopF6pqA8sU
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 02, 2018, 11:06:21 AM
Democrats break down just like Republicans, outside the establishment there is a faction focused on economics and a faction focused on social issues.  Within each faction, some people are are moderate-to-conservative regarding the other faction's core concern. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 02, 2018, 11:15:09 AM
Democrats break down just like Republicans, outside the establishment there is a faction focused on economics and a faction focused on social issues.  Within each faction, some people are are moderate-to-conservative regarding the other faction's core concern. 

Do you think most people fit within a faction?

I find myself crossing lines all the time, usually based on what I consider to be pragmatism.  I also think a significant number of voters simply vote for reasons unrelated to any specific political issue.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 02, 2018, 12:57:46 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/366694-howard-dean-older-dems-need-to-get-the-hell-out-of-the-way-in-2020

Quote
Howard Dean says older members of the Democratic Party need "to get the hell out of the way and have somebody who is 50 running the country."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 02, 2018, 01:56:37 PM
Youth would be nice.  But everything is about the actual ideas and ideals.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 10, 2018, 09:49:54 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-democrats-senate-chances-overrated/

A Democrat takeover in the Senate has likely been overstated (for now).  538 gives the Dems a 45% chance of a takeover of the upper house of Congress.  Why?  It's a horrible Senate map in 2018 - perhaps the worst ever for either party.  A full 26 Democratic seats are up while just 8 Republican-held seats will be contested - and really only two of those are in purple states (Nevada and Arizona).  Tennessee and Texas are outside shots for pick-ups.

But 5 Democrat Senators are up for re-election in states that Trump won by 18% or more just 14 months ago.  That's a lot of defense to play.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 10, 2018, 10:02:57 AM
45% ain't half bad when you consider that map.

But, the Democrats don't need to take the Senate back, all they need to do is hold their ground. When one party controls the White House, controlling two houses of Congress doesn't give you that much more power than controlling one house. Taking back the House will take away the ability for the GOP to pass legislation unilaterally and that is really the key thing here. If they hold their ground on the Senate and take back the House, it sets them up well for 2020 when the Senate map for the GOP is nearly as bad as this year's map is for the Dems (all the 2014 tea party loons will be up for reelection).
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 10, 2018, 11:53:48 AM
Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 10, 2018, 02:13:27 PM
Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

I would love to see Oprah run. It could be really entertaining. She's an outstanding communicator and has a unique ability to connect with pretty much anybody on any level, which is why her talk show was so successful. I suppose early on in her campaign we would know if she has the gravitas to be President. The one thing that raised a red flag during her Golden Globes speech was her reference to speaking "your truth." I don't know if that's exactly what she meant to say, but it certainly suggests that there's no objective truth, which is of course one of the mantras of the PC crowd. Did she ever clarify that statement?

"To tyrants and victims and secrets and lies, I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this; what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Pablo on January 10, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!
I agree with you - the last thing we need is another billionaire entertainer as president.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on January 10, 2018, 04:10:33 PM
Discussion of Statistics has been moved here: 

https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,31749.msg888329/topicseen.html#new
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: smith on January 10, 2018, 05:00:29 PM
Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

I would love to see Oprah run. It could be really entertaining. She's an outstanding communicator and has a unique ability to connect with pretty much anybody on any level, which is why her talk show was so successful. I suppose early on in her campaign we would know if she has the gravitas to be President. The one thing that raised a red flag during her Golden Globes speech was her reference to speaking "your truth." I don't know if that's exactly what she meant to say, but it certainly suggests that there's no objective truth, which is of course one of the mantras of the PC crowd. Did she ever clarify that statement?

"To tyrants and victims and secrets and lies, I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this; what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”

Well the current White House clearly doesn't believe in objective truth...HEY-OOOO!!! They are the ones who coined "alternative facts."

As to speaking "your truth", I believe what she is referring to is that victims of sexual assault and gender discrimination who have been silent can speak "their truth" and speak about their experiences and that is a powerful tool to expose those guilty of these things. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 11, 2018, 08:17:14 AM
Can Democrats come out and flatly reject Oprah as a candidate please?

I've found myself aligned with Dems on the fact that a lack of political experience is a MAJOR issue when running for President. We have since been proven correct. Now, Oprah gave a speech at an award show...

