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.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 08:36:19 AM
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.

Unfortunately, that's the reality for moderate senators now. Especially women. Otherwise the left base will go holier than thou "WHERE WERE YOU WHEN..." at every turn if she ever plans on running.

Booker is great and charismatic, but anyone that makes it to the top tiers of NJ politics will inevitably get there with some baggage; even if none of it is known yet.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 09:01:23 AM
^ I think Booker is a very viable candidate and would have a great chance of winning provided as you say, his handlers can hide the inevitable scandal that taints all NJ politicians.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: gottaplan on January 24, 2018, 09:10:59 AM
Dems still need to find their message.  Something other than "Trump is a disaster".  Seems likely that the economy will still be going strong this time next year.  Forecasting doom & gloom may not win voters over. 

Assuming charges haven't been brought against him for collusion, US is not in any wars, and the economy is still going strong, what is the Democratic message?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:13:54 AM
Dems still need to find their message.  Something other than "Trump is a disaster".  Seems likely that the economy will still be going strong this time next year.  Forecasting doom & gloom may not win voters over. 

Assuming charges haven't been brought against him for collusion, US is not in any wars, and the economy is still going strong, what is the Democratic message?

There will never be a Democratic message that can win a general if the far left continues to critique everything.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 24, 2018, 09:15:53 AM
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.

Unfortunately, that's the reality for moderate senators now. Especially women. Otherwise the left base will go holier than thou "WHERE WERE YOU WHEN..." at every turn if she ever plans on running.

Booker is great and charismatic, but anyone that makes it to the top tiers of NJ politics will inevitably get there with some baggage; even if none of it is known yet.

The "left base" includes everyone who isn't loaded.  They don't hold personal wealth against candidates because their choices would be too limited if they did.  Many of them voted for Trump. 

Neo-feminists are not the base; they're a fringe group.  But just like on the right, a small vocal faction can distort the big picture.  Identity politics is not the way forward.  It hasn't worked yet and it never will.

Dems still need to find their message.  Something other than "Trump is a disaster".  Seems likely that the economy will still be going strong this time next year.  Forecasting doom & gloom may not win voters over. 

Assuming charges haven't been brought against him for collusion, US is not in any wars, and the economy is still going strong, what is the Democratic message?

Economy going strong?  For whom?  Entire sectors are disappearing. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:21:47 AM
^ I think Booker is a very viable candidate and would have a great chance of winning provided as you say, his handlers can hide the inevitable scandal that taints all NJ politicians.

I had the chance to see Booker speak at an event years ago when he was still mayor of Newark.  He was not well known then but I was really impressed with his speech and seemed to have a good understanding of economic development. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:25:51 AM
The "left base" includes everyone who isn't loaded.  They don't hold personal wealth against candidates because their choices would be too limited if they did.  Many of them voted for Trump. 

Neo-feminists are not the base; they're a fringe group.  But just like on the right, a small vocal faction can distort the big picture.  Identity politics is not the way forward.  It hasn't worked yet and it never will.

The term "fringe group" is a xenophobic microaggression, you're a bigot.

"Identity politics" is an agenderphobic strawman, WRONGLY assuming that everyone identifies as political.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Isn't all politics "identity politics" to a certain degree?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:28:51 AM
Isn't all politics "identity politics" to a certain degree?

You can operate behind an ideology, certainly. However, I'd say identity politics implies that pragmatism is less important than ideology.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 09:29:36 AM
Dems still need to find their message.  Something other than "Trump is a disaster".  Seems likely that the economy will still be going strong this time next year.  Forecasting doom & gloom may not win voters over. 

Assuming charges haven't been brought against him for collusion, US is not in any wars, and the economy is still going strong, what is the Democratic message?

There will never be a Democratic message that can win a general if the far left continues to critique everything.

I'm no so sure about that. I don't think it was the far left that blew the election for Democrats, but rather the ineptitude of the party establishment. It's the far lefts job to critique everything, because that's what ideologues do. It's the party's role to be receptive to these views but also pragmatic and centrist in their approach. It's a difficult proposition but that's what needs to happen...maybe. Really who the hell knows.

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:31:14 AM
Isn't all politics "identity politics" to a certain degree?

You can operate behind an ideology, certainly. However, I'd say identity politics implies that pragmatism is less important than ideology.

Isn't this an issue in both parties at the margins? 

I think both parties generally have most voters that either center-left or center -right but the fringe actors get all of the attention.

On a side note, I thinks a centrist party would be very popular.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:31:44 AM
^Yeah, just whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I would've jumped through hoops to cast a Conservative vote for Hillary Clinton if I didn't think the left was more concerned about bathroom rights than the budget, economy, and national security.

Not to mention, Jill Stein pulling KEY votes from Hillary in MAJOR states.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:33:03 AM
Dems still need to find their message.  Something other than "Trump is a disaster".  Seems likely that the economy will still be going strong this time next year.  Forecasting doom & gloom may not win voters over. 

Assuming charges haven't been brought against him for collusion, US is not in any wars, and the economy is still going strong, what is the Democratic message?

There will never be a Democratic message that can win a general if the far left continues to critique everything.

I'm no so sure about that. I don't think it was the far left that blew the election for Democrats, but rather the ineptitude of the party establishment. It's the far lefts job to critique everything, because that's what ideologues do. It's the party's role to be receptive to these views but also pragmatic and centrist in their approach. It's a difficult proposition but that's what needs to happen...maybe. Really who the hell knows.

Beyond all of the Bernie bro rhetoric, I think the Clinton campaign and democratic party party had a relatively progressive platform in 2016.  I just don't think 2016 was an election about policy and platforms.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:33:13 AM
Isn't all politics "identity politics" to a certain degree?

You can operate behind an ideology, certainly. However, I'd say identity politics implies that pragmatism is less important than ideology.

Isn't this an issue in both parties at the margins? 

I think both parties generally have most voters that either center-left or center -right but the fringe actors get all of the attention.

On a side note, I thinks a centrist party would be very popular.

Agree re: Centrist. StandUp Republic doubles its membership every three months.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:33:56 AM
  I just don't think 2016 was an election about policy and platforms.

Very fair point
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:34:09 AM
^Yeah, just whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I would've jumped through hoops to cast a Conservative vote for Hillary Clinton if I didn't think the left was more concerned about bathroom rights than the budget, economy, and national security.

Not to mention, Jill Stein pulling KEY votes from Hillary in MAJOR states.

The bathroom stuff is what the media chose to focus on.  Hilary's message got drowned out by Trump, Russian bots, and outrage media.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 09:38:24 AM
It's the far lefts job to critique everything, because that's what ideologues do. It's the party's role to be receptive to these views but also pragmatic and centrist in their approach. It's a difficult proposition but that's what needs to happen...maybe. Really who the hell knows.

This is true. As insufferable as some of these people can be, some of the stuff they say needs to be said, and they bring to light new issues that end up getting accepted in more mainstream circles, and that's why we need radicals as well as pragmatists. They truly don't seem to dwell in reality sometimes, but it goes with the territory.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:38:47 AM
^That's the other thing. Both sides are  beyond critical of the media. If you listen to Hannity, you believe that CNN correspondents have blow darts in their pocket filled with cyanide darts, waiting to shoot them into Trump's neck.

If you listen to Peter Daou, there has never been a more villanized character in American history by the media than Hillary Clinton.

The media, by and large, reports on what happens. Some things, for sure, they sensationalize. But, "the media is playing this up" has become worn out by both sides.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 09:42:31 AM
[quote author=freefourur link=topic=31656.msg891141#msg891141
Beyond all of the Bernie bro rhetoric, I think the Clinton campaign and democratic party party had a relatively progressive platform in 2016.  I just don't think 2016 was an election about policy and platforms.
[/quote]

Excellent point. Though as far as Bernie goes I still believe the polls that had him handily beating Trump in a general.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:45:07 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

As much of a disgrace as this giant cheeto is to our Presidency, I could not support someone with Bernie's fiscal policies when we're running this much debt. Though, the cheeto doesn't seem too concerned either. Could've just burned my ballot I suppose.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 09:48:00 AM
^ Yes, and those same polls had Hillary handily beating Trump too.  Remember the polls you were reading were national polls and not necessarily state by state polls. That being said, Bernie would have had a better shot of holding on to PA or Michigan. FL, OH, NC and IA would have gone to the GOP. It may have changed CO too.

I still think Trump would have beaten Bernie. The popular vote would have been different (closer and maybe even a trump win) but Bernie would have done much better in the Midwest than Hillary did making it razor thin in the electoral college
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 09:50:20 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

Ha! Yet [anecdote alert] I know a lot of Republicans who would have crossed the aisle to vote for him. As an aside what do you find objectionable about Sanders? Wouldn't the  Republican congress have kept him in check?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 24, 2018, 09:50:51 AM
Hillary's message was toxic.  The more people heard the more they crossed over.  Her platform was progressive in ways that alienate people from each other, yet conservative in ways that Trump's platform wasn't.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:51:27 AM
Secondly, why does Bernie get to dictate policy without becoming a Dem????

The Dems treat Bernie like a super-hot side guy/girl that they're afraid to call it off with, even though the side guy/girl refuses to be seen with them in public and makes them wear a mask during sex.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 09:52:33 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

Ha! Yet [anecdote alert] I know a lot of Republicans who would have crossed the aisle to vote for him. As an aside what do you find objectionable about Sanders? Wouldn't the  Republican congress have kept him in check?

His fiscal policy. 100%. I think he's a genuinely good person who runs because he cares about the country. I believe his fiscal policy is toxic, especially when the country isn't at a balanced budget or in a surplus.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:52:55 AM
^^ That's quite a um colorful analogy  ;)
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 09:53:03 AM
^ Yes, and those same polls had Hillary handily beating Trump too.  Remember the polls you were reading were national polls and not necessarily state by state poll.

No, I'm talking about relevant states....check it again:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_sanders-5645.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 09:53:52 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

Ha! Yet [anecdote alert] I know a lot of Republicans who would have crossed the aisle to vote for him. As an aside what do you find objectionable about Sanders? Wouldn't the  Republican congress have kept him in check?



His fiscal policy. 100%. I think he's a genuinely good person who runs because he cares about the country. I believe his fiscal policy is toxic, especially when the country isn't at a balanced budget or in a surplus.

Very true, although the current congress and president don't seem to concerned with expanding deficits either. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 09:55:09 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

Ha! Yet [anecdote alert] I know a lot of Republicans who would have crossed the aisle to vote for him. As an aside what do you find objectionable about Sanders? Wouldn't the  Republican congress have kept him in check?

His fiscal policy. 100%. I think he's a genuinely good person who runs because he cares about the country. I believe his fiscal policy is toxic, especially when the country isn't at a balanced budget or in a surplus.

I always said that the only thing that would ever make me consider voting for Trump was if Bernie was the nominee.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 09:58:22 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

Ha! Yet [anecdote alert] I know a lot of Republicans who would have crossed the aisle to vote for him. As an aside what do you find objectionable about Sanders? Wouldn't the  Republican congress have kept him in check?

His fiscal policy. 100%. I think he's a genuinely good person who runs because he cares about the country. I believe his fiscal policy is toxic, especially when the country isn't at a balanced budget or in a surplus.

Fair enough. At this point I just assume every president is going to want to spend the same amount of money. They're just going to want to funnel it differently. If Sanders wants to divert money away from military contractors and toward transit, infrastructure and education, well, I'd be okay with it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 10:14:34 AM
We don't know if Bernie would have beat Trump. It's an interesting thing to think about, and you can make good points on both sides. A general election campaign would have put him through the wringer, he wouldn't be the lovable primary loser he is today... so any poll that's been done in our universe is completely irrelevant.

As far as his policies vs. Hillary's I tend to agree with Yabo that his campaign promises and platform were not fact-based, and also I don't appreciate his anti-business rhetoric... that's what led me to Hillary over him. But what I like about his philosophy in general is the universalist welfare state instead of a targeted welfare state. The targeted welfare state is politically unsustainable, we've been arguing over it for 40 years, it's all about those lazy people taking your hard earned dollars and we've made no progress. Just tax everybody (sorry, it can't just be "the rich") and give everybody affordable education and affordable health care. I won't say free because I think some affordable out-of-pocket costs would help with rationing and also allow us to do it with less taxes. Then fund infrastructure, R&D, etc, and run a market economy otherwise, be done with it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 24, 2018, 10:16:17 AM
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.

Again...provide an example or two of what you mean.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 24, 2018, 10:25:38 AM
(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.

So it seems like you didn't read the article.  Let me reiterate:

Quote
Indeed, support for using the Dreamers issue as shutdown leverage increased among Democratic voters. In the first survey, conducted Jan. 18-19, they supported the approach — 59 percent to 30 percent. The second poll showed Democratic backing for the strategy had climbed to 65 percent, with 23 percent opposing it.

Support also rose among independents, from 35 percent to 42 percent, while opposition fell, from 43 percent in the first poll to 39 percent in the second one. Among Republicans, 29 percent said the first time around that the immigration issue was important enough to shut down the government, with 31 saying the same in the second poll.

Using the Dreamers as "leverage" to shut down the government GAINED in approval across all parties.

(https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/180122_DACA_graphic_2.png)

What was a 50/50 issue actually went the opposite of what you said - MORE people said it was worth shutting down the government to pass a bill to protect the Dreamers.

Again...you can't take your opinion and thoughts and then apply that as fact to the rest of the country.  That might be YOUR opinion but as the data shows, that's not what most of the country believes.

This DACA fight is sort of like gay marriage in that no one ever goes back the other way once they hear more about it, imo.  Did anyone who supported gay marriage hear an argument that caused them to be against the legalization of gay marriage?  Probably not.  Is anyone hearing these stories of DACA kids who supported them and suddenly changing their mind?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 10:47:13 AM
Isn't all politics "identity politics" to a certain degree?

You can operate behind an ideology, certainly. However, I'd say identity politics implies that pragmatism is less important than ideology.

I don't know, I rather believe treating minorities with the Golden Rule, so to speak, is rather pragmatic.  At its heart, that is exactly what "identity politics" is based upon, much like the PC movement, despite the claim by some that it's a front for limiting freedoms.  Certain terms have become bastardized by the very people such concepts target as being wrong in action.  No surprise there. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 10:51:48 AM
^Yeah, just whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I would've jumped through hoops to cast a Conservative vote for Hillary Clinton if I didn't think the left was more concerned about bathroom rights than the budget, economy, and national security.

Not to mention, Jill Stein pulling KEY votes from Hillary in MAJOR states.

That's a little nonsensical, as it implies that the Democrats couldn't care about more than 1 thing at a time.  Clinton's platform included plans addressing all of the above.  And frankly, if liberals/Democrats are focusing too much on social issues, it is directly in response to conservatives/Republicans going out of their way in recent decades to treat a lot of people (poor, racial minorities, LGBT, etc) like crap, both legally and socially. Someone has to care about that.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 10:55:37 AM
^If Bernie would've ran I would've voted for Trump twice.

As much of a disgrace as this giant cheeto is to our Presidency, I could not support someone with Bernie's fiscal policies when we're running this much debt. Though, the cheeto doesn't seem too concerned either. Could've just burned my ballot I suppose.

The idea that Republicans are in any way more fiscally responsible than Democrats has been dead since at least Reagan. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 10:57:50 AM
^Yeah, just whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I would've jumped through hoops to cast a Conservative vote for Hillary Clinton if I didn't think the left was more concerned about bathroom rights than the budget, economy, and national security.

Not to mention, Jill Stein pulling KEY votes from Hillary in MAJOR states.

That's a little nonsensical, as it implies that the Democrats couldn't care about more than 1 thing at a time.  Clinton's platform included plans addressing all of the above.  And frankly, if liberals/Democrats are focusing too much on social issues, it is directly in response to conservatives/Republicans going out of their way in recent decades to treat a lot of people (poor, racial minorities, LGBT, etc) like crap, both legally and socially. Someone has to care about that.

I care about that. And it gets achieved through policy, not rhetoric. Rhetoric will get you elected, whether we like it or not. So it needs to be focused to maximizing votes. Failing to address that will see the Dems standing on their principles, which is fine, but never being able to achieve any major policy for those marginalized people because they control none of the levers of democracy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on January 24, 2018, 11:05:15 AM
Jill Stein made people show up to the polls since Hillary was too conservative.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 11:05:42 AM
(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.

So it seems like you didn't read the article.  Let me reiterate:

Quote
Indeed, support for using the Dreamers issue as shutdown leverage increased among Democratic voters. In the first survey, conducted Jan. 18-19, they supported the approach — 59 percent to 30 percent. The second poll showed Democratic backing for the strategy had climbed to 65 percent, with 23 percent opposing it.

Support also rose among independents, from 35 percent to 42 percent, while opposition fell, from 43 percent in the first poll to 39 percent in the second one. Among Republicans, 29 percent said the first time around that the immigration issue was important enough to shut down the government, with 31 saying the same in the second poll.

Using the Dreamers as "leverage" to shut down the government GAINED in approval across all parties.

(https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/180122_DACA_graphic_2.png)

What was a 50/50 issue actually went the opposite of what you said - MORE people said it was worth shutting down the government to pass a bill to protect the Dreamers.

Again...you can't take your opinion and thoughts and then apply that as fact to the rest of the country.  That might be YOUR opinion but as the data shows, that's not what most of the country believes.

This DACA fight is sort of like gay marriage in that no one ever goes back the other way once they hear more about it, imo.  Did anyone who supported gay marriage hear an argument that caused them to be against the legalization of gay marriage?  Probably not.  Is anyone hearing these stories of DACA kids who supported them and suddenly changing their mind?  I don't think so.