Dems, Fall '16: You need political experience to run for POTUS.

Dems, Winter '18: SADKFJASDFHJ;SDHF OPRAH GAVE A SPEECH, OPRAH FOR PRES!

I would love to see Oprah run. It could be really entertaining. She's an outstanding communicator and has a unique ability to connect with pretty much anybody on any level, which is why her talk show was so successful. I suppose early on in her campaign we would know if she has the gravitas to be President. The one thing that raised a red flag during her Golden Globes speech was her reference to speaking "your truth." I don't know if that's exactly what she meant to say, but it certainly suggests that there's no objective truth, which is of course one of the mantras of the PC crowd. Did she ever clarify that statement?

"To tyrants and victims and secrets and lies, I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this; what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have.”

Well the current White House clearly doesn't believe in objective truth...HEY-OOOO!!! They are the ones who coined "alternative facts."

As to speaking "your truth", I believe what she is referring to is that victims of sexual assault and gender discrimination who have been silent can speak "their truth" and speak about their experiences and that is a powerful tool to expose those guilty of these things. 

How did one of Harvey Weinstein's best buddies become their advocate?   #SheKnew
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 16, 2018, 11:36:47 AM
I have been thinking this for months. Dems should give Trump a wall, which, while a waste of money, is more symbolic than substantive. It can't hurt anyone - it's a wall. Worst thing it does is waste money which happens all the time anyways. We'll get some construction jobs in South Texas. Put some minority hiring quotas on it haha.

He'd sell you his mother just to build the wall. Dems could get a lot of substantive things in return by giving him his dumb wall, and they could embarrass congressional Republicans and donors while doing it. The only danger is Dem voters being unreasonable and unable to tell leverage when it's staring them in the face. This is why Dems are bad at politics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455375/donald-trump-daca-deal-democrats-should-give-trump-wall
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 16, 2018, 10:48:36 PM
Dems flipped two heavily republican state legislative seats in WI tonight.  Dems overperformed by like 20%.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 17, 2018, 09:14:55 AM
https://twitter.com/ActorAaronBooth/status/953468401619521536

Here is a breakdown of Democrats' over performance tonight in all 4 contested special elections:

SC #HD99: D+13.08%
WI #AD58: D+24.90%
WI #SD10: D+27.52%
IA #HD06: D+20.44%

That is an average Dem over performance tonight of D+21.49%
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on January 20, 2018, 08:59:17 PM
Why Americans are looking for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans....

https://twitter.com/MyFriendCamilo/status/954798423034814466
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 23, 2018, 10:27:16 AM
Professional left activists angry about the Dems not having "backbone" and "caving" on this shutdown thing - ridiculous. It doesn't matter how much backbone you have, if you don't have votes, you can't pass the laws you want.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 10:28:47 AM
This is what aggravates me about  extremists.  The Dems are the minority party.  There is not much they can do.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 23, 2018, 10:36:55 AM
I was looking at a latina pro-DACA activist on twitter, posting about how she's going to leave the Democratic Party and they're all a bunch of racists complicit in the torture of immigrant families and so on, and also any male twitterer who presented a counterargument was mansplaining, and it was just really ridiculous. She said she has a lot of friends who are dreamers so obviously it's going to be a very emotional issue, and if I'm being sympathetic I guess I can give her a bit of a pass to blow off some steam.

But her ire should be directed at the GOP, because at the end of the day if Democrats controlled both houses and the White House, they'd pass the thing in two seconds - and people like this activist should keep that in mind before starting a civil war.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 10:43:22 AM
Also, if the president doesn't like the bill they'll need a lot of votes to override.  that won't happen.  If DACA happens, there's going to be some wall money.   I  am OK with that even though I think a wall is wasteful spending.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: gottaplan on January 23, 2018, 10:56:10 AM
I'm very interested to see who & when the Dem's present their candidates for 2020.  Any speculation?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 23, 2018, 11:03:46 AM
^^ Yes and she should remember it was Trump who shot down a deal that had been agreed upon already. Best thing to do is stay united with those trying to beat Trump.