Again, what I am saying is that the polls present leading data. So, yes, the poll says support for DACA grew with shutting the government down. My point is then why cave? If there is so much support in the polls for the Dems using Dreamers as leverage in the government shutdown and that was a winning argument, then the government would still be closed now or we would have DACA.  Regardless what the poll may say, there are underlying things going on that caused the Dems to cave on this issue. My whole point is that it is easy to be for something like gay marriage or DACA when it does not actually require you to do anything. However, if it means that your life is going to be inconvenienced in any way to get that passed, it loses support.

There are now polls that show this, there will not be a poll to show this, but it is just simple basic human interest at work.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 11:07:21 AM
^Yeah, just whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I would've jumped through hoops to cast a Conservative vote for Hillary Clinton if I didn't think the left was more concerned about bathroom rights than the budget, economy, and national security.

Not to mention, Jill Stein pulling KEY votes from Hillary in MAJOR states.

That's a little nonsensical, as it implies that the Democrats couldn't care about more than 1 thing at a time.  Clinton's platform included plans addressing all of the above.  And frankly, if liberals/Democrats are focusing too much on social issues, it is directly in response to conservatives/Republicans going out of their way in recent decades to treat a lot of people (poor, racial minorities, LGBT, etc) like crap, both legally and socially. Someone has to care about that.

I care about that. And it gets achieved through policy, not rhetoric. Rhetoric will get you elected, whether we like it or not. So it needs to be focused to maximizing votes. Failing to address that will see the Dems standing on their principles, which is fine, but never being able to achieve any major policy for those marginalized people because they control none of the levers of democracy.

At bare minimum, Clinton would not have threatened the existing rights and legislation of the time that helped/protected those groups.  And there's no indication she would've actively stood in the way of any future policy to expand it.  Trump campaigned directly on attacking them in every way possible.  The election showed the true American heart, and it's black as hell.  I agree, rhetoric won the election, but that rhetoric wasn't a lie but a promise, as all of those groups now face massive increases in discrimination both legally and socially.  But hey, so long as no one plays "identity politics", I guess that's fine.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
Jill Stein made people show up to the polls since Hillary was too conservative.

That's why Stein won the popular vote against Trump... oh... wait...  No one actually cared about her.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 11:11:39 AM
^Yeah, just whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I would've jumped through hoops to cast a Conservative vote for Hillary Clinton if I didn't think the left was more concerned about bathroom rights than the budget, economy, and national security.

Not to mention, Jill Stein pulling KEY votes from Hillary in MAJOR states.

That's a little nonsensical, as it implies that the Democrats couldn't care about more than 1 thing at a time.  Clinton's platform included plans addressing all of the above.  And frankly, if liberals/Democrats are focusing too much on social issues, it is directly in response to conservatives/Republicans going out of their way in recent decades to treat a lot of people (poor, racial minorities, LGBT, etc) like crap, both legally and socially. Someone has to care about that.

I care about that. And it gets achieved through policy, not rhetoric. Rhetoric will get you elected, whether we like it or not. So it needs to be focused to maximizing votes. Failing to address that will see the Dems standing on their principles, which is fine, but never being able to achieve any major policy for those marginalized people because they control none of the levers of democracy.

But the rhetoric exists on the Republican side too.  I actually think the GOP plays identity politics to the same degree or even more that the Dems do.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 11:12:45 AM
^And they've figured out a way to control the government with it
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 11:13:27 AM
Jill Stein made people show up to the polls since Hillary was too conservative.

You misspelled *economic illiteracy*
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 11:17:47 AM
^ The hyperbole is a bit over the top especially on the Dem side. They are just as responsible for Trump too. WHen the rhetoric is out of control and people do not have civilized discourse, you get Donald Trump.   

When you call all Republicans racist bigots and throw around incendiary terms like that when they are not appropriate, it makes it easy for someone like Trump to fly under the radar and sneak through.  Because not all Republicans are racists and bigots and they know they are not, so when you call everyone by that name, it applies to no-one and it loses its effectiveness. When you throw around the hyperbole and vicious rhetoric when it is not appropriate, it cheapens the meaning of the term and also makes the person who gave the insult sound ill-informed.

 

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 11:18:58 AM
^ Okay, but Republican rhetoric is just as over the top.  We can play the game where we'll both posts examples to prove our point.  But Republicans are responsible for Trump.  Full stop.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on January 24, 2018, 11:22:45 AM
^ The hyperbole is a bit over the top especially on the Dem side. They are just as responsible for Trump too. WHen the rhetoric is out of control and people do not have civilized discourse, you get Donald Trump.   

When you call all Republicans racist bigots and throw around incendiary terms like that when they are not appropriate, it makes it easy for someone like Trump to fly under the radar and sneak through.  Because not all Republicans are racists and bigots and they know they are not, so when you call everyone by that name, it applies to no-one and it loses its effectiveness. When you throw around the hyperbole and vicious rhetoric when it is not appropriate, it cheapens the meaning of the term and also makes the person who gave the insult sound ill-informed.

 



I agree. The Left really screwed that up.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 11:26:47 AM
^ Okay, but Republican rhetoric is just as over the top.  We can play the game where we'll both posts examples to prove our point.  But Republicans are responsible for Trump.  Full stop.

I disagree. They're responsible for enabling the crap out of his incompetence and racism since he's been in office. But Donald Trump should've been an alley-oop to the Dems, all they to do was find someone who could dunk. They didn't.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 11:28:54 AM
I hate how somebody is either "a racist" or "not a racist" when in actuality it's impossible to ignore race in your interactions and it's more about how you deal with your biases. Also, it doesn't leave room for degrees of racism, as obviously alt-right white nationalism is not the same thing as casual stereotyping, but it's almost like the far left wants to push the casual stereotypers towards the white nationalists.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 11:29:06 AM
He is a GOP.  Supported by the GOP congress.  Supported by the RNC.  GOP owns him.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 12:23:24 PM
He is a GOP.  Supported by the GOP congress.  Supported by the RNC.  GOP owns him.

Agree. But remember Trump was the uninvited bull in the RNC china shop. They supported him only after the voters made his nomination an inevitability. Granted, the DNC was essentially a tightly controlled coronation. I suppose in either case it's interesting, perhaps even satisfying to see the party structure "fail."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 12:25:45 PM
^ His existence as the nominee and president falls squarely on the GOP.  They've courted the votes of questionable people by following the Atwater playbook.  Their chickens have come home to roost.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 12:37:21 PM
The big difference between why people say that about the GOP and what makes them different than the DNC is that the DNC is led by more tightly wound and controlled factions. Trump would have had a much harder time rising in the DNC (as demonstrated by Sanders) because the rules of the DNC were designed to prevent such insurgencies and also the DNC caters to a lot more insiders and power brokers who control their various interest groups and blocs. Endorsements matter in the DNC much more than GOP because of the various factions with the party. Hence why you get identity politics. The identity politics used to not matter because the largest bloc for Dems was working class and unions. When unions held 40% of the workforce, that was a powerful voting bloc. Now they are under 10% which is why the working class does not carry any weight anymore in the DNC. Other blocs have become more powerful.

 The GOP is a lot more loosely connected and the typical GOP voter is more independent and not tightly aligned to a special interest group or voting bloc. Therefore, it is harder to keep an insurgent like Trump out of the GOP given how their rules are structured.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 12:37:24 PM
^His existence in the GOP is one of pure chance. The groundswell around him would've happened if he had decided to run as a democrat, too. The 35% don't care what party he's in. You honestly think @Ram23 wouldn't have voted for him if there was a (D) after his name?

Nonetheless, the GOP owns who he is as President.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
^ His existence as the nominee and president falls squarely on the GOP.  They've courted the votes of questionable people by following the Atwater playbook.  Their chickens have come home to roost.

The GOP deserves blame, absolutely. His existence as president is the fault of the DNC running the worst candidate ever. Here's hoping this thread is a small small step in direction of avoiding the same in 2020.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 24, 2018, 12:56:02 PM
The problem with that poll on the illegal aliens that were brought here by their parents is the words "the chance to".  How much of a chance?  So that 10% stay?  90%?   Only the ones who joined (and were accepted by) the military?   All the non-felons? 

Personally I'd send them all back except the military ones but wouldn't bar the non-felons from applying to come back, as I would anyone who came here illegally as an adult.  By the way, if DACA gets accepted then DAPA is on deck for their parents.   

No thanks.   Not with California declaring "sanctuary" and refusing to take any effective measures to keep the illegals from voting.   

Getting back to topic, a lot of the less committed members of the Democratic coalition, particularly union members, have similar views.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
^ No "illegals" are voting in California.  Give it a rest.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 24, 2018, 01:00:49 PM
^ No "illegals" are voting in California.  Give it a rest.

Statistically that's impossible.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 01:01:11 PM
^ How do you figure?

Have their been any charges. Did the president's commission uncover anything?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 01:02:54 PM
  No one with a felony is eligible for DACA status.

Q60: If I have a conviction for a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or multiple misdemeanors, can I receive an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under this new process?
A60: No. If you have been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or three or more other misdemeanor offenses not occurring on the same date and not arising out of the same act, omission, or scheme of misconduct, you will not be considered for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) except where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines there are exceptional circumstances.

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/frequently-asked-questions#criminal%20convictions
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on January 24, 2018, 01:08:38 PM
^ No "illegals" are voting in California.  Give it a rest.

Statistically that's impossible.

Good thing none of them vote Republican
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 24, 2018, 01:13:27 PM
Personally I'd send them all back except the military ones but wouldn't bar the non-felons from applying to come back, as I would anyone who came here illegally as an adult.  By the way, if DACA gets accepted then DAPA is on deck for their parents.   

You would send back kids to countries they haven't lived in for perhaps over a decade (and maybe don't even speak the language anymore) and where they perhaps don't even have family living anymore?

How very racist and un-American of you.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 01:18:35 PM

Personally I'd send them all back except

Where do you send them back to? For many of them their birth countries are foreign lands to them. Forcing somebody to go to a foreign land is just beyond the level of humanity that I'm comfortable with. If the GOP doesn't like illegal immigration, they should work first of all on removing the incentives for people to come here illegally, and secondly improve border security. Other than that, there should basically be a statute of limitations on it. No reason to deport anybody who's been here for an extended period of time and living a normal life. Just get their paperwork in order and be done with it, and prevent the situation from occurring in the future.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 01:20:28 PM
A good way to prevent illegal immigration is to revamp the immigration system so that it reflects the reality of who is coming here.  I'd rather just allow more Mexican and Latin American immigration though legal channels if that's who is coming here.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 01:26:18 PM
There is demand for their labor. If you artificially try to suppress that demand, a black market will arise. It's that simple. If the immigrant figures out a way to come legally, they are probably less employable in certain jobs than if they came illegally.

While the immigrant is not totally innocent, their crimes are minor - our government is to blame for doing nothing about this situation for decades, and that is why the government should be generous to those already here. It's practically entrapment.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 01:30:40 PM
Personally I'd send them all back except the military ones but wouldn't bar the non-felons from applying to come back, as I would anyone who came here illegally as an adult.  By the way, if DACA gets accepted then DAPA is on deck for their parents.   

You would send back kids to countries they haven't lived in for perhaps over a decade (and maybe don't even speak the language anymore) and where they perhaps don't even have family living anymore?

How very racist and un-American of you.

That is the problem, when you start throwing around the word Racist like a clown at a parade throws around candy, you cheapen its meaning such that it does not really apply to anyone or anything, hence you get the rise of Trump.

Misinformed would be a better way to describe his statement. Racist is not appropriate.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on January 24, 2018, 01:42:19 PM
^ The hyperbole is a bit over the top especially on the Dem side. They are just as responsible for Trump too. WHen the rhetoric is out of control and people do not have civilized discourse, you get Donald Trump.   

When you call all Republicans racist bigots and throw around incendiary terms like that when they are not appropriate, it makes it easy for someone like Trump to fly under the radar and sneak through.  Because not all Republicans are racists and bigots and they know they are not, so when you call everyone by that name, it applies to no-one and it loses its effectiveness. When you throw around the hyperbole and vicious rhetoric when it is not appropriate, it cheapens the meaning of the term and also makes the person who gave the insult sound ill-informed.

I was just skimming this thread and found it pretty funny that a few posts after yours, this insult was thrown around for a completely unwarranted reason:

How very racist and un-American of you.

You honestly think @Ram23 wouldn't have voted for him if there was a (D) after his name?

In this hypothetical situation, would Trump have acted in exactly the same way, said and done the same things, but simply had a D next to his name? Or are we assuming the same style, flare, and aura but with a different political platform? I think his personality would clash with a liberal political platform, but a Bizarro World scenario with a liberal president Trump would make for an interesting tale.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 24, 2018, 01:54:20 PM
Personally I'd send them all back except the military ones but wouldn't bar the non-felons from applying to come back, as I would anyone who came here illegally as an adult.  By the way, if DACA gets accepted then DAPA is on deck for their parents.   

You would send back kids to countries they haven't lived in for perhaps over a decade (and maybe don't even speak the language anymore) and where they perhaps don't even have family living anymore?

How very racist and un-American of you.

That is the problem, when you start throwing around the word Racist like a clown at a parade throws around candy, you cheapen its meaning such that it does not really apply to anyone or anything, hence you get the rise of Trump.

Misinformed would be a better way to describe his statement. Racist is not appropriate.

Please tell me how it's not racist or un-American.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 02:15:24 PM
^ The hyperbole is a bit over the top especially on the Dem side. They are just as responsible for Trump too. WHen the rhetoric is out of control and people do not have civilized discourse, you get Donald Trump.   

When you call all Republicans racist bigots and throw around incendiary terms like that when they are not appropriate, it makes it easy for someone like Trump to fly under the radar and sneak through.  Because not all Republicans are racists and bigots and they know they are not, so when you call everyone by that name, it applies to no-one and it loses its effectiveness. When you throw around the hyperbole and vicious rhetoric when it is not appropriate, it cheapens the meaning of the term and also makes the person who gave the insult sound ill-informed.

I was just skimming this thread and found it pretty funny that a few posts after yours, this insult was thrown around for a completely unwarranted reason:


It was not an insult, just that the person who throws around the term in the wrong context like that, or applies it to everyone is either ill-informed of the meaning and connotation behind the word or does not truly appreciate it. That is such a harsh word to call someone so when it is used, it has a lot more power if it is truly appropriate.


Personally I'd send them all back except the military ones but wouldn't bar the non-felons from applying to come back, as I would anyone who came here illegally as an adult.  By the way, if DACA gets accepted then DAPA is on deck for their parents.   

You would send back kids to countries they haven't lived in for perhaps over a decade (and maybe don't even speak the language anymore) and where they perhaps don't even have family living anymore?

How very racist and un-American of you.

That is the problem, when you start throwing around the word Racist like a clown at a parade throws around candy, you cheapen its meaning such that it does not really apply to anyone or anything, hence you get the rise of Trump.

Misinformed would be a better way to describe his statement. Racist is not appropriate.

Please tell me how it's not racist or un-American.

Because calling him racist for his statement implies that he hates immigrants which may not be the case, I don't know this for a fact and you don't either. Before you can determine that you need to get to the bottom of where his statement came from. Yes, it could be racist, but it could be an opinion that was formed on bad facts at which case explaining to him why that opinion is misinformed is better than just writing him off as a racist.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 02:26:47 PM
^ The hyperbole is a bit over the top especially on the Dem side. They are just as responsible for Trump too. WHen the rhetoric is out of control and people do not have civilized discourse, you get Donald Trump.   

When you call all Republicans racist bigots and throw around incendiary terms like that when they are not appropriate, it makes it easy for someone like Trump to fly under the radar and sneak through.  Because not all Republicans are racists and bigots and they know they are not, so when you call everyone by that name, it applies to no-one and it loses its effectiveness. When you throw around the hyperbole and vicious rhetoric when it is not appropriate, it cheapens the meaning of the term and also makes the person who gave the insult sound ill-informed.

Here's the problem with your claim that Democrats are just as responsible for the "out of control rhetoric"-  it's nonsense.

A pretty typical scenario lately has been...

1. A Republican/Trump supporter says or does something awful (real life examples include supporting pedophiles for Congress, attacking trans people, calling Mexican rapists, admitting sexual assault, making fun of the handicapped, etc).
2. Liberals/Democrats are obviously not okay with any of that and call a spade a spade in response.
3. Republicans/Trump supporters are outraged at how PC liberal snowflakes are ruining America by trying to limit free speech when they were just saying what everyone thinks anyway*. 
4. Rinse and repeat. 

*Official Trump supporter response.  "Just locker room talk" also acceptable. 

The "both sides are equally bad" is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.  If I threw a bag of burning dog crap on your porch and you stepped in it, I wouldn't then have the right to be outraged that you didn't laugh. 

Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 02:30:21 PM
^His existence in the GOP is one of pure chance. The groundswell around him would've happened if he had decided to run as a democrat, too. The 35% don't care what party he's in. You honestly think @Ram23 wouldn't have voted for him if there was a (D) after his name?

Nonetheless, the GOP owns who he is as President.

I fully disagree with this.  If Bernie the near-socialist couldn't rise in the Democratic Party, a racist, misogynistic maniac would've been Howard Dean'd right out of there.  There is a reason he was able to run, thrive and succeed with the GOP.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on January 24, 2018, 02:46:35 PM


Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

Kasich is an outspoken Trump opponent but of course he has been since he ran against Trump in the primary.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 24, 2018, 02:53:54 PM
^ The hyperbole is a bit over the top especially on the Dem side. They are just as responsible for Trump too. WHen the rhetoric is out of control and people do not have civilized discourse, you get Donald Trump.   