I think they should absolutely give him wall money. It's dumb, costly, and more than likely ineffective, but I think a country has a right to restrict future immigration if it pleases. What it can't do is treat those already here unfairly or inhumanely.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 11:05:33 AM
I'm very interested to see who & when the Dem's present their candidates for 2020.  Any speculation?

I think some candidates will emerge soon.  Good chance we'll see Cory Booker run, maybe Kamala Harris.  I think I'm missing someone obvious.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 11:12:05 AM
I'm very interested to see who & when the Dem's present their candidates for 2020.  Any speculation?

Outside of the Oprah nonsense...Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and if you count Bernie Sanders seem to be the working short list.  This doesn't count any celebrities / non-politicians who may run, or governors like Andrew Cuomo or Terry McAuliffe who may opt for the national stage.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 11:31:47 AM
I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.

Yes, I agree.  Anyone over 65 should not run in my opinion and that includes Warren (she'll be 71 come 2020).  Some think the barrier should be under 60 or 50.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 23, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
Schumer's incompetent.   The GOP's coalition is united when it comes to illegal immigration (those who don't object are stealthy about that) and the Dems isn't even close.   Large segments of labor are very much not on board.   Never go to the wall under such circumstances.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 11:40:45 AM
I think Schumer has done a good job as the minority leader.  We'll have to see how this CR shakes out to really know for sure.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 23, 2018, 11:48:22 AM
I think Schumer has done a good job as the minority leader.  We'll have to see how this CR shakes out to really know for sure.

If he makes DACA the party's defining issue he's treating Trump the way the Ohio Democratic Party treated John Kasich, and the results could be similar.  Especially if they pile "DAPA" into it.

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 11:49:32 AM
DACA is an issue with 80% support
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 01:04:58 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg)

It's actually higher.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: gottaplan on January 23, 2018, 01:27:15 PM
I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.

Yes, I agree.  Anyone over 65 should not run in my opinion and that includes Warren (she'll be 71 come 2020).  Some think the barrier should be under 60 or 50.

Agreed.  From a strategy perspective, the Dem's should keep the list short so the primary season remains civil and I'd start it as late as possible, so the "fresh faces" don't become old news by fall of 2019.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 01:59:36 PM
I think Andrew Cuomo is having some issues right now.  But I agree with  the rest of the list.  Biden and Sanders need to step aside.

Yes, I agree.  Anyone over 65 should not run in my opinion and that includes Warren (she'll be 71 come 2020).  Some think the barrier should be under 60 or 50.

Agreed.  From a strategy perspective, the Dem's should keep the list short so the primary season remains civil and I'd start it as late as possible, so the "fresh faces" don't become old news by fall of 2019.

Still need to do some researching on candidates and find out their positions, voting record etc.  My top 3 (maybe even in order?) would be Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker.  I think Gillibrand might appeal to someone like @YABO713 as she was part of the "Blue Dog Democrats" and has generally been fiscally conservative (which has ticked off some on the far left, I guess).  I'm not sure she'll win because the Sanders faction of the left won't like that she once received an "A" rating from the NRA, for example.  She started out conservative, being a Representative of upstate New York, and has quickly swung left since joining the Senate.  So a lot of her critics will probably point to her "flip flopping" over her career in Congress.

But yeah, anyone relatable and inspiring under the age of 60 is who I'm looking for at this early stage.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 23, 2018, 02:07:11 PM
I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...

Nonetheless, this brings me to a point Smerconish made this morning... The vitriol for Trump coming from the far left is going to see some very VERY progressive candidate biting at heels in 2018. This could ultimately mean that far-left candidates will win securely blue districts and then be unable to win a general. Just some food for thought.