When you call all Republicans racist bigots and throw around incendiary terms like that when they are not appropriate, it makes it easy for someone like Trump to fly under the radar and sneak through.  Because not all Republicans are racists and bigots and they know they are not, so when you call everyone by that name, it applies to no-one and it loses its effectiveness. When you throw around the hyperbole and vicious rhetoric when it is not appropriate, it cheapens the meaning of the term and also makes the person who gave the insult sound ill-informed.
  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

Oh, like the way Democrats for over twenty years have excused a sexual abuser like Bill Clinton, smearing his victims in the media over and over again? It's only in the last couple of months that anyone was willing to speak up about that and condemn it. Sorry, too little too late.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 02:54:28 PM


Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

Kasich is an outspoken Trump opponent but of course he has been since he ran against Trump in the primary.

I wouldn't call Kasich "organized opposition".  And he'll probably run again, so given how unpopular Trump is, it serves him to stay the course in that regard.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on January 24, 2018, 03:04:00 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 03:07:21 PM
very few on the right "despise" liberals.

That's an absurd statement. Flip it around. Why would anyone who lives in a major city or a blue state vote republican after being vilified, talked about as if they were the scum of the earth, for so long? Remember Ted Cruz's "New York values" quip? Trump, to his credit, shot that down, but it remains the dominant thought pattern on the right wing media, websites, activist groups, etc.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 24, 2018, 03:11:21 PM
There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals.

Good lord, have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? The popularity of his whole act is based on despising liberals.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 03:14:28 PM
It's really beyond despising them - it's based on painting them as nefarious, malevolent characters who are actively trying to bring down you and your way of life.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 03:17:28 PM
And conservatism is supposed to love capitalism, but if you have a capitalist with left-of-center views (George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, all of silicon valley) they sound like Bernie Sanders out there. Comical really
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 24, 2018, 03:21:54 PM
I recall all the hysteria in the media whenever anyone said anything critical of Obama. It was usually immediately deemed to be racist. It was only racist if you just saw Obama as being black first, and president second. Obama is highly intelligent and was a good candidate and worked hard to win, and subsequently earned his place as president, but also along with being president comes opposition to one's policies and style of governance. Democrats conveniently used the charge of "racism" as a cover to deflect and write off any criticism of Obama; either that or they truly believed that, thereby basically reducing him to a caricature of just being the "first black president." Was there criticism of Obama due to racism? Of course. This was inevitable, but it represented a statistically insignificant number of detractors. And yes, some of the legitimate attacks on Obama's policies did go a little too far. That said, they were nothing compared to the kind of vile, non-stop hate campaign directed at Trump by the left and the Democrat base. It's like these people are demonically possessed, and as Ram correctly noted, they are going to be in for a "rude awakening" this year.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 24, 2018, 03:23:12 PM
I recall all the hysteria in the media whenever anyone said anything critical of Obama. It was usually immediately deemed to be racist. It was only racist if you just saw Obama as being black first, and president second. Obama is highly intelligent and was a good candidate and worked hard to win, and subsequently earned his place as president, but also along with being president comes opposition to one's policies and style of governance. Democrats conveniently used the charge of "racism" as a cover to deflect and write off any criticism of Obama; either that or they truly believed that, thereby basically reducing him to a caricature of just being the "first black president." Was there criticism of Obama due to racism? Of course. This was inevitable, but it represented a statistically insignificant number of detractors. And yes, some of the legitimate attacks on Obama's policies did go a little too far. That said, they were nothing compared to the kind of vile, non-stop hate campaign directed at Trump by the left and the Democrat base. It's like these people are demonically possessed, and as Ram correctly noted, they are going to be in for a "rude awakening" this year.

Quite the strawman there.  I believe that the conservative media (namely Glenn Beck) referred to Obama as the racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA)
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 24, 2018, 03:32:47 PM
I recall all the hysteria in the media whenever anyone said anything critical of Obama. It was usually immediately deemed to be racist. It was only racist if you just saw Obama as being black first, and president second. Obama is highly intelligent and was a good candidate and worked hard to win, and subsequently earned his place as president, but also along with being president comes opposition to one's policies and style of governance. Democrats conveniently used the charge of "racism" as a cover to deflect and write off any criticism of Obama; either that or they truly believed that, thereby basically reducing him to a caricature of just being the "first black president." Was there criticism of Obama due to racism? Of course. This was inevitable, but it represented a statistically insignificant number of detractors. And yes, some of the legitimate attacks on Obama's policies did go a little too far. That said, they were nothing compared to the kind of vile, non-stop hate campaign directed at Trump by the left and the Democrat base. It's like these people are demonically possessed, and as Ram correctly noted, they are going to be in for a "rude awakening" this year.

I think you make a fair point re: the use of racism to deflect some very real critiques of situations. And that still happens with Dems all over the country.

Nonetheless, some Dems also had a point. When you are trying to work with the legislative branch, and dozens of legislators believe that you forged a birth certificate and are not a Christian, it can be difficult to not view things through a race-based lense.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 03:34:17 PM


Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.


The point was more about calling the GOP racist. This is an incendiary remark thrown around by a lot of people on social media. Anyone who voted for Trump is a racist, anyone who is complicit to his election is just as racist, anyone who does not vote for Hillary is a misogynist and racist, etc.  The problem is that such a blanket statement is far from true and we not only see it at the social media level but you have it leveled by members of Congress about each other in efforts to rally their bases.

The absurdity is that when you make your competitor out to be completely deplorable it does not leave room for when someone truly deplorable comes along. Somehow using that same language to describe Trump is not sufficient even though it may be accurate because reasonable people like the Rob Portman's of the world are labeled as racist or anti-gay, etc. You also have moderate people who may share ideas with a hardliner but not necessarily the racist sentiments and by labelling them racist, it makes it easier to justify a vote for someone who truly fits that narrative.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 24, 2018, 03:50:09 PM
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2515

Quote
Voters say 51 - 38 percent, including 46 - 35 percent among independent voters, they want the Democratic Party to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives;

Voters say 53 - 39 percent, including 53 - 33 percent among independent voters, they want Democrats to win control of the U.S. Senate.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on January 24, 2018, 04:28:59 PM
^ Those generic congressional polls are pretty meaningless, especially the Senate poll. For the Senate, unless they're surveying the exact same number of people from every state it won't even be close. The results are probably going to be close to the opposite of what the percentages are showing. Florida, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia and Indiana will be the key places to watch - Republicans could flip them all, and lose 1-2 seats, at most. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 04:36:38 PM
I think the generic poll has favored the Dems in Congress for the last 6 elections, and we see how it has ended up.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 24, 2018, 04:52:19 PM
I think the generic poll has favored the Dems in Congress for the last 6 elections, and we see how it has ended up.

Ignoring history is fun.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2016_generic_congressional_vote-5279.html

2016: RCP average: D +0.6%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

2014: RCP average: R +2.4%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_generic_congressional_vote-3525.html

2012: RCP average: R +0.2%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html

2010: RCP average: R+9.4%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2008_generic_congressional_vote-2173.html

2008: RCP average: D+9.0%
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 05:12:26 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 05:14:58 PM
I recall all the hysteria in the media whenever anyone said anything critical of Obama. It was usually immediately deemed to be racist. It was only racist if you just saw Obama as being black first, and president second. Obama is highly intelligent and was a good candidate and worked hard to win, and subsequently earned his place as president, but also along with being president comes opposition to one's policies and style of governance. Democrats conveniently used the charge of "racism" as a cover to deflect and write off any criticism of Obama; either that or they truly believed that, thereby basically reducing him to a caricature of just being the "first black president." Was there criticism of Obama due to racism? Of course. This was inevitable, but it represented a statistically insignificant number of detractors. And yes, some of the legitimate attacks on Obama's policies did go a little too far. That said, they were nothing compared to the kind of vile, non-stop hate campaign directed at Trump by the left and the Democrat base. It's like these people are demonically possessed, and as Ram correctly noted, they are going to be in for a "rude awakening" this year.

Quite the strawman there.  I believe that the conservative media (namely Glenn Beck) referred to Obama as the racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA)

A lot of them continue to claim to this day that Obama was the real divider of the country, especially on racial issues, as a distraction from how disgusting Trump is.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: MGM on January 24, 2018, 05:21:59 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 

Why do you hate racists? Or do you mean racist thoughts? What about Racists on the left or identify on the left?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 05:24:08 PM


Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.


The point was more about calling the GOP racist. This is an incendiary remark thrown around by a lot of people on social media. Anyone who voted for Trump is a racist, anyone who is complicit to his election is just as racist, anyone who does not vote for Hillary is a misogynist and racist, etc.  The problem is that such a blanket statement is far from true and we not only see it at the social media level but you have it leveled by members of Congress about each other in efforts to rally their bases.

The absurdity is that when you make your competitor out to be completely deplorable it does not leave room for when someone truly deplorable comes along. Somehow using that same language to describe Trump is not sufficient even though it may be accurate because reasonable people like the Rob Portman's of the world are labeled as racist or anti-gay, etc. You also have moderate people who may share ideas with a hardliner but not necessarily the racist sentiments and by labelling them racist, it makes it easier to justify a vote for someone who truly fits that narrative.

I don't think everything's racist, nor do I use the term lightly.  That said, the GOP has more than earned it.  Look at what happened in North Carolina where racism was the *specific* determining factor behind voter laws.  Or Pennsylvania more recently.  Or the way Trump describes literally anyone and anywhere that isn't majority white and Christian.  Or the rhetoric tied to undocumented immigrants.  The GOP base LOVES that stuff. 
And yes, voting for Trump was, at best, tolerating those things.  And what does it say about a person that tolerates it?  Maybe they are not personally racist, but they're okay enough with it to allow it to thrive in their choice of leader.  I don't consider that actually better.  So no, maybe not every single Trump voter is racist, but they had to excuse racism- and a whole lot more awful things- to support him.  Frankly, at this point, the distinction really doesn't even matter.  Laying with pigs and all that...
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 05:26:49 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 

Why do you hate racists? Or do you mean racist thoughts? What about Racists on the left or identify on the left?

Why do I hate racists?  Is that really a serious question? 

I hate racists of any political persuasion.  It's just that I've met many times more of them on the Right so that's where my ire is directed most often.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: MGM on January 24, 2018, 05:38:39 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 

Why do you hate racists? Or do you mean racist thoughts? What about Racists on the left or identify on the left?

Why do I hate racists?  Is that really a serious question? 

I hate racists of any political persuasion.  It's just that I've met many times more of them on the Right so that's where my ire is directed most often.

But why do you hate someone for their thoughts or beliefs?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 24, 2018, 07:35:02 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 

Why do you hate racists? Or do you mean racist thoughts? What about Racists on the left or identify on the left?

Why do I hate racists?  Is that really a serious question? 

I hate racists of any political persuasion.  It's just that I've met many times more of them on the Right so that's where my ire is directed most often.

But why do you hate someone for their thoughts or beliefs?

Because such thoughts are not neutral on their effects on society.  They hurt endless numbers of people with ignorance-based beliefs, as such beliefs often dictate policy- officially and unofficially.  Not all thoughts and beliefs have such an overtly negative affect on civilization.  Racism is one that does.  Call me strange, but I tend to strongly dislike things that are detrimental to common sense, empathy, compassion and the common good of humanity. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: MGM on January 24, 2018, 08:49:39 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 

Why do you hate racists? Or do you mean racist thoughts? What about Racists on the left or identify on the left?

Why do I hate racists?  Is that really a serious question? 

I hate racists of any political persuasion.  It's just that I've met many times more of them on the Right so that's where my ire is directed most often.

But why do you hate someone for their thoughts or beliefs?

Because such thoughts are not neutral on their effects on society.  They hurt endless numbers of people with ignorance-based beliefs, as such beliefs often dictate policy- officially and unofficially.  Not all thoughts and beliefs have such an overtly negative affect on civilization.  Racism is one that does.  Call me strange, but I tend to strongly dislike things that are detrimental to common sense, empathy, compassion and the common good of humanity. 
So your answer is hatred of these people. Hate is the answer. Hatred is common sense, empathy, compassion?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 24, 2018, 09:45:09 PM


Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.


The point was more about calling the GOP racist. This is an incendiary remark thrown around by a lot of people on social media. Anyone who voted for Trump is a racist, anyone who is complicit to his election is just as racist, anyone who does not vote for Hillary is a misogynist and racist, etc.  The problem is that such a blanket statement is far from true and we not only see it at the social media level but you have it leveled by members of Congress about each other in efforts to rally their bases.

The absurdity is that when you make your competitor out to be completely deplorable it does not leave room for when someone truly deplorable comes along. Somehow using that same language to describe Trump is not sufficient even though it may be accurate because reasonable people like the Rob Portman's of the world are labeled as racist or anti-gay, etc. You also have moderate people who may share ideas with a hardliner but not necessarily the racist sentiments and by labelling them racist, it makes it easier to justify a vote for someone who truly fits that narrative.

I don't think everything's racist, nor do I use the term lightly.  That said, the GOP has more than earned it.  Look at what happened in North Carolina where racism was the *specific* determining factor behind voter laws.  Or Pennsylvania more recently.  Or the way Trump describes literally anyone and anywhere that isn't majority white and Christian.  Or the rhetoric tied to undocumented immigrants.  The GOP base LOVES that stuff. 
And yes, voting for Trump was, at best, tolerating those things.  And what does it say about a person that tolerates it?  Maybe they are not personally racist, but they're okay enough with it to allow it to thrive in their choice of leader.  I don't consider that actually better.  So no, maybe not every single Trump voter is racist, but they had to excuse racism- and a whole lot more awful things- to support him.  Frankly, at this point, the distinction really doesn't even matter.  Laying with pigs and all that...

It is not you personally, but when you have people like Maxine Walters or even Liz Warren or Kamala Harris who are quick to use the race card against other members of Congress or their opponents when it is far from appropriate. It leads to statements from others such as "people who watch Fox News are racists" or as someone told me the other week when I mentioned I voted 3rd party last year, "You are just as racist as the people who voted for Trump" Now this is absurd and made her look like a fool too but when you start labeling wide swaths of people as either black or white, with us or against us; you fail to understand the nuances of why the other choice was not acceptable to them either.

The thing is, as Mitt Romney pointed out in 2012, no matter who you are, 47% of people are going to vote for the other guy, regardless of who it is. Donald Trump is Example A on this. If the Dems ran Sean Penn, he would get 47% of the vote too. This does not mean that all 47% of the Penn voters are crazies too and that all Trump voters are racist. There are many reasons to vote for or against a candidate. Not all Trump voters are created equal.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 24, 2018, 10:32:24 PM
Barack Obama once called his grandmother a "typical white person" who had fears about black men. He later elaborated "the point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

The problem with the racist/not racist dichotomy is that it literally lumps Barack Obama's grandma in with Hitler. Grandma is afraid of a guy on the street. Hitler wanted to kill off the Jews. Both racists!

The idea of having a 0/1 binary definition of racist is far too simple for something so complex, and the left are the ones who should know this as they are the ones who study racism. But many people throw the word around far too freely as a slur and it cheapens the meaning and impairs the conversation. The word racist should be retired and replaced with like five or six different words with different meanings.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on January 24, 2018, 10:46:13 PM
4-term Rep @nickieantonio chairs the Ohio House Dems Women's Caucus, is the first #lgbt legislator at the statehouse, has a bill to *finally* outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the old boys in the Cuyahoga party endorsed a sexual harasser instead?! It's 2018, except in Cuyahoga County...

https://t.co/BND5u5bo7e
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: MGM on January 24, 2018, 10:46:32 PM
Barack Obama once called his grandmother a "typical white person" who had fears about black men. He later elaborated "the point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

The problem with the racist/not racist dichotomy is that it literally lumps Barack Obama's grandma in with Hitler. Grandma is afraid of a guy on the street. Hitler wanted to kill off the Jews. Both racists!

The idea of having a 0/1 binary definition of racist is far too simple for something so complex, and the left are the ones who should know this as they are the ones who study racism. But many people throw the word around as a slur and it cheapens the meaning and impairs the conversation.
There is a Dreams of the my Father, thingy on youtube. He did a one hour local Chicago public cable presentation on his book. Like 1993 or something, nails on chalkboard mentioning that and Frank Marshall Davis by name. Party on Wayne and Garth.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 25, 2018, 02:27:51 PM
Look, I despise Trump, and my view of his supporters is only marginally better at best, but even I recognize that not all Republicans are the same.  But for the life of me, I've seen almost no organized opposition to what the party has become.  If anything, I've seen the rank and file conservative embrace it.  Sorry guys, but do you really not understand how life works?  You are not only tainted by what you do personally, but also by what you're willing to excuse of others.  Either accept the consequences, or stop throwing crap.

If this type of thinking keeps up, Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening when they don't pick up any seats in 2018, and even more so when Trump is reelected in 2020. These views aren't just those of the left wing fringe, but of the mainstream political left. Politicians, the media, celebrities, etc. - the spokespeople of the left - openly despise Republicans. There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals. Moderates (especially in Middle America) have, and will continue to take note of this. Why would they vote for the side that hates so many Americans - and does so in such an insulting, visible, constant, and unrestrained manner?

Yes, I hate racists and strongly dislike those who tolerate them.  How dare I.  You denigrate Middle America for suggesting that those are its true values. 

Why do you hate racists? Or do you mean racist thoughts? What about Racists on the left or identify on the left?

Why do I hate racists?  Is that really a serious question? 

I hate racists of any political persuasion.  It's just that I've met many times more of them on the Right so that's where my ire is directed most often.

But why do you hate someone for their thoughts or beliefs?

Because such thoughts are not neutral on their effects on society.  They hurt endless numbers of people with ignorance-based beliefs, as such beliefs often dictate policy- officially and unofficially.  Not all thoughts and beliefs have such an overtly negative affect on civilization.  Racism is one that does.  Call me strange, but I tend to strongly dislike things that are detrimental to common sense, empathy, compassion and the common good of humanity. 
So your answer is hatred of these people. Hate is the answer. Hatred is common sense, empathy, compassion?

There are times when hate is a rational reaction.  I also hate Nazis, rape, murder, pedophilia, etc.  Why is hating racism an unreasonable position to you? 
And if you're asking because you think I should reach out and try to understand them... frankly, it's really not that hard to understand.  And it's not my responsibility to get people to change the things that they do/believe.  Real change doesn't happen until someone wants it, it can't be forced.  In the meantime, I'll continue to call a spade a spade.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 25, 2018, 02:30:06 PM
I hate dry skin.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 25, 2018, 02:41:15 PM
Hate is never sensible, never reasonable.  Not even as a response to hate.  How will it ever end, if we keep having reasons not to end it?  There will always be someone worse, someone more wrong, someone more deserving.  And yet it still has to end.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 25, 2018, 02:51:18 PM

I don't think everything's racist, nor do I use the term lightly.  That said, the GOP has more than earned it.  Look at what happened in North Carolina where racism was the *specific* determining factor behind voter laws.  Or Pennsylvania more recently.  Or the way Trump describes literally anyone and anywhere that isn't majority white and Christian.  Or the rhetoric tied to undocumented immigrants.  The GOP base LOVES that stuff. 
And yes, voting for Trump was, at best, tolerating those things.  And what does it say about a person that tolerates it?  Maybe they are not personally racist, but they're okay enough with it to allow it to thrive in their choice of leader.  I don't consider that actually better.  So no, maybe not every single Trump voter is racist, but they had to excuse racism- and a whole lot more awful things- to support him.  Frankly, at this point, the distinction really doesn't even matter.  Laying with pigs and all that...

It is not you personally, but when you have people like Maxine Walters or even Liz Warren or Kamala Harris who are quick to use the race card against other members of Congress or their opponents when it is far from appropriate. It leads to statements from others such as "people who watch Fox News are racists" or as someone told me the other week when I mentioned I voted 3rd party last year, "You are just as racist as the people who voted for Trump" Now this is absurd and made her look like a fool too but when you start labeling wide swaths of people as either black or white, with us or against us; you fail to understand the nuances of why the other choice was not acceptable to them either.

The thing is, as Mitt Romney pointed out in 2012, no matter who you are, 47% of people are going to vote for the other guy, regardless of who it is. Donald Trump is Example A on this. If the Dems ran Sean Penn, he would get 47% of the vote too. This does not mean that all 47% of the Penn voters are crazies too and that all Trump voters are racist. There are many reasons to vote for or against a candidate. Not all Trump voters are created equal.

All people generalize because it's easier than going by an individual basis, right or wrong.  That said, sometimes generalizations are accurate.  I can generalize that all rapists are sick people.  I can generalize that all neo-Nazis are racist.  I don't have to meet every single one of them to make a pretty factual conclusion. 
Are all Fox News viewers racist?  No, of course not.  Do they likely have questionable taste in news based on some inherent conservative biases?  Yes.  The point is, not all generalizations are created equal, so to just say all generalizations are wrong is not really true. 

The comparison of Sean Penn and Trump is a little strange.  Penn can be an outspoken liberal, but that in and of itself is no worse or better than being an outspoken conservative.  Context matters, and in that comparison, Trump would clearly be the worse choice, just as he was versus Clinton (or another Republican for that matter).  It's not all about liberal versus conservative, Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat.  It also comes down to things like right and wrong, moral and immoral, logical and illogical, etc.  I'm as liberal as it gets, but if the Democrats had run someone in 2016 similar to Trump, I would've had zero problem voting Republican.  Again, context matters... well, at least to some people.

And I already made the point that it doesn't really matter if all Trump voters are actually overtly racist.  Let me ask you something (and before you say anything, I am not making a direct comparison, just giving a clear example)- There were many people who voted for Hitler in the early 1930s when he was just giving speeches about making Germany strong and finding scapegoats to blame for Germany's problems, before there was any talk of concentration camps and war.  Many average people continued to support him even after those things started, whether or not they were actually active in the party or believed such actions were right or wrong.  Would you say that those average citizens were complicit in what Hitler was able to do, or were they simply voting for someone who they thought was best and they deserve the benefit of the doubt even though they ignored all the obviously terrible things that Hitler represented even long before WWII?  Would you argue that they share no blame for what happened?  Do you believe that who/what people support or are willing to excuse has no bearing on their own character? 

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 25, 2018, 02:58:16 PM
^whew! I'm glad you're not making a "direct comparison" You only wrote a whole paragraph in essence comparing Trump to Hilter! lol carry on.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 25, 2018, 02:59:44 PM
Hate is never sensible, never reasonable.  Not even as a response to hate.  How will it ever end, if we keep having reasons not to end it?  There will always be someone worse, someone more wrong, someone more deserving.  And yet it still has to end.

That's fortune cookie logic to me.  Sorry, I'm not going to cuddle with neo-Nazis.  I didn't create or force anyone to believe in that stuff.  They chose that.  That's on them, and it's not therefore my personal responsibility to reach out and play nice while they drag society down with them.  And frankly, I'm tired of just being labeled a SJW or out of control PC liberal for the trouble. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 25, 2018, 03:02:24 PM
^whew! I'm glad you're not making a "direct comparison" You only wrote a whole paragraph in essence comparing Trump to Hilter! lol carry on.

I used it because it's a well-known, real-life example that everyone can understand.  The last few lines are the most important part- Does who and what people support have any bearing on their own character?  If no, why not?  If yes, why would Trump voters get a pass when Trump is objectively a terrible person with terrible positions?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 25, 2018, 03:14:22 PM
@jon81oh I would argue that people who voted for Trump who may not have thought his character was what it was and even people who voted 3rd party share no more burden for his election than the Democrats who propped up an incredibly poor choice on their own and ran Hillary Clinton.

You see, voting is an extremely personal and private matter and each issue matters differently to each individual in the voting booth. While the morality that you hold close to you would dictate that even if you hated her, you had to vote for Hillary, that is a personal matter to you and you alone. I am sure Juanitta Broadrick, Paula Jones or Kathleen Willy would be justified in the same moral way you are in voting for Trump, because in their personal experience (and you cant take that away from them) Hillary was much more evil to them than Trump was (in this case they personally experienced it).

So to call your fellow citizens for their personal voting decisions for mistakes that may happen by their flawed leaders complicit and in hold them in the same vein as the elected official that you despise is inappropriate.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 25, 2018, 03:18:04 PM
^whew! I'm glad you're not making a "direct comparison" You only wrote a whole paragraph in essence comparing Trump to Hilter! lol carry on.

I used it because it's a well-known, real-life example that everyone can understand.  The last few lines are the most important part- Does who and what people support have any bearing on their own character?  If no, why not?  If yes, why would Trump voters get a pass when Trump is objectively a terrible person with terrible positions?

People support for a candidate has to do solely with their personal purposes at that time and the information available to them when they go into make that decision. If Hillary did not meet their minimum threshold to earn their vote, why should they vote for her?

Your Hitler example is a bad example again because 1) people voted for him with the best available information they had at that time.
2) What you are effectively doing is Monday Morning Quarterbacking here and judging people who initially supported him on information they never had available when they initially spoke.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 25, 2018, 03:23:27 PM
Hate is never sensible, never reasonable.  Not even as a response to hate.  How will it ever end, if we keep having reasons not to end it?  There will always be someone worse, someone more wrong, someone more deserving.  And yet it still has to end.

That's fortune cookie logic to me.  Sorry, I'm not going to cuddle with neo-Nazis.  I didn't create or force anyone to believe in that stuff.  They chose that.  That's on them, and it's not therefore my personal responsibility to reach out and play nice while they drag society down with them.  And frankly, I'm tired of just being labeled a SJW or out of control PC liberal for the trouble. 

There is only one logic.  And there's nothing wrong with being a SJW.  But fighting hate with hate doesn't get us anywhere.  I've said the same thing toward conservatives about Muslims.  Bombs keep getting bigger but the world doesn't.  There's not as much room for hate as there used to be. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 25, 2018, 03:24:52 PM
^whew! I'm glad you're not making a "direct comparison" You only wrote a whole paragraph in essence comparing Trump to Hilter! lol carry on.

I used it because it's a well-known, real-life example that everyone can understand.  The last few lines are the most important part- Does who and what people support have any bearing on their own character?  If no, why not?  If yes, why would Trump voters get a pass when Trump is objectively a terrible person with terrible positions?

no, it's a "it's a well-known, real-life example that" people like you who were predisposed to hate Trump in the first place can understand. It's amazing what short memories some people have. Are you forgetting who Trump's opponent was!?!?? It was the closest choice to the lesser of two evils we've ever had. The fact is that most Republican voters rejected Trump in the primaries, but with such a large field of candidates those votes were diluted. And the Dems basically rigged their own primary because Hillary was considered their heir apparent, and crowned as nominee in a corrupt process. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate (otherwise no one would ever vote), and these two were the most flawed ever.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 25, 2018, 04:00:34 PM
There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals.

Good lord, have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? The popularity of his whole act is based on despising liberals.

Mocking them.   Someone like Savage's career is based on "despising".   That's why Rush has done so much better.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 25, 2018, 04:04:26 PM
There's simply nothing comparable on the right. The right's rhetoric and policies may upset the left, but very few on the right "despise" liberals.

Good lord, have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? The popularity of his whole act is based on despising liberals.

Mocking them.   Someone like Savage's career is based on "despising".   That's why Rush has done so much better.

Michael Savage is in 2nd place. Not that far behind Rush.

https://blog.talkstreamlive.com/category/top-25-talk-radio/
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 25, 2018, 04:53:09 PM
Their careers are based on saying things like "Obama wants race relations to decline because it allows him to consolidate power" (heard it live once before I could change the dial) and on making tongue in cheek second amendment jokes about eliminating Democratic political figures. It's all about painting liberals as not only people who disagree with them, but who fundamentally want to bring down America, or something. Meanwhile they should look in the mirror, because that's what they're doing by scaring elderly, impressionable listeners and turning them into raving maniacs... for ratings. But don't worry it's all just "entertainment."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 26, 2018, 01:36:38 PM
Barack Obama once called his grandmother a "typical white person" who had fears about black men. He later elaborated "the point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

The problem with the racist/not racist dichotomy is that it literally lumps Barack Obama's grandma in with Hitler. Grandma is afraid of a guy on the street. Hitler wanted to kill off the Jews. Both racists!

The idea of having a 0/1 binary definition of racist is far too simple for something so complex, and the left are the ones who should know this as they are the ones who study racism. But many people throw the word around far too freely as a slur and it cheapens the meaning and impairs the conversation. The word racist should be retired and replaced with like five or six different words with different meanings.

That won't happen because it requires examining what "racists" really think and it will turn out that it's primarily behavior based.  That will make it less dire.   Grouping all "racists" together makes it a bigger problem that people can emotionally and economically benefit from opposing.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 27, 2018, 12:50:02 PM
@jon81oh I would argue that people who voted for Trump who may not have thought his character was what it was and even people who voted 3rd party share no more burden for his election than the Democrats who propped up an incredibly poor choice on their own and ran Hillary Clinton.

You see, voting is an extremely personal and private matter and each issue matters differently to each individual in the voting booth. While the morality that you hold close to you would dictate that even if you hated her, you had to vote for Hillary, that is a personal matter to you and you alone. I am sure Juanitta Broadrick, Paula Jones or Kathleen Willy would be justified in the same moral way you are in voting for Trump, because in their personal experience (and you cant take that away from them) Hillary was much more evil to them than Trump was (in this case they personally experienced it).

So to call your fellow citizens for their personal voting decisions for mistakes that may happen by their flawed leaders complicit and in hold them in the same vein as the elected official that you despise is inappropriate.

These all sound like excuses.  If people didn't believe his character in 2016 and thought he was going to "pivot" after the election, why do they continue to support him when that's so clearly not the case? 
And sorry, but trying to pin the blame for Trump on the Democrats is cowardly and smacks of admitting Trump is horrible and that his voters made a huge mistake.  Otherwise, why try to pass the blame?  And it's ironic to hear someone talk about Clinton being an "incredibly poor choice" when their own side put up someone objectively worse in every way.  That he managed to win is hardly a measure of quality.  Awful people are always ending up at the top.  Simply put, you live in a glass house. 

No, I am saying that if someone couldn't vote for Clinton out of a belief of moral and political corruption on her part, there is no way in hell that Donald Trump would've been a logical alternative for any rational human being.  They would've voted 3rd Party or not voted at all.  THAT at least would've been consistent.  But a lot of Trump voters who despise the Clintons for that belief were bending over backwards to excuse the very same or worse awfulness in Trump.  The hypocrisy in that is astronomical, and is a good indication of the true character of those people.  The only reason the Clintons keep getting brought up by Trump supporters and other conservatives is because their own guy is the least popular, most disastrous joke of a president in modern history.  Talking about Clinton's moral character at this point is laughable. 

I will continue to do so.  Who Trump is was established a long time ago, and it was certainly on display every day during the election.  People don't get to act like they didn't notice, because even if I were naively willing to believe that, being ignorant of something is not an excuse.  And it's not like there have been very many Trump supporters out there expressing regret.  Nope, they've doubled down on how much they love him, and he's arguably even worse as president than he was as a candidate.   





Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 27, 2018, 12:56:40 PM
^whew! I'm glad you're not making a "direct comparison" You only wrote a whole paragraph in essence comparing Trump to Hilter! lol carry on.

I used it because it's a well-known, real-life example that everyone can understand.  The last few lines are the most important part- Does who and what people support have any bearing on their own character?  If no, why not?  If yes, why would Trump voters get a pass when Trump is objectively a terrible person with terrible positions?

People support for a candidate has to do solely with their personal purposes at that time and the information available to them when they go into make that decision. If Hillary did not meet their minimum threshold to earn their vote, why should they vote for her?

Your Hitler example is a bad example again because 1) people voted for him with the best available information they had at that time.
2) What you are effectively doing is Monday Morning Quarterbacking here and judging people who initially supported him on information they never had available when they initially spoke.

The best available information we had during the election was that he was racist, misogynistic, amazingly narcissistic, a probable sexual assaulter, habitual liar... and had an incredibly poor understanding of international and domestic affairs, let alone constitutional rights, along with terrible economic and social policy positions.  Again, ignorance isn't an excuse.  The man was not some mystery.  If someone didn't know who he was by November 8th,  they either liked who he was and agreed with it, or they were someone who didn't care who they were voting for.  There's no logical way a Trump supporters comes out looking good either way. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 27, 2018, 01:05:47 PM
^whew! I'm glad you're not making a "direct comparison" You only wrote a whole paragraph in essence comparing Trump to Hilter! lol carry on.

I used it because it's a well-known, real-life example that everyone can understand.  The last few lines are the most important part- Does who and what people support have any bearing on their own character?  If no, why not?  If yes, why would Trump voters get a pass when Trump is objectively a terrible person with terrible positions?

no, it's a "it's a well-known, real-life example that" people like you who were predisposed to hate Trump in the first place can understand. It's amazing what short memories some people have. Are you forgetting who Trump's opponent was!?!?? It was the closest choice to the lesser of two evils we've ever had. The fact is that most Republican voters rejected Trump in the primaries, but with such a large field of candidates those votes were diluted. And the Dems basically rigged their own primary because Hillary was considered their heir apparent, and crowned as nominee in a corrupt process. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate (otherwise no one would ever vote), and these two were the most flawed ever.

Before the election (years before). I didn't care about Trump.  I knew him only as a real estate guy and tv personality.  I had no strong feelings about him one way or another.  So no, I wasn't predisposed to hate him.  He did that, when he opened his mouth, starting with leading the birther movement and showing us all who he really was.  It only got worse with his "Mexicans are rapists" speech when he began his campaign.  It all went downhill from there.
You can stop lying about the "impossible choice of lesser of two evils".  I don't remotely take that argument seriously, especially not from someone who has defended Trump at literally every possible turn.  If you truly believed that Trump was as flawed as Clinton, there is no way you would be doing that.  You would be as critical of Trump even now as you are about Clinton.  But you're not, which betrays your entire argument that this was a difficult choice or that you believed Trump was in any way flawed.  No, we know where you stand.
More "rigging" nonsense.  Yes, Democrats let a non-Democrat run in their primaries and despite being in all the debates, had endless commercials and everyone knew who he was, somehow he was brought down because the party had a preference.  The cognitive dissonance...
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 27, 2018, 01:57:31 PM
I used to watch the apprentice with my mom in high school and we thought Trump was cool. Once he went birther, I knew he was garbage.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 27, 2018, 02:16:50 PM
I used to watch the apprentice with my mom in high school and we thought Trump was cool. Once he went birther, I knew he was garbage.

well, just to be accurate, the jury is still out (and probably forever will be) on who actually started the birther movement. There's enough blame to go around to both Trump and Hillary. Just sayin'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7XJfihFoA
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 27, 2018, 03:38:39 PM
There was some staffer of hers who briefly brought it up back then, but the fact is that he was the person who ran with it for YEARS after it was disproven, and that is the foundation of his political career.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 27, 2018, 03:41:02 PM
More "rigging" nonsense.  Yes, Democrats let a non-Democrat run in their primaries and despite being in all the debates, had endless commercials and everyone knew who he was, somehow he was brought down because the party had a preference.  The cognitive dissonance...