Back to the point.. I really like Gillibrand, I like McCaskill better though. In my opinion, below is who the Dems can run in 2018 to have a shot:

- Evan Bayh
- Joe Biden (age aside, people love him)
- Michael Bloomberg (if he goes Dem)
- Gillibrand
- And bold prediction here - Joseph Kennedy III will be the Democratic / American darling in the Senate if he wins his seat this year. DO NOT be surprised if he strikes while the iron is hot and launches a POTUS bid shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 02:09:57 PM
I like the Kennedy prediction.  That's similar to Obama's trajectory.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: gottaplan on January 23, 2018, 03:27:57 PM
Biden is likeable but too old.  Sorry Joe
Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.
Bayh - don't know much about him yet.
Gillibrand - might be a little too fiery.  Turns men off and some women too
Booker - I could see him doing well
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 23, 2018, 03:38:23 PM
Biden is likeable but too old.  Sorry Joe
Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.
Bayh - don't know much about him yet.
Gillibrand - might be a little too fiery.  Turns men off and some women too
Booker - I could see him doing well

Do you have any background on Bloomberg's origins? Because if you're saying the left needs to villainize a man who made an empire for himself because he's been too successful, then the Dems seriously need to look themselves in the mirror.

He had a more humble upbringing than > 70% of our Senators. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 23, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
I am a big fan of Mike Bloomberg, I think he is just a non-ideological, common sense, doer. He might not fly with the Bernie crowd though - not because of his personal wealth but because of his pro-business, pro-growth, "neoliberalism."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 23, 2018, 03:58:48 PM
I am a big fan of Mike Bloomberg, I think he is just a non-ideological, common sense, doer. He might not fly with the Bernie crowd though - not because of his personal wealth but because of his pro-business, pro-growth, "neoliberalism."

Tbh I don't think he'd fly with the Bernie crowd because of his success as well. "How dare he accumulate that much wealth?!" Senator Sanders said from the steps of his summer home on Lake Champlain.

And not to be a jerk... but if Bernie doesn't have the nads to become a full time Dem, his followers shouldn't dictate policy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on January 23, 2018, 05:14:31 PM
Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.

You ride the subway to work**.  Something that most politicians need to do much much more....

**sometimes combination of SUV and subway, but still an attempt was made....
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 23, 2018, 05:25:40 PM
I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...



Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

Bloomberg is a man with out a party. While he aligns well with the Dems on social issues like Gun Control, he is a hawk and very big on law enforcement and fits well with the GOP in those areas. He cant stomach the GOP social stance anymore though and would probably align better with the Dems in that respect. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 23, 2018, 05:29:21 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg)

It's actually higher.

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 05:35:20 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg)

It's actually higher.

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.

It'd be helpful if you had something like facts or a poll on your side instead of spouting off an opinion and then thinking that's representative of the country.

https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/22/support-for-democrats-daca-strategy-grew-during-government-shutdown-polls-show/

Quote
Registered voters were initially split, at 42 percent, when asked whether the DACA fight was worth a government shutdown.

After funding expired, more voters sided with Democrats – 47 percent to 38 percent – when asked the same question.

Oh that's funny, the Dreamers actually GAINED support during the shutdown and more people said it was worth shutting down the government over than not.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 05:35:34 PM
I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...



Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

Like what?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on January 23, 2018, 05:35:47 PM
I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...



Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

Bloomberg is a man with out a party. While he aligns well with the Dems on social issues like Gun Control, he is a hawk and very big on law enforcement and fits well with the GOP in those areas. He cant stomach the GOP social stance anymore though and would probably align better with the Dems in that respect. 

Sounds like there are an awful lot of people in both parties that could identify with him, including many on this forum.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 23, 2018, 05:42:50 PM
^ he is going to turn off a lot of progressives with his authoritarian stance. He will turn off libertarians like myself because he is very authoritarian too. Yes he will get the gun control crowd but the gun control folks are not good for winning. He is very pro-business which will anger progressives. Imagine someone slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton and slightly left of Jeb Bush and you have Bloomberg.  See how that worked out for both parties in the last election? 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 23, 2018, 05:48:55 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg)

It's actually higher.

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.

It'd be helpful if you had something like facts or a poll on your side instead of spouting off an opinion and then thinking that's representative of the country.

https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/22/support-for-democrats-daca-strategy-grew-during-government-shutdown-polls-show/

Quote
Registered voters were initially split, at 42 percent, when asked whether the DACA fight was worth a government shutdown.

After funding expired, more voters sided with Democrats – 47 percent to 38 percent – when asked the same question.

Oh that's funny, the Dreamers actually GAINED support during the shutdown and more people said it was worth shutting down the government over than not.


 That would be nice if they polled for that type of question but polls do not answer those questions. It is common sense though. People do not want to be put out, and ultimately act in their self interest.