Bernie was as much a Democrat as Trump was a Republican.  Do Democrats no longer want traditionally Democratic votes?  We've seen the results of forsaking those votes and it ain't pretty.  Bernie's not a Clinton Democrat, not a New Democrat.  But his positions fit right in with the pre-Clinton Democratic Party-- the version that dominated Republicans for decades.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 27, 2018, 05:27:51 PM
I used to watch the apprentice with my mom in high school and we thought Trump was cool. Once he went birther, I knew he was garbage.

well, just to be accurate, the jury is still out (and probably forever will be) on who actually started the birther movement. There's enough blame to go around to both Trump and Hillary. Just sayin'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7XJfihFoA

It literally does not matter who started it.  We're talking about Trump here, and he fully bought into it, peddled it and helped it grow.   Just more excuses from you. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 27, 2018, 05:32:07 PM
More "rigging" nonsense.  Yes, Democrats let a non-Democrat run in their primaries and despite being in all the debates, had endless commercials and everyone knew who he was, somehow he was brought down because the party had a preference.  The cognitive dissonance...

Bernie was as much a Democrat as Trump was a Republican.  Do Democrats no longer want traditionally Democratic votes?  We've seen the results of forsaking those votes and it ain't pretty.  Bernie's not a Clinton Democrat, not a New Democrat.  But his positions fit right in with the pre-Clinton Democratic Party-- the version that dominated Republicans for decades.

Bernie was not a registered Democrat before he ran for president.  No one blocked him from running as one.  No one prevented him from the same exposure on national tv that Clinton got.  Whether he fit into the party or not is irrelevant. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 27, 2018, 06:38:12 PM
More "rigging" nonsense.  Yes, Democrats let a non-Democrat run in their primaries and despite being in all the debates, had endless commercials and everyone knew who he was, somehow he was brought down because the party had a preference.  The cognitive dissonance...

Bernie was as much a Democrat as Trump was a Republican.  Do Democrats no longer want traditionally Democratic votes?  We've seen the results of forsaking those votes and it ain't pretty.  Bernie's not a Clinton Democrat, not a New Democrat.  But his positions fit right in with the pre-Clinton Democratic Party-- the version that dominated Republicans for decades.

Bernie was not a registered Democrat before he ran for president.  No one blocked him from running as one.  No one prevented him from the same exposure on national tv that Clinton got.  Whether he fit into the party or not is irrelevant. 

Agreed except for the last sentence.  The size of our tent is relevant.  Bernie represented a line of thought that isn't as welcome in the party as it once was.  The Republicans' coalition is awkward but awkward is better than small.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 27, 2018, 07:47:59 PM
Bernie not being a Democrat is just some dumb gimmick. He's a United States Senator who's solidly left of center. We don't even have centralized political parties anymore. He's a Democrat... whether he admits or not. John McCain and Rand Paul probably break with the GOP more than Bernie breaks with the Dems.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 27, 2018, 09:32:13 PM
More "rigging" nonsense.  Yes, Democrats let a non-Democrat run in their primaries and despite being in all the debates, had endless commercials and everyone knew who he was, somehow he was brought down because the party had a preference.  The cognitive dissonance...

Bernie was as much a Democrat as Trump was a Republican.  Do Democrats no longer want traditionally Democratic votes?  We've seen the results of forsaking those votes and it ain't pretty.  Bernie's not a Clinton Democrat, not a New Democrat.  But his positions fit right in with the pre-Clinton Democratic Party-- the version that dominated Republicans for decades.

Bernie was not a registered Democrat before he ran for president.  No one blocked him from running as one.  No one prevented him from the same exposure on national tv that Clinton got.  Whether he fit into the party or not is irrelevant. 

Agreed except for the last sentence.  The size of our tent is relevant.  Bernie represented a line of thought that isn't as welcome in the party as it once was.  The Republicans' coalition is awkward but awkward is better than small.

The 2016 DNC platform was probably the most liberal on record, so I'm not so sure that his line of thought isn't welcome.  On what planet is the GOP coalition, which has in the last year insulted/attacked pretty much everyone except the straight, white male, bigger than the Democrat's? 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 27, 2018, 09:42:22 PM
I used to watch the apprentice with my mom in high school and we thought Trump was cool. Once he went birther, I knew he was garbage.

well, just to be accurate, the jury is still out (and probably forever will be) on who actually started the birther movement. There's enough blame to go around to both Trump and Hillary. Just sayin'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7XJfihFoA

It literally does not matter who started it.  We're talking about Trump here, and he fully bought into it, peddled it and helped it grow.   Just more excuses from you. 

It absolutely does matter who started it. One of the key knocks about Trump was him promoting the birther movement and how that was racist. Here that same movement was started by Hillary who amazingly got a pass. It is hypocritical and hard to hide behind the morality shield when your candidate is perpetuating the same stuff, through her political machine. In fact, what she did was worse because she was doing it behind close doors. At least Trump put his name on it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 27, 2018, 09:44:04 PM
The person that continues something that has been thoroughly debunked is worse on all levels.  This shouldn't need an explanation.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 27, 2018, 10:48:12 PM
The idea that Hillary started it is also a total lie. Some supporters and/or volunteers unfortunately passed an email forward around. They canned the volunteers and Hillary's campaign manager called Obama's to apologize. The campaign never embraced it or utilized it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 28, 2018, 10:07:10 AM
The 2016 DNC platform was probably the most liberal on record, so I'm not so sure that his line of thought isn't welcome.  On what planet is the GOP coalition, which has in the last year insulted/attacked pretty much everyone except the straight, white male, bigger than the Democrat's? 

People choose which coalition they're in, it's not forced on them by demographics.  Plenty of straight white males votes for Obama.  Women voted for Trump in numbers that shocked many observers.  In terms of economics, the 2016 DNC platform was conservative enough for Trump to flank it on the left-- and in some instances he wasn't even lying.  Our party is still litmus testing candidates for issues like abortion, even though many in the Democratic base (including many of the women and minorities we keep citing) are on the other side of that issue.  Economics is an issue we can win on, but in 2016 we opposed labor on multiple fronts, we called national health care a fantasy, and we told the minimum wage movement to get real. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 28, 2018, 10:40:40 PM
I used to watch the apprentice with my mom in high school and we thought Trump was cool. Once he went birther, I knew he was garbage.

well, just to be accurate, the jury is still out (and probably forever will be) on who actually started the birther movement. There's enough blame to go around to both Trump and Hillary. Just sayin'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb7XJfihFoA

It literally does not matter who started it.  We're talking about Trump here, and he fully bought into it, peddled it and helped it grow.   Just more excuses from you. 

It absolutely does matter who started it. One of the key knocks about Trump was him promoting the birther movement and how that was racist. Here that same movement was started by Hillary who amazingly got a pass. It is hypocritical and hard to hide behind the morality shield when your candidate is perpetuating the same stuff, through her political machine. In fact, what she did was worse because she was doing it behind close doors. At least Trump put his name on it.

It wasn't started by Hillary, as has already been stated.  This is pure dishonesty and once again trying to excuse the actions of Trump.  Even if it wasn't a lie, you are literally arguing that two wrongs make a right.  Good god guys, can you just be reasonable and just say something is wrong when it clearly is? 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 28, 2018, 10:56:18 PM
The 2016 DNC platform was probably the most liberal on record, so I'm not so sure that his line of thought isn't welcome.  On what planet is the GOP coalition, which has in the last year insulted/attacked pretty much everyone except the straight, white male, bigger than the Democrat's? 

People choose which coalition they're in, it's not forced on them by demographics.  Plenty of straight white males votes for Obama.  Women voted for Trump in numbers that shocked many observers.  In terms of economics, the 2016 DNC platform was conservative enough for Trump to flank it
on the left-- and in some instances he wasn't even lying.  Our party is still litmus testing candidates for issues like abortion, even though many in the Democratic base (including many of the women and minorities we keep citing) are on the other side of that issue.  Economics is an issue we can win on, but in 2016 we opposed labor on multiple fronts, we called national health care a fantasy, and we told the minimum wage movement to get real.

You're never going to make everyone happy on abortion.  It's just one of those issues that is going to be forever divisive.  Any litmus test on it should involve only endorsing the view that it remain legal and accessible, while also endorsing greater programs for sexual education and family planning- proven methods that actually reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.  All of those things are opposed by the GOP.  The Democrats should not get more conservative on this just because some people disagree. 

How exactly did they oppose labor? 
The $15 minimum wage was literally in the 2016 DNC platform, as was support for universal healthcare.  How were they opposing them? 

Here's the 2016 platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

I get the feeling a lot of people didn't bother to look up what each party was even pushing for.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 29, 2018, 09:04:09 AM
https://thinkprogress.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-hillary-clintons-attack-on-single-payer-health-care-4fff55dc389e/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/04/18/hillary_clinton_explains_her_position_on_a_15_minimum_wage.html

Someone needed to remind our candidate.  Those might be the positions listed in the platform, but they are not the positions we advanced against Trump.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 09:49:36 AM
THIS THIS THIS is why it is sooo hard for me to creep towards the Democratic Party.

https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/955344057470935040
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 29, 2018, 09:51:18 AM
^ Why?  Who is that person sending a random tweet that makes you nervous about joining a mainstream political party whose platform has nothing to do with said tweet?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 29, 2018, 10:01:30 AM
https://thinkprogress.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-hillary-clintons-attack-on-single-payer-health-care-4fff55dc389e/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/04/18/hillary_clinton_explains_her_position_on_a_15_minimum_wage.html

Someone needed to remind our candidate.  Those might be the positions listed in the platform, but they are not the positions we advanced against Trump.

Your articles don't really disprove anything.  It just seems like there were differences in how to get to those goal.  For example, in the case of $15 minimum wage, the article reads that Clinton supported a large increase, but a more stepped approach that accounted for cost of living.  Even if she only supported a base of $12 and not $15 in higher cost of living areas, that's much further than what the GOP supported.  Some Republicans were actually pushing for eliminating the minimum wage altogether.  I think you're too focused on small details here when the main idea is that, bare minimum, Clinton would've gotten us much closer to those things.  I hate ideological purity because it's not realistic, and it largely came from Bernie supporters who couldn't put the country first instead of demanding they get exactly what they wanted all at once.  That helped Trump in the end.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 29, 2018, 10:03:28 AM
THIS THIS THIS is why it is sooo hard for me to creep towards the Democratic Party.

https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/955344057470935040

Random person says something weird = Democratic Party?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 29, 2018, 10:06:21 AM
https://thinkprogress.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-hillary-clintons-attack-on-single-payer-health-care-4fff55dc389e/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/04/18/hillary_clinton_explains_her_position_on_a_15_minimum_wage.html

Someone needed to remind our candidate.  Those might be the positions listed in the platform, but they are not the positions we advanced against Trump.

Your articles don't really disprove anything.  It just seems like there were differences in how to get to those goal.  For example, in the case of $15 minimum wage, the article reads that Clinton supported a large increase, but a more stepped approach that accounted for cost of living.  Even if she only supported a base of $12 and not $15 in higher cost of living areas, that's much further than what the GOP supported.  Some Republicans were actually pushing for eliminating the minimum wage altogether.  I think you're too focused on small details here when the main idea is that, bare minimum, Clinton would've gotten us much closer to those things.  I hate ideological purity because it's not realistic, and it largely came from Bernie supporters who couldn't put the country first instead of demanding they get exactly what they wanted all at once.  That helped Trump in the end.

This goes back to the whole purity test issue.  Most elections are between 2 people.  You have to select the person that is closer to your ideal otherwise, you are voting for the other.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 29, 2018, 10:12:58 AM
Point is, she openly clashed with $15 activists.  Not a good move when those affected by the issue believe Trump has a better grasp of their position.  In the end, not enough voters thought Clinton's views would lead to higher wages.  When Clinton herself seemed unconvinced that higher wages were even a good idea, the confusion is understandable.  As for ideological purity, we're actively pursuing it in regard to abortion.

THIS THIS THIS is why it is sooo hard for me to creep towards the Democratic Party.

https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/955344057470935040

Rest assured that no such button exists.  No such button could exist.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 10:38:40 AM
^ Why?  Who is that person sending a random tweet that makes you nervous about joining a mainstream political party whose platform has nothing to do with said tweet?

The platform, as is currently being molded by a man who isn't even a member of said party, is that wealth redistribution from the top down is the answer to all economic ills. That tweet encapsulates how our country's most successful individuals have become villains in a way that is completely irrational and counter-productive. It's just like a stupid #MAGA tweet about coal... what is truly concerning are the replies and comments that follow from uninformed people that don't know better.

Although, my boy Joe Kennedy III, is delivering the SOTU response tomorrow... so a star may be born tomorrow night; and I can get behind JKIII
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 29, 2018, 10:42:26 AM
^ slippery slope fallacy
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 10:52:48 AM
^ slippery slope fallacy

I've quite literally fallen down a slippery slope once. Near Brandywine Falls in CVNP. I assure you they're real.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 29, 2018, 02:54:34 PM
^ Why?  Who is that person sending a random tweet that makes you nervous about joining a mainstream political party whose platform has nothing to do with said tweet?

The platform, as is currently being molded by a man who isn't even a member of said party, is that wealth redistribution from the top down is the answer to all economic ills. That tweet encapsulates how our country's most successful individuals have become villains in a way that is completely irrational and counter-productive. It's just like a stupid #MAGA tweet about coal... what is truly concerning are the replies and comments that follow from uninformed people that don't know better.

Although, my boy Joe Kennedy III, is delivering the SOTU response tomorrow... so a star may be born tomorrow night; and I can get behind JKIII

Give it time.  We may end up with two parties supporting the wealthy and nothing to debate except precisely how stupid we think coal miners are.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 29, 2018, 03:12:18 PM
^ Why?  Who is that person sending a random tweet that makes you nervous about joining a mainstream political party whose platform has nothing to do with said tweet?


Although, my boy Joe Kennedy III, is delivering the SOTU response tomorrow... so a star may be born tomorrow night; and I can get behind JKIII

wait, what? I thought Maxine Waters was doing the response. She would have been far more entertaining. I don't think any of the Kennedy Klan is going anywhere. I remember a few years ago when Caroline was being groomed, I think for Senate, and she really flopped. Their glory days are long over.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: bfwissel on January 29, 2018, 03:16:30 PM
I've seen some speeches by Joe Kennedy III and he pretty much nails the needed changes in America.  Sounds like a good pick to me.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
^ Why?  Who is that person sending a random tweet that makes you nervous about joining a mainstream political party whose platform has nothing to do with said tweet?


Although, my boy Joe Kennedy III, is delivering the SOTU response tomorrow... so a star may be born tomorrow night; and I can get behind JKIII

wait, what? I thought Maxine Waters was doing the response. She would have been far more entertaining. I don't think any of the Kennedy Klan is going anywhere. I remember a few years ago when Caroline was being groomed, I think for Senate, and she really flopped. Their glory days are long over.

A) She was ambassador to Japan, so yeah... she turned out to be a total failure.

B) Joseph Kennedy III has been riding a wave of popularity. I'm telling you all, if he wins his Senate seat this year, don't be surprised to see him get the nod for POTUS. Striking while the iron is hot is the name of the game.

C) The Kennedy's are the closest thing America has to royalty. They have a family net worth of in between $300-$400 million, I don't think anything is really behind them.

D) Jack Schlossberg, JFK's grandson, is currently at Harvard Law. He has not been shy about his political ambitions either.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 03:29:58 PM
I've seen some speeches by Joe Kennedy III and he pretty much nails the needed changes in America.  Sounds like a good pick to me.

I am a Conservative, I'd vote for him. I know 3-4 of my friends that would as well.

I've been following him for 5-6 years now. No gaffes, no slip-ups, no elitism. The guy has the Kennedy charm sans the scandal.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 29, 2018, 03:31:02 PM
^ he can't be a true Kennedy without the scandal.   ;D
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 29, 2018, 03:34:58 PM
^^^The Kennedy's are the closest thing America has to royalty???

wtf, what is this, 1960?? you can't be that old to remember that (I am, and I remember it. I was barely out of kindergarten). Who falls for this type of nonsense in 2018?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 29, 2018, 03:39:40 PM
He is from the RFK branch of the family and RFK seemed to be the cleanest of the brothers.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on January 29, 2018, 03:41:13 PM
C) The Kennedy's are the closest thing America has to royalty. They have a family net worth of in between $300-$400 million, I don't think anything is really behind them.

I think one of the key lessons learned in 2016 was that American's don't want candidates whose best attribute is their surname. The country didn't want another Bush, it didn't want another Clinton, why do you think it would want another Kennedy? Being a Kennedy might help one get elected in Massachusetts, but it probably has the opposite effect in the rest of the country. However talented or worthy he may be, the question will always be in the back of the voters' heads - would he be in this position if he weren't related to powerful people?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 29, 2018, 03:42:26 PM
^ voters only want a man of the people like a guy that lives in a gilded penthouse.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 03:44:11 PM
^^^The Kennedy's are the closest thing America has to royalty???

wtf, what is this, 1960?? you can't be that old to remember that (I am, and I remember it. I was barely out of kindergarten). Who falls for this type of nonsense in 2018?

I'm not wrong. You'd be hard pressed to find a more transformative family in American politics. They're obviously not without their scandal. But the Kennedy name holds a great deal of clout, still.

Why don't you just let the guy speak and form your own opinion before you get angry that anyone dare respond to Dear Leader's First-Ever-Never-Before-Been-Done-This-Was-Totally-My-Idea State of the Union. And tbh, President Trump is in really good standing to make this SOTU, especially given his DACA proposal, so I'm interested to see what focus the response will take.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 29, 2018, 03:45:26 PM
A Lannister always pays his debts!
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 03:46:18 PM
Wow, Joe Kennedy III delivering the response really tightened up those populist sphincters, eh? Not one, but two rather immediate responses from our resident populists.

Secondly, I don't think Bill Clinton is remembered with 1/4 of the endearment of Bobby or Jack Kennedy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 29, 2018, 03:54:21 PM
^look, I don't know where you got your starry-eyed rose-colored glasses view of the Kennedys, but it's way out of touch, and goes back to another, far less partisan, era (unless you can provide some fake polls to the contrary). Maybe your parents, or grandparents (?) remember JFK fondly? Whatever. And the only reason I even responded was that I really thought Maxine Waters was doing the response. Didn't anyone else hear this?? Come on, someone back me up! lol
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 03:56:25 PM
^look, I don't know where you got your starry-eyed rose-colored glasses view of the Kennedys, but it's way out of touch, and goes back to another, far less partisan, era (unless you can provide some fake polls to the contrary). Maybe your parents, or grandparents (?) remember JFK fondly? Whatever. And the only reason I even responded was that I really thought Maxine Waters was doing the response. Didn't anyone else hear this?? Come on, someone back me up! lol

Lol well @eastvillagedon , pathetically, Maxine Waters is doing her own response.... at the same time as the SOTU.... in her district....

One of the weakest/weirdest/sad/lonely/wtf political moves in a long time
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 29, 2018, 03:57:31 PM
I don't really care who the person is whether they are a Kennedy or my next door neighbor. If they share my values and ethics and I think they will be effective at governing by them and  implementing them, I'm on board. I'd prefer not to have royal families in America but if I think a Kennedy is a good choice I'm going to vote for him.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 04:01:41 PM
Just as an aside... My comment was a note as to their popularity/influence.

"Monarchies suck." -Thomas Paine
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 29, 2018, 04:24:39 PM
if nothing else the Kennedys are good at keeping their names in the news ;)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4816528/Max-Caroline-Kennedy-arrested-yelling-police.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 29, 2018, 04:27:11 PM
^Yeah, like I said... they have scandals, JKIII doesn't.... yet.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 29, 2018, 04:38:18 PM
I'd like to oppose Kennedy on name alone but our bench is so thin.  It would be nice if either party could field some candidates who aren't in the 1%.  If working your way up is the American Dream, let's nominate people who did.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 29, 2018, 04:57:27 PM
People like this are also under a microscope that we can't imagine. Chappaquiddick was a scandal... This article appears to be some people acting like idiots like people we all knew from our high schools.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 29, 2018, 05:57:00 PM
Point is, she openly clashed with $15 activists.  Not a good move when those affected by the issue believe Trump has a better grasp of their position.  In the end, not enough voters thought Clinton's views would lead to higher wages.  When Clinton herself seemed unconvinced that higher wages were even a good idea, the confusion is understandable.  As for ideological purity, we're actively pursuing it in regard to abortion.

THIS THIS THIS is why it is sooo hard for me to creep towards the Democratic Party.

https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/955344057470935040

Rest assured that no such button exists.  No such button could exist.

I think you're being dramatic.  There was no wide ideological gap between Clinton and most liberals/Democrats on minimum wage, and trying to create one is silly.  The party had it in their platform spelled out and Clinton was, at worst, very close to that idea.  Did Trump at any point talk about raising the minimum wage, let alone to $15?  In all the nonsense he spewed, I honestly don't remember.  He's certainly not mentioned it since becoming president, so saying that there were a lot of people who couldn't pull the lever for Clinton over this issue seems very disingenuous.  If those voters didn't know that the Democrats supported it, or were too much into ideological purity to accept anything less, no matter how close, then frankly they're idiots, because they sure as hell weren't getting those things from Republicans.

I didn't read in the platform where it said that everyone had to agree on abortion.  There is a general belief, however, that a woman's constitutional right to choose should be protected.  No one is being forced to personally support abortion or have an abortion as a Democrat, only that there is a higher duty to protect that choice even if we disagree. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 29, 2018, 06:03:53 PM
C) The Kennedy's are the closest thing America has to royalty. They have a family net worth of in between $300-$400 million, I don't think anything is really behind them.

I think one of the key lessons learned in 2016 was that American's don't want candidates whose best attribute is their surname. The country didn't want another Bush, it didn't want another Clinton, why do you think it would want another Kennedy? Being a Kennedy might help one get elected in Massachusetts, but it probably has the opposite effect in the rest of the country. However talented or worthy he may be, the question will always be in the back of the voters' heads - would he be in this position if he weren't related to powerful people?

Trump built his entire business around his name.  He wasn't some unknown.  Not being from a political family has clearly not helped him lead with grace and honor, either. 

How about, in 2020, we support people who actually know what they're doing, regardless of name or celebrity status?  This is bare minimum.  Let's try to take the presidency seriously this go around.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 29, 2018, 06:08:23 PM
People like this are also under a microscope that we can't imagine. Chappaquiddick was a scandal... This article appears to be some people acting like idiots like people we all knew from our high schools.

The irony is that if Trump drove a version of Mary Jo into a river and let her drown, his supporters would find some way to praise him for his quick thinking.  Scandals only matter if a liberal does it, anymore.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 29, 2018, 07:09:42 PM
If those voters didn't know that the Democrats supported it, or were too much into ideological purity to accept anything less, no matter how close, then frankly they're idiots, because they sure as hell weren't getting those things from Republicans.

It's one thing to not support $15 but she actually came back with a lower figure.  She took an adversarial negotiating position, took the side of the boss.  That's immeasurably worse than ignoring the issue.  She might as well have opened with "On behalf of Burger King, I apologize for what I'm about to explain."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 29, 2018, 07:55:22 PM
If those voters didn't know that the Democrats supported it, or were too much into ideological purity to accept anything less, no matter how close, then frankly they're idiots, because they sure as hell weren't getting those things from Republicans.

It's one thing to not support $15 but she actually came back with a lower figure.  She took an adversarial negotiating position, took the side of the boss.  That's immeasurably worse than ignoring the issue.  She might as well have opened with "On behalf of Burger King, I apologize for what I'm about to explain."

Even your article says she supported $15 where cost of living supported it.  You're reading far too much into it.  Typical Hillary irrationalism where people lose all objectivity.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 29, 2018, 09:20:17 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.

Again...provide an example or two of what you mean.

Any examples, at all.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on January 29, 2018, 09:58:49 PM
If those voters didn't know that the Democrats supported it, or were too much into ideological purity to accept anything less, no matter how close, then frankly they're idiots, because they sure as hell weren't getting those things from Republicans.

It's one thing to not support $15 but she actually came back with a lower figure.  She took an adversarial negotiating position, took the side of the boss.  That's immeasurably worse than ignoring the issue.  She might as well have opened with "On behalf of Burger King, I apologize for what I'm about to explain."

Wouldn't the side of the boss be not raising the minimum wage (like the populist in power is content with)?  And how is raising it to $12 worse than leaving it at $8?  That's still a significant increase- almost 50%!
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 29, 2018, 10:10:41 PM
Strategical voting stupidity
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 30, 2018, 08:49:07 AM
I'd like to oppose Kennedy on name alone but our bench is so thin.  It would be nice if either party could field some candidates who aren't in the 1%.  If working your way up is the American Dream, let's nominate people who did.

So Joe Kennedy III has a sterling record thus far and has championed women's rights, protections for minorities, and free market principles with reasonable regs... but you'd like to oppose him on name alone...

Essentially, you're the same as my 79 year old Irish-Catholic grandmother who will inevitably support him on name alone.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 30, 2018, 10:31:54 AM
We keep finding fault with the voters when it's our job to win them.  We don't get to tell them how that's done, they tell us.

I'd like to oppose Kennedy on name alone but our bench is so thin.  It would be nice if either party could field some candidates who aren't in the 1%.  If working your way up is the American Dream, let's nominate people who did.

So Joe Kennedy III has a sterling record thus far and has championed women's rights, protections for minorities, and free market principles with reasonable regs... but you'd like to oppose him on name alone...

Essentially, you're the same as my 79 year old Irish-Catholic grandmother who will inevitably support him on name alone.

Felt the same way about Clinton and Trump.  I value life experience.  Too many of our current leaders have been protected from challenges by their family wealth.  Protected from worry.  Great for them, but it leaves their resumes a bit flimsy for running the lives of others.  And as I said, I'd like to dismiss him but that's as far as it goes.  This kind of litmus test isn't practical these days.  It may be an urban legend, but I've heard the poorest person in the Senate owns an NBA team.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 30, 2018, 10:39:16 AM
It may be an urban legend, but I've heard the poorest person in the Senate owns an NBA team.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth?cid=N00027658

Kirsten Gillibrand (who @Brutus_buckeye still can't provide any example of identity politics he claimed) is worth less than $500k.  She's ranked 83rd in the Senate.

https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth?cid=N00013823

Mark Pryor has an estimated net worth of less than $40k.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193696/franchise-value-of-national-basketball-association-teams-in-2010/

The New Orleans Pelicans have an estimated value of $750,000,000.  Let's exercise some common sense here.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 30, 2018, 10:41:13 AM
^Do you mean $750,000,000 for the pelicans...
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 30, 2018, 10:45:05 AM
^Do you mean $750,000,000 for the pelicans...

Yes...too many zeroes lol
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 30, 2018, 10:49:44 AM
Felt the same way about Clinton and Trump.  I value life experience.  Too many of our current leaders have been protected from challenges by their family wealth.  Protected from worry.  Great for them, but it leaves their resumes a bit flimsy for running the lives of others.  And as I said, I'd like to dismiss him but that's as far as it goes.

Back in 2015 I thought the election would be Clinton vs Bush, I wasn't thrilled about the prospect of the son and brother of former Presidents running against a former President's spouse, I know where you're coming from. There is a counterpoint though - sometimes people who grow up Kennedy have the opportunity to prepare for the job better than people like me who are just trying to pay the bills. They are encouraged to study politics and government from the time they are kids, they grow up in the public eye, they do the Peace Corps (as JKIII did), the have the network, etc. They grow up protected from many of the worries I grew up with but I'm sure that life has its own type of worries. Sometimes the self-made turn out to be the least empathetic among us. Meanwhile Franklin D. Roosevelt grew up the rich distant cousin of another President. It doesn't seem to have much bearing on things.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 30, 2018, 11:38:03 AM
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Let's exercise some common sense here.

OK, urban legend, but that's some heavy fanfare when you're off by an exponent.  Calm down.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/18/the-five-poorest-us-senators

There is a difference between living hand to mouth and having big debts to match your assets.  Most of us don't get to do that, so most people can't screen for candidates who live like them.  But it would be nice to have some mixed in there, just for flavor, so I see nothing wrong with favoring non-billionaires in office.  The fact that some already exist is not a strong argument against the preference.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 30, 2018, 11:42:31 AM
Back in 2015 I thought the election would be Clinton vs Bush

I actually thought it would be Cinton vs Paul, with "energetic upstart" Paul edging "establishment" Bush 3.0 in the primary.

Shows what I know.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 30, 2018, 11:49:59 AM
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Let's exercise some common sense here.

OK, urban legend, but that's some heavy fanfare when you're off by an exponent.  Calm down.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/18/the-five-poorest-us-senators

There is a difference between living hand to mouth and having big debts to match your assets.  Most of us don't get to do that, so most people can't screen for candidates who live like them.  But it would be nice to have some mixed in there, just for flavor, so I see nothing wrong with favoring non-billionaires in office.  The fact that some already exist is not a strong argument against the preference.

I was off by an exponent...to the negative side.

It's still a ludicrous claim.  Not even the RICHEST Senator can afford to buy the least expensive NBA team.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on January 30, 2018, 01:10:33 PM
Sometimes the self-made turn out to be the least empathetic among us.

They don't realize that they are someone special. They think everyone else is capable of what they did... if everyone else was actually capable of it then the world would be a very different place, now wouldn't it?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 30, 2018, 01:15:11 PM
Hey, even Steve Bannon went for the Kennedy image.   Looked like Teddy, acted like Bobby.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 30, 2018, 01:26:34 PM
Sometimes the self-made turn out to be the least empathetic among us.

They don't realize that they are someone special. They think everyone else is capable of what they did... if everyone else was actually capable of it then the world would be a very different place, now wouldn't it?

Everyone is capable, maybe not getting to the level of Steve Jobs, but getting to a multi-million level. This is such s self defeating statement. If you believe this, then yes, you will not get there but for so many others who are scrappers, they can.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 30, 2018, 01:31:24 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on January 30, 2018, 01:52:31 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 30, 2018, 01:54:58 PM
^ So a baby born in a broken home and raised in poverty who is poorly educated due to this fact, somehow made poor decisions.  And the idea that I was born to a privileged condition comparatively speaking is nonsense? 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 30, 2018, 02:12:21 PM
Sometimes the self-made turn out to be the least empathetic among us.

They don't realize that they are someone special. They think everyone else is capable of what they did... if everyone else was actually capable of it then the world would be a very different place, now wouldn't it?

Everyone is capable, maybe not getting to the level of Steve Jobs, but getting to a multi-million level. This is such s self defeating statement. If you believe this, then yes, you will not get there but for so many others who are scrappers, they can.

Erm ... the financial position of the United States (as in the sum and total of the financial "value" of the entire country) is about $123.8 trillion in net worth.  It's a seldom-discussed statistic (partly because most people recognize that it's really only useful in a theoretical sense, or for arguments on the Internet).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States

That was from assets of about $270 trillion and debts of about $146 trillion.

Divide the entire net worth of the US by its population of around 320 million and you get $386,875.  As in, literally, if we had absolutely perfect distribution of every single asset in the country, it would still not be possible for everyone to be a multimillionaire.

Of course, money is a sociopolitical construct, so of course it's just as accurate to say that yes, it's possible for everyone to be a multimillionaire--the Federal Reserve could just print $2 million in cash for everyone in the country and hand it out.  Yay, we're all multimillionaires!  Of course, one hopefully doesn't have to be an economics Ph.D. to see how that would end.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 30, 2018, 02:19:08 PM
^ We could be Zimbabwean millionaires.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 30, 2018, 02:25:29 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.

Again...provide an example or two of what you mean.

Any examples, at all.

Since you're active today @Brutus_buckeye can you name any examples?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 30, 2018, 03:15:46 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."

This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 30, 2018, 03:30:18 PM
This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

So the conservatives volunteering at organizations that help the poor and the homeless, the conservatives who donate to charities, their worldview is rooted in what then?

I have to laugh at sentiments that one side of the political aisle is benevolent, the other side, pure evil.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 30, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
To me it's less about the possibility of making a bunch of money and more about what you have to give up. Lots of those upper middle class "self-made millionaires" see making money as the only thing with any worth in life and use the term "successful" as some kind of code word for rich as in "that guy is really successful." Then they become wealthy based on compulsive workaholism and look down upon those who decided not to sacrifice their family, hobbies, interests, fitness, health, whatever.

This is not targeted at all wealthy financially successful people, by the way, merely targeted at those who run around constantly bragging about how self-made they are. Sometimes they become GOP Congressmen, but most of them just spend their free time moaning about welfare. This is who I'm talking about when I said "sometimes the self-made turn out to be the least empathetic among us."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 30, 2018, 03:39:24 PM
Entitlement programs now command well over half of all federal spending, closer to 2/3, and rising.  Whatever rhetorical attention the "I got mine" crowd might get because it's easy to parlay such sentiments into anger and clicks, they have very seldom gotten anywhere near controlling levels of policy support, including in periods when the Republicans nominally have had complete control of the political branches.  Paul Ryan has said entitlement reform is on the agenda for 2018, but (a) he's most likely engaging in wishful thinking at best, or perhaps realizes that he is full of equine excrement, and (b) if Congress does get an entitlement reform through, it will most likely be nothing more than cost-of-living adjustment adjustments, and nothing close to actually getting close to balancing the budget that he just busted a hole in.  Particularly given Trump's nearly complete lack of leadership ability, the chances of this highly vulnerable Republican majority passing through an entitlement reform in an election year that might be even less popular than the plutocratic tax cut they just pulled off is close to nil.  And that's just the chances of a token reform.  The chances of a serious entitlement reform are even lower.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 30, 2018, 03:44:38 PM
Yeah, my point was only in regards to whether or not a politician with rags to riches "true life" experience is inherently better than one who grew up rich and privileged, such as Joseph Kennedy III. I propose that empathy is independent of financial status. Some people just have it and some people don't.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 30, 2018, 03:45:48 PM
This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

So the conservatives volunteering at organizations that help the poor and the homeless, the conservatives who donate to charities, their worldview is rooted in what then?

I have to laugh at sentiments that one side of the political aisle is benevolent, the other side, pure evil.

I’ve seen leftists decry conservatives for helping charities they are familiar with, or that share their values.   Quite frankly, I not only see nothing wrong with that I would question the true motives of those who object
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 30, 2018, 03:51:23 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.