Polling is also designed to move an agenda in many cases not necessarily measure the pulse of the electorate. If you have ever been polled, you realize that there is no room for explanation or gray area. You have to give your response in the answers provided. It is less about what voters think and more about trying to capture support for a particular agenda item and then framing the question in a way to solicit the best response.  It is why polling before the shutdown showed that Americans wanted action on DACA which is true, but the shutdown ended quickly when it drew the ire of many people who were inconvenienced that they were put out or furloughed, etc over this issue. WHen it touches them personally, support wanes.  Look it engagement in general - Pass along a petition, people will sign it; ask for them to show up on a cold Sat afternoon and march for a cause, most but the truly engaged drop off.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 23, 2018, 06:03:59 PM
Biden is likeable but too old.  Sorry Joe
Bloomberg is not a good candidate for the Dems.  The guy is a billionaire.  Legitimately.  How do you relate to working class?  Come on.
Bayh - don't know much about him yet.
Gillibrand - might be a little too fiery.  Turns men off and some women too
Booker - I could see him doing well

I have a hard time believing Evan Bayh will ever catch on. The guy just seems to disappear at every opportunity.

I like Booker. He's got charisma and a reputation for working with the R's on some issues.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on January 23, 2018, 06:14:05 PM
Food for thought:  If Trump=Berlusconi then the American Left appears to be committing the same mistakes the Italian Left did which resulted in Berlusconi staying in power for multiple terms:

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2018/01/trump-and-berlusconi-great-political.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 23, 2018, 06:14:10 PM
I don't really see Bloomberg running on a democratic ticket.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 09:59:04 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DULOoefVMAAVXsV.jpg)

It's actually higher.

But as discussed yesterday, while the majority support the Dreamers, their interest and support for them wanes if it actually means they have to do something about it or inconvenience their lives to do it. If you ask the generic question about helping the Dreamers, then yes, that is easy. IF you ask the question about what would you do or what would you give up to make sure the Dreamers can stay, I am sure the support would wane considerably. i.e Don't close the government again over the Dreamers because public support for them would flip.

It'd be helpful if you had something like facts or a poll on your side instead of spouting off an opinion and then thinking that's representative of the country.

https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/22/support-for-democrats-daca-strategy-grew-during-government-shutdown-polls-show/

Quote
Registered voters were initially split, at 42 percent, when asked whether the DACA fight was worth a government shutdown.

After funding expired, more voters sided with Democrats – 47 percent to 38 percent – when asked the same question.

Oh that's funny, the Dreamers actually GAINED support during the shutdown and more people said it was worth shutting down the government over than not.


 That would be nice if they polled for that type of question but polls do not answer those questions. It is common sense though. People do not want to be put out, and ultimately act in their self interest.

Polling is also designed to move an agenda in many cases not necessarily measure the pulse of the electorate. If you have ever been polled, you realize that there is no room for explanation or gray area. You have to give your response in the answers provided. It is less about what voters think and more about trying to capture support for a particular agenda item and then framing the question in a way to solicit the best response.  It is why polling before the shutdown showed that Americans wanted action on DACA which is true, but the shutdown ended quickly when it drew the ire of many people who were inconvenienced that they were put out or furloughed, etc over this issue. WHen it touches them personally, support wanes.  Look it engagement in general - Pass along a petition, people will sign it; ask for them to show up on a cold Sat afternoon and march for a cause, most but the truly engaged drop off.

Did...did you read the article? Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 23, 2018, 10:01:01 PM
I do like Gillibrand. I think she's moderate enough to win a general as well...



Gillibrand's problem is she place class and identity politics too much.

Like what?

Btw, you don't get to throw around "she plays class and identity politics" without providing an example or two.  It sounds like you're just looking for an excuse not to support her.  Not saying you have to support her but your reasoning here seems flawed unless I've missed all the identity politics she has played.

As a self-proclaimed libertarian she should be your ideal candidate...fiscally conservative, socially liberal and a former A rating by the NRA.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 23, 2018, 10:04:38 PM
I used to like her, but her constant inserting herself into the identity politics has turned me off to her. I get that some of this is just politics but she has been turning me off lately.