Again...provide an example or two of what you mean.

Any examples, at all.

Since you're active today @Brutus_buckeye can you name any examples?

absolutely - I know a couple people personally on this and past years 40 for 40 list in Cincy who came from nothing to be leaders in Million dollar leaders through entrepreneurial efforts.

You can go to sports leagues and see many people who come from nothing to become huge successes (yes, they have physical gifts not everyone has, but they still need to work their tail off for it)

Steve Jobs did not come from a privileged background and was not a trust fund kid, neither did Michael Dell, or many tech giants. Howard Shultz grew up in the projects in New York City. You want examples, I could go on and on.

No, very few people will become Jeff Bezos, but the vast majority who aspire to it, from whatever background can become millionaires. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 30, 2018, 03:53:47 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."

This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

And there is also the practical view that yes, many people who do not make it are not lazy, but at the same time, we cant always excuse all behavior either. It is a fine line of being empathetic and being taken advantage of.  It is not a world of absolutes.

My comment was not necessarily directed at those who do not make it for various reasons, I have empathy for a lot of those people, my comment was mainly directed at those that tend to relate to Pocahantas's comments from a few years back where she chastises business owners for not building their businesses and only being successful because government allowed them to be.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 30, 2018, 03:55:19 PM
The fact that some people came from nothing to be wealthy doesn't prove that anyone can do it.  Those examples may be the outliers.

And using sports athletes really disproves your point.  Yes, they work hard to get where they are but if LeBron James was 5'6", he could work out 6 hours a day and wouldn't make it in the NBA.  Every individuals has different innate ability and comes from different circumstances. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 30, 2018, 03:56:36 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."

This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

And there is also the practical view that yes, many people who do not make it are not lazy, but at the same time, we cant always excuse all behavior either. It is a fine line of being empathetic and being taken advantage of.  It is not a world of absolutes.

My comment was not necessarily directed at those who do not make it for various reasons, I have empathy for a lot of those people, my comment was mainly directed at those that tend to relate to Pocahantas's comments from a few years back where she chastises business owners for not building their businesses and only being successful because government allowed them to be.

At the same time many very wealthy people are lazy and the fact that are wealthy is no sign of their success. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 30, 2018, 03:56:58 PM
The fact that some people came from nothing to be wealthy doesn't prove that anyone can do it.  Those examples may be the outliers.

And using sports athletes really disproves your point.  Yes, they work hard to get where they are but if LeBron James was 5'6", he could work out 6 hours a day and wouldn't make it in the NBA.  Every individuals has different innate ability and comes from different circumstances. 


It is because most people do not realize how to do it. They don't teach classes on this, it is one of those things that people need to figure out for themselves.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 30, 2018, 03:59:09 PM
Your telling me that the poor people working 60 hours a week to stay afloat and provide their family with healthcare and shelter just need to do something different.  OK
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 30, 2018, 04:03:17 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.

Again...provide an example or two of what you mean.

Any examples, at all.

Since you're active today @Brutus_buckeye can you name any examples?

absolutely - I know a couple people personally on this and past years 40 for 40 list in Cincy who came from nothing to be leaders in Million dollar leaders through entrepreneurial efforts.

You can go to sports leagues and see many people who come from nothing to become huge successes (yes, they have physical gifts not everyone has, but they still need to work their tail off for it)

Steve Jobs did not come from a privileged background and was not a trust fund kid, neither did Michael Dell, or many tech giants. Howard Shultz grew up in the projects in New York City. You want examples, I could go on and on.

No, very few people will become Jeff Bezos, but the vast majority who aspire to it, from whatever background can become millionaires. 

That's not what I was asking for.

You claimed you don't like Gillibrand because of her "constant inserting into...identity politics."  Yet you can't provide one example of that.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: edale on January 30, 2018, 04:16:07 PM
^ I believe it was Gillibrand who led the push to force Al Franken to resign. That doesn't sit well with me at all, and it was clearly a political move on her part.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 30, 2018, 05:33:08 PM
This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

So the conservatives volunteering at organizations that help the poor and the homeless, the conservatives who donate to charities, their worldview is rooted in what then?

I have to laugh at sentiments that one side of the political aisle is benevolent, the other side, pure evil.

I was not talking about charity, but thanks for your straw man.  Also, there is no evidence that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals.  In fact, given that a much larger portion of charitable giving by conservatives is simply giving money to their churches, which may or may not actually use that money for altruistic good rather than proselytization efforts, I wouldn't exactly be crowing too much on that front.

Actual policy matters, and there really is only one side of the aisle that, bare minimum, attempts to solve/help with issues like poverty, drug addiction, workers rights, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, etc.  It's not the GOP, in case you were unsure.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 30, 2018, 05:38:59 PM
^ I believe it was Gillibrand who led the push to force Al Franken to resign. That doesn't sit well with me at all, and it was clearly a political move on her part.

I'm fine with it.  It's not like it was he said, she said.  There was evidence.  He needed to go, if for not other reason than the Democrats shouldn't be like Republicans and sheltering pedophiles, rapists/sexual assaulters and misogynists. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: edale on January 30, 2018, 06:06:51 PM
^ Yeah, well the whole point is that Franken is not a pedophile, rapist, sexual assaulter, or misogynist. It's pretty obvious the woman who brought forth the charges against Franken was a right wing plant, and the mob (led by Gillibrand) fell right for it. To lump him in with everyone else (especially Roy Moore, who was in the fight of his life at the time) was precisely their objective. Muddy the waters and make false equivalencies to create discord among the left and discredit the me too movement.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on January 30, 2018, 06:07:18 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."

This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

And there is also the practical view that yes, many people who do not make it are not lazy, but at the same time, we cant always excuse all behavior either. It is a fine line of being empathetic and being taken advantage of.  It is not a world of absolutes.

My comment was not necessarily directed at those who do not make it for various reasons, I have empathy for a lot of those people, my comment was mainly directed at those that tend to relate to Pocahantas's comments from a few years back where she chastises business owners for not building their businesses and only being successful because government allowed them to be.

You have to ask people who think that kind of success is possible for everyone why they aren't filthy rich then.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 30, 2018, 09:50:04 PM
This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

So the conservatives volunteering at organizations that help the poor and the homeless, the conservatives who donate to charities, their worldview is rooted in what then?

I have to laugh at sentiments that one side of the political aisle is benevolent, the other side, pure evil.

I was not talking about charity, but thanks for your straw man.  Also, there is no evidence that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals.  In fact, given that a much larger portion of charitable giving by conservatives is simply giving money to their churches, which may or may not actually use that money for altruistic good rather than proselytization efforts, I wouldn't exactly be crowing too much on that front.

Actual policy matters, and there really is only one side of the aisle that, bare minimum, attempts to solve/help with issues like poverty, drug addiction, workers rights, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, etc.  It's not the GOP, in case you were unsure.

Oh yeah, you really narrowed the focus of your original post down with the policy-specific term "worldview."



Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on January 30, 2018, 10:58:11 PM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."

This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

And there is also the practical view that yes, many people who do not make it are not lazy, but at the same time, we cant always excuse all behavior either. It is a fine line of being empathetic and being taken advantage of.  It is not a world of absolutes.

My comment was not necessarily directed at those who do not make it for various reasons, I have empathy for a lot of those people, my comment was mainly directed at those that tend to relate to Pocahantas's comments from a few years back where she chastises business owners for not building their businesses and only being successful because government allowed them to be.

You have to ask people who think that kind of success is possible for everyone why they aren't filthy rich then.

See this is the straw man coming out. Jeff Bezos is rare, a combination of hard work and being in the right place at the right time to execute upon his idea but there are tons of successful people out there who would meet the classification of millionaire or multi-millionaire who came from humble beginnings and figured it out on their own. Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, no they are not, but they also created a substantial amount of wealth for them and their immediate families during their lifetimes. They were not given anything and were not trust fund kids but they had a dogged determination to succeed and were extremely driven. Whether they are an athlete, actor, or entrepreneur, these people figured out a way to rise above and create success. They did not come from privilege and many of them are not anything more than average intelligence but they are successful because they want it bad enough.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 31, 2018, 06:46:13 AM
This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

So the conservatives volunteering at organizations that help the poor and the homeless, the conservatives who donate to charities, their worldview is rooted in what then?

I have to laugh at sentiments that one side of the political aisle is benevolent, the other side, pure evil.

I was not talking about charity, but thanks for your straw man.  Also, there is no evidence that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals.  In fact, given that a much larger portion of charitable giving by conservatives is simply giving money to their churches, which may or may not actually use that money for altruistic good rather than proselytization efforts, I wouldn't exactly be crowing too much on that front.

Actual policy matters, and there really is only one side of the aisle that, bare minimum, attempts to solve/help with issues like poverty, drug addiction, workers rights, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, etc.  It's not the GOP, in case you were unsure.

Oh yeah, you really narrowed the focus of your original post down with the policy-specific term "worldview."

You think that an example of some conservatives giving to charity somehow changes the overall position of most on actual policy?  Who is always attacking immigrants?  Who is always maligning the poor?  I notice you didn't bother to actually defend conservatives on that point.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 31, 2018, 06:47:06 AM
^ Yeah, well the whole point is that Franken is not a pedophile, rapist, sexual assaulter, or misogynist. It's pretty obvious the woman who brought forth the charges against Franken was a right wing plant, and the mob (led by Gillibrand) fell right for it. To lump him in with everyone else (especially Roy Moore, who was in the fight of his life at the time) was precisely their objective. Muddy the waters and make false equivalencies to create discord among the left and discredit the me too movement.

If your defense is based on a conspiracy theory, maybe you should reexamine your position. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 31, 2018, 06:48:27 AM
^ everyone is not capable of becoming a multi-millionaire.  That is the most ridiculous statement.

Everyone is, at a basic level, physically capable. Most will not get there because of the choices they make. But saying that it's outright impossible for certain people to become financially successful does not seem proper. Making such claims is how you start believing in nonsense like "privilege."

This is one of the biggest differences between the conservative and liberal worldview.  Conservatives believe that if you're not successful, you're lazy and therefore don't deserve any help because you haven't done the work to earn it.  Meanwhile, liberals know that life is often unfair, and that despite our best efforts, things don't always work out for everyone.  Therefore, sometimes people need help, and it's doing the right thing to provide it.  One philosophy based in empathy and common sense, and the other based on "I got mine, get a job loser". 

And there is also the practical view that yes, many people who do not make it are not lazy, but at the same time, we cant always excuse all behavior either. It is a fine line of being empathetic and being taken advantage of.  It is not a world of absolutes.

My comment was not necessarily directed at those who do not make it for various reasons, I have empathy for a lot of those people, my comment was mainly directed at those that tend to relate to Pocahantas's comments from a few years back where she chastises business owners for not building their businesses and only being successful because government allowed them to be.

You have to ask people who think that kind of success is possible for everyone why they aren't filthy rich then.

See this is the straw man coming out. Jeff Bezos is rare, a combination of hard work and being in the right place at the right time to execute upon his idea but there are tons of successful people out there who would meet the classification of millionaire or multi-millionaire who came from humble beginnings and figured it out on their own. Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, no they are not, but they also created a substantial amount of wealth for them and their immediate families during their lifetimes. They were not given anything and were not trust fund kids but they had a dogged determination to succeed and were extremely driven. Whether they are an athlete, actor, or entrepreneur, these people figured out a way to rise above and create success. They did not come from privilege and many of them are not anything more than average intelligence but they are successful because they want it bad enough.

Poor people enjoy being poor and just don't want success bad enough.  Got it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on January 31, 2018, 08:09:52 AM
You think that an example of some conservatives giving to charity somehow changes the overall position of most on actual policy?  Who is always attacking immigrants?  Who is always maligning the poor?  I notice you didn't bother to actually defend conservatives on that point.

Your blanket statement that conservatives don't care about others is counterproductive. Mostly because it's a gross simplification. It's simply not true.

Defending the policies all conservatives or all liberals is impossible, because even within those viewpoints there is much difference of opinion when you get into the heart of it. Within those political labels there is also a great deal of hypocrisy going on.

Instead of the constant "us vs. them" dialogue how about reaching for some common ground? I'm not going to demonize people who favor a more private approach to helping the poor, nor people that support more governmental approach. While both sides deserve some amount of criticism I believe most people have their hearts in the right place.

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 31, 2018, 09:05:24 AM
See this is the straw man coming out. Jeff Bezos is rare, a combination of hard work and being in the right place at the right time to execute upon his idea but there are tons of successful people out there who would meet the classification of millionaire or multi-millionaire who came from humble beginnings and figured it out on their own. Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, no they are not, but they also created a substantial amount of wealth for them and their immediate families during their lifetimes. They were not given anything and were not trust fund kids but they had a dogged determination to succeed and were extremely driven. Whether they are an athlete, actor, or entrepreneur, these people figured out a way to rise above and create success. They did not come from privilege and many of them are not anything more than average intelligence but they are successful because they want it bad enough.

Privilege comes in degrees.  There's a big difference between not having a trust fund and not having squat.  It bugs me when the two are conflated.  "Wanting success" is not sufficient to create wealth.  It's an ingredient.  If you don't have access to capital, capitalism is not going to turn out well for you.  If money's no big deal, it's really all about the wanting, let's just go ahead and spread the money around and see what happens.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 09:48:33 AM
^ agree. some people feel like the word privilege connotes some negativity and that's how I used to view it. I was not as privileged as a trust fund baby.  Although, I was privileged to be born to a relatively stable family and grow up in safe neighborhoods and attend good schools.  We can't pretend that the status you were born into and raised in have no effect on your ability to succeed.  The data and research back this up. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 31, 2018, 09:54:10 AM
Yep, to me thinking about my privilege is the same thing as being grateful and realizing I'm fortunate... Maybe I have a few less hurdles to success than others do. This is generally looked at as a positive thing by most religions and philosophies as well as by mental health professionals. It's basically humility.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 31, 2018, 10:27:26 AM
^ agree. some people feel like the word privilege connotes some negativity and that's how I used to view it. I was not as privileged as a trust fund baby.  Although, I was privileged to be born to a relatively stable family and grow up in safe neighborhoods and attend good schools.  We can't pretend that the status you were born into and raised in have no effect on your ability to succeed.  The data and research back this up. 

Yep, to me thinking about my privilege is the same thing as being grateful and realizing I'm fortunate... Maybe I have a few less hurdles to success than others do. This is generally looked at as a positive thing by most religions and philosophies as well as by mental health professionals. It's basically humility.

Privilege theory has generally been invoked for much more than this, though.  It has been deliberately infused with sinister connotations (just as freefourur's original experience with it suggests), as if these were legal or institutional privileges rather than cultural advantages (and even on the cultural front, such privileges are generally limited in scope, and as 327, they also vary greatly in intensity ... there's privilege and then there's privilege, so to speak).

I can appreciate that I had privileges growing up in an intact household, largely from an extended family of intact households.  In fact, one of the things that I would define as one of my privileges is something that many of the progressive proponents of privilege theory would describe as a mark of patriarchy and oppression: my extended family still held (and still holds) a fairly strongly stigmatized view of divorce, to the point where my cousin's divorce is the first in the family that I've ever known and has caused a lot of handwringing among us.  We generally dissociated even from acquaintances that we knew got divorced, even as skyrocketing rates of it made that harder to do simply because of the sheer scale of the people that we had to put at a greater distance.  I'd credit that social pressure as helping keep a lot of the marriages in the family intact through rougher periods, and it was one reason why not only my own nuclear family stayed together, but when we had family get-togethers for Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, etc., everything was pretty much Norman Rockwell even if we were all crammed into my grandma's tiny twinplex in inner-ring-suburb Philadelphia.  That social capital certainly covered for a lot of economic wants.

But the lesson from that that many crusading progressive academics and activists want to take from that always seems to be that this is why we need more welfare programs for the people who didn't have the Norman Rockwell childhood, not why we need the kind of social institutions and pressures that helped keep that beautiful but delicate cradle of privilege from flying apart at the seams under the strain of Irish egos in their worst moments.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 31, 2018, 10:33:45 AM
Acknowledge your white privilege or else!
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 10:36:04 AM
The discussion of stigamtizing divorce ignores the fact that divorce is sometimes necessary. One if the reason that divorces were more rare in decades past is not because people were more moral or better at marriage.  Women generally didn't have their own incomes or prospects in the workplace.  They tended to stay in marriages that they should have left.  These social issues are very complex and multi faceted and I think painting this as some left or right thing really misses the mark.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 31, 2018, 10:51:10 AM
It might miss the mark at a larger level, but in talking about the Democratic Party (and its opposition), I think it's pretty clear that the theory has pretty strong buy-in from one party and at best weak buy-in (more accurately, fairly firm rejection) in the other.  This goes back to jonoh's point on the previous page about the differences in the left and right worldviews.  Privilege theory is fairly well ensconced as part of the liberal/Democratic worldview, at least at the level of the party leadership and the people who get to speak for the leadership.  In fact, I would hazard that the degree to which any given traditional Democratic constituency actually accepts that theory as a guide to policy is a fairly strong marker of whether that bloc stayed in the Democratic column in 2016 or was receptive to Trump's message (which clearly rejected it, even if he was never so academically nuanced to describe the theory he was rejecting).

ETA: I'm talking about the social issues in privilege theory generally, not with respect to marriage and divorce specifically.  Trump is obviously not quite what one might exactly call an exemplar of marital fidelity or resilience.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 10:53:25 AM
My republican friends and democratic friends seem to get divorced at about the same rate.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 31, 2018, 11:00:06 AM
I would say the same, actually.  The stigma I referred to above was clearly a Catholic value, not a partisan one (and of course Catholics are one of the more evenly split religious groups in the US in terms of partisan voting).  And of course the divorce rate even among Catholics is much higher than it used to be (including, of course, in my own extended family--we're now at 1 instead of 0); not sure if the same was true back then with respect to the national Catholic population.

That said, no one has advanced the notion of "Catholic privilege" yet (I'm sure it's coming, considering the proliferation of privileges advanced by those so earnestly seeking tenure by discovering another as-yet-unexplored privilege), so I don't particularly feel the need to defend myself on that particular front.   ;D
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 11:03:44 AM
^ I grew up Catholic but I am more agnostic at this point.  But I don't see how being Catholic would be a privilege of any kind.  Now Catholic guilt is a thing that really exists.  ;D
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 31, 2018, 11:13:34 AM
^ I grew up Catholic but I am more agnostic at this point.  But I don't see how being Catholic would be a privilege of any kind.  Now Catholic guilt is a thing that really exists.  ;D

We get to go to Heaven.

We get discounted tuition at Catholic schools.

We get cookies from our church ladies for free, others have to buy them at our bake sales.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 11:16:54 AM
The heaven comment reminds me of a joke about a new arrival to heaven is being given the tour.  And the guide explains that every religion and denomination has its own room in heaven.  When they walk past one of the rooms the guide asks him to be quiet.  He explains that they are passing the Catholic room and they think they are the only ones here.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 31, 2018, 11:17:15 AM
Privilege theory has generally been invoked for much more than this, though.  It has been deliberately infused with sinister connotations (just as freefourur's original experience with it suggests), as if these were legal or institutional privileges rather than cultural advantages (and even on the cultural front, such privileges are generally limited in scope, and as 327, they also vary greatly in intensity ... there's privilege and then there's privilege, so to speak).

I have my frustrations with the activists you mention, who in my view have little interest in (or perhaps ability to) effectively communicate their ideas to the masses, they sometimes seem more interested in raising hell. But their counterpart crusaders on the right are very sinister in the way they warp and twist these ideas into something they aren't, also for the purpose of raising hell. Because if you go read an article or book by some left-wing academic about racism or sexism and privilege, it's going to say pretty much what I said. "Don't feel guilty about your privilege, just be aware of it." That's pretty much the main message. But nowadays mention privilege and it's like you insulted somebody's mother, people absolutely flip their lids and insist they had none. They call and complain about college orientations because they don't want anyone telling their kids they had any advantages in life, god forbid they become humble about it or learn to be empathetic when interacting with others.

I personally don't feel it's appropriate to tell somebody that "you either support X welfare program or you're racist/sexist/whatever" and there are those who feel that way. Leftists gonna left I guess. I don't agree with all or nothing politics because they are ripping our society apart. But many of those who do oppose those programs do so from this "I had no privilege" worldview which is questionable to say the least.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 31, 2018, 11:26:00 AM
^ I grew up Catholic but I am more agnostic at this point.  But I don't see how being Catholic would be a privilege of any kind.  Now Catholic guilt is a thing that really exists.  ;D

Damn, sounds like we've followed the same path.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 11:28:05 AM
^ I belong to a church now (not Catholic) that I attend occasionally with my Protestant wife.  A former co-worker told me I am in a mixed marriage.  ;D
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 31, 2018, 11:30:56 AM
^ I belong to a church now (not Catholic) that I attend occasionally with my Protestant wife.  A former co-worker told me I am in a mixed marriage.  ;D

Haha.  Fiancee and I are looking for a church / trying to decide if we should be regular church-goers.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 11:32:24 AM
^ are we the same person?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 31, 2018, 11:34:41 AM
^ are we the same person?  ;D ;D

My username would be down4cbus instead of down4cle...so pretty close?

Do you have a "conservative" Dad who's apparently been a closet racist that is now being brought into the open because of Trump winning the 2016 election?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 31, 2018, 11:35:36 AM
^ are we the same person?  ;D ;D

Well, if you're a Democrat, identity is just a social construct anyway, so why not? :P
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 31, 2018, 11:47:31 AM
^ I grew up Catholic but I am more agnostic at this point.  But I don't see how being Catholic would be a privilege of any kind.  Now Catholic guilt is a thing that really exists.  ;D

Damn, sounds like we've followed the same path.

I can third this. I still strongly identify as Catholic culturally, have Catholic guilt, go to mass on occasion, certain Catholic values etc, and a strong reverence for tradition in general... Just the believing part is the main issue for me haha. No kids but if I had them I would struggle whether to go through with the sacraments.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on January 31, 2018, 12:32:19 PM
^ I grew up Catholic but I am more agnostic at this point.  But I don't see how being Catholic would be a privilege of any kind.  Now Catholic guilt is a thing that really exists.  ;D

Damn, sounds like we've followed the same path.

I can third this. I still strongly identify as Catholic culturally, have Catholic guilt, go to mass on occasion, certain Catholic values etc, and a strong reverence for tradition in general... Just the believing part is the main issue for me haha. No kids but if I had them I would struggle whether to go through with the sacraments.

I'm a Catholic, was raised and educated Catholic/Jesuit, still go to Church... However, I can relate to what you're saying. But, I would want my children raised Catholic.

Not necessarily because I think it's the end-all-be-all, but rather because I think there's a core doctrine that I've found useful throughout my life that's at the core of Jesus' teachings and Catholic doctrine... Be kind to people that don't deserve it, identify with and care for your neighbor, and respect your family.

I am probably a "deist" on the scale; however, I have found Catholicism's willingness to adapt to science and prioritize the Gospels over the Old Testament to be a breath of fresh air. I understand Roman Catholicism has its problems and scandals, of which some still need to be remedied more appropriately. But, on its face, I believe in what Catholicism represents.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on January 31, 2018, 12:38:34 PM
Can we get back to the Democratic Party, please?

On that note, was "We Choose Both!" supposed to be the rousing centerpiece slogan of Kennedy's response to the SOTU last night?  Pretty weak.  I was really unimpressed with his speech and delivery.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: edale on January 31, 2018, 12:59:54 PM
I thought the message of his speech was alright, but the delivery was weak. The part where he spoke Spanish was stupid, especially because he claimed he was directing that message to the Dreamers, whose big claim is that they're essentially American because they've spent their whole lives here, and are part of the culture. Speaking Spanish paints them at 'the other' rather than 'one of us', and probably turned off some moderates. I also thought he started the speech trying to use Obama's voice and cadence instead of his own. I think "we choose both" is actually a nice message, and I like that he brought up the divisiveness and false choices we're presented with by Republicans. And not or can be a position to rally behind for the Democrats. I'm not sure if Joe is ready for prime time, though. From the second he appeared on screen, the spit or chapstick or whatever it was at the side of his mouth was blatantly obvious. How did no one from his team catch that? He, more than anyone, should know the power of presentation and appearances, given his JFK's famous debate with Nixon.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on January 31, 2018, 01:05:33 PM
There are over 41 million native Spanish speakers in the U.S.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on January 31, 2018, 01:05:41 PM
The response to the SOTU always looks kind of pathetic, lol. When they cut away from a packed House chamber to some lonely conference room... It's a tough act to follow.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on January 31, 2018, 01:08:05 PM
Acknowledge your white privilege or else!

Or else what?   :)

I’ve had basically that conversation online, never got a coherent answer lol.

Of course, I utterly reject “privilege theory” especially the racial take on it.  For one thing, it’s not limited to white people at all.   

Instead, there’s the opposite:  disadvantages that some people have.  In many cases they are partially self inflicted, in others inflicted by their culture. 
One of those disadvantages is believing in “privilege theory”.  Teach your kids that the deck is stacked against them and they will never get ahead and it is likely to be a self fulfilling prophecy.  It works the same with groups.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 01:08:12 PM
My anecdotal observations on Twitter are that Republican strategists and moderates think Kennedy did a good job but is not ready for 2020.  Liberals found a lot to be desired.  I didn't watch his speech or the SOTU because they  are both a waste of time.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on January 31, 2018, 01:11:23 PM
Acknowledge your white privilege or else!

Or else what?   :)

I’ve had basically that conversation online, never got a coherent answer lol.

Of course, I utterly reject “privilege theory” especially the racial take on it.  For one thing, it’s not limited to white people at all.   

Instead, there’s the opposite:  disadvantages that some people have.  In many cases they are partially self inflicted, in others inflicted by their culture. 
One of those disadvantages is believing in “privilege theory”.  Teach your kids that the deck is stacked against them and they will never get ahead and it is likely to be a self fulfilling prophecy.  It works the same with groups.

Oh please, believing that had a relatively privileged existence makes me think the deck is stacked against me.  Seeing many of these comments makes me wonder whether people actually understand the things they rail against.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on January 31, 2018, 01:34:03 PM
If I were a presidential hopeful, under no circumstances would I ever accept the duty of responding to any SOTU speech.  The circumstances are almost always overwhelmingly stacked against you.  If it's your first major exposure to a national audience, the odds are that you've just made a bad first impression (and there's no such thing as a second first impression) to millions.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on January 31, 2018, 01:57:28 PM
^Isn't this the first time the response was delivered before a live audience? I guess the point of all that cheering was to rally the troops. The problem is that unless you get a full transcript of the President's speech in advance, you can't really respond to specific points given the short time you have to prepare in the event something comes up that your planned speech doesn't cover. And since you're allotted time is only a fraction of the President's, you're forced try and squeeze in as much criticism as possible, which will inevitably sound rushed and overly vague. Kennedy's speech was a bit blandly predictable, consisting of a laundry list of every beleaguered group presumably "victimized" by Trump's policies. And when he talked about "tearing down" that wall, I'm sure even a lot of Trump-haters were thinking, wait a minute, I do at least want a secure border. I would hope so. :(
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 31, 2018, 03:13:13 PM
You think that an example of some conservatives giving to charity somehow changes the overall position of most on actual policy?  Who is always attacking immigrants?  Who is always maligning the poor?  I notice you didn't bother to actually defend conservatives on that point.

Your blanket statement that conservatives don't care about others is counterproductive. Mostly because it's a gross simplification. It's simply not true.

Defending the policies all conservatives or all liberals is impossible, because even within those viewpoints there is much difference of opinion when you get into the heart of it. Within those political labels there is also a great deal of hypocrisy going on.

Instead of the constant "us vs. them" dialogue how about reaching for some common ground? I'm not going to demonize people who favor a more private approach to helping the poor, nor people that support more governmental approach. While both sides deserve some amount of criticism I believe most people have their hearts in the right place.

Again, the exceptions don't make the rule.  I understand that it's not 100%, but that doesn't matter.  All it takes is a majority in agreement to make a law that affects people in negative ways.  And there clearly isn't much opposition to that within conservative circles, or it wouldn't be happening. 

Okay, let's find some common ground.  What are your positions on the following:

Abortion
LGBT rights
Immigration
Undocumented immigration
Border wall/security
The environment
Foreign relations
The deficit
Racism
PC
NAFTA
North Korea
Sexual Assault
Pedophilia
Adultery
Treason
Obstruction of justice
Minimum wage
Welfare
Military spending
Infrastructure spending
Human rights
Gun control
Free speech


 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on January 31, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
The two of you can take that to PM.  Keep this thread to the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 31, 2018, 04:24:36 PM
The two of you can take that to PM.  Keep this thread to the Democratic Party.

I don't know, clearly stating positions related to general party beliefs (Democratic and Republican) seems relevant to the discussion here... but ok.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on January 31, 2018, 06:03:43 PM
The two of you can take that to PM.  Keep this thread to the Democratic Party.

I don't know, clearly stating positions related to general party beliefs (Democratic and Republican) seems relevant to the discussion here... but ok.

We did a similar experiment in my high school government class.  People wrote down their positions on a dozen or so major issues.  Then the teacher had us form up into two parties based on issue A.  Then we switched to issue B, and lots of people moved around.  So on and so forth.  Soon it was clear that no general consensus was possible, let alone two separate ones.  We were just a room full of individuals with complex views of the world. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: X on January 31, 2018, 06:29:41 PM
The two of you can take that to PM.  Keep this thread to the Democratic Party.

I don't know, clearly stating positions related to general party beliefs (Democratic and Republican) seems relevant to the discussion here... but ok.

Asking someone to state their position on 20 separate issues is not.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on January 31, 2018, 10:40:43 PM
The two of you can take that to PM.  Keep this thread to the Democratic Party.

I don't know, clearly stating positions related to general party beliefs (Democratic and Republican) seems relevant to the discussion here... but ok.

We did a similar experiment in my high school government class.  People wrote down their positions on a dozen or so major issues.  Then the teacher had us form up into two parties based on issue A.  Then we switched to issue B, and lots of people moved around.  So on and so forth.  Soon it was clear that no general consensus was possible, let alone two separate ones.  We were just a room full of individuals with complex views of the world.

I don't know if HS is the best time to be measuring such views, IMO.  Most teens aren't well informed and their views will likely change into adulthood. I am still interested in your general thoughts on those issues if you want to PM me.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on February 11, 2018, 12:38:22 PM
this is a good article that only confirms what's been known for years now. The Dems have become a party controlled by affluent, elitist white people. I don't know how that's going to appeal to the general public in the long run. The hypocrisy of these people is overwhelming, or maybe they're just that clueless ???

Gentry Liberals Now Own the Democratic Party

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456241/affluent-white-urbanites-now-own-democratic-party

"There’s irony in this. Gentry liberals have produced the metropolitan areas with the highest income inequality in the nation. They decry gentrification — and the accompanying movement of low-income blacks and Hispanics out of their neighborhoods — even as they cause it. (note: this is brilliant!)--They sing hymns to diversity even as they revel in the pleasures of communities where almost everybody believes and consumes exactly the same things — and votes Democratic."

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: taestell on February 11, 2018, 01:18:54 PM
^ Why are you racist against white people?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on February 11, 2018, 03:17:00 PM
this is a good article that only confirms what's been known for years now. The Dems have become a party controlled by affluent, elitist white people. I don't know how that's going to appeal to the general public in the long run. The hypocrisy of these people is overwhelming, or maybe they're just that clueless ???

Gentry Liberals Now Own the Democratic Party

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456241/affluent-white-urbanites-now-own-democratic-party

"There’s irony in this. Gentry liberals have produced the metropolitan areas with the highest income inequality in the nation. They decry gentrification — and the accompanying movement of low-income blacks and Hispanics out of their neighborhoods — even as they cause it. (note: this is brilliant!)--They sing hymns to diversity even as they revel in the pleasures of communities where almost everybody believes and consumes exactly the same things — and votes Democratic."

lol... yes, because 50 years ago, Democratic leadership consisted of salt-of-the-earth types who, when not in Congress, were working the cash register at the local Safeway. 

I feel like everything you post is so ridiculously out of touch and wrong that it's hard to know where to start.  Of course those in political leadership are not middle class Joes.  When has that ever not been the case?  Honestly, I don't care what the income levels are of those at the top.  What I do care about is how they govern, and whether they give two ***** about upholding American principles and constitutional values/rights.  Oh, and not being a sexual predator, Nazi or general dumbas* would be great too.  Bottom line is, Democrats are and have long been far better for the middle and lower classes, not to mention immigrants, gays, racial minorities, women...  It's not even close.  Republicans don'30t even pretend to care about those people anymore. 

BTW, gentrification is not actually based in race, but income levels.  Poor whites moving into a poor black neighborhood aren't going to substantially gentrify the neighborhood at all.   And it's not just poor racial minorities that end up being priced out of improving neighborhoods, but poor whites also.  It's not like white flight in the 1950s-1960s.  Leave it to suburban conservatives to not understand urban processes.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on February 11, 2018, 05:30:16 PM

BTW, gentrification is not actually based in race, but income levels.  Poor whites moving into a poor black neighborhood aren't going to substantially gentrify the neighborhood at all.   And it's not just poor racial minorities that end up being priced out of improving neighborhoods, but poor whites also.  It's not like white flight in the 1950s-1960s.  Leave it to suburban conservatives to not understand urban processes.

Even some studies screw that up. They'll blatantly use increasing white population percentages to say an area is gentrifying. Those studies have to be avoided.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on February 13, 2018, 10:25:46 PM
Democrat Margaret Good has won a special election for state representative in Florida’s HD-72 tonight, marking the Democratic Party's 36th legislative flip since Trump’s inauguration. https://t.co/eZazkNzJp7
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on February 13, 2018, 11:52:31 PM
How big was the Democrat's win in Florida's bellwether HD72?
 
✅It was held by an R in a GOP county
 
✅Rs outnumber Ds by 12k voters, or 10 percentage points there
 
✅Trump carried it by 4.6% (but won FL by 1.2%)
 
✅Good just won by 7.4 points
 
https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/963580820169650177
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on February 14, 2018, 07:50:04 AM
^^Trump will blame illegals flocking to the district to cast their votes (and sign up for welfare).
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 14, 2018, 09:41:00 AM
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/963542682609111041

Quote
50.

The number of Republican seats that have flipped Democratic since Trump became President.

This is the preseason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/once-sleepy-state-races-heat-up-as-democrats-score-surprising-wins/2018/02/13/fac52e9c-104d-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.htmlOnce-sleepy … state races heat up as Democrats score surprising wins - Washington Post

I believe that number jumps to at least 51 after yesterday though I haven't followed all of the elections so it could be more.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on February 21, 2018, 07:43:17 AM
Dem wins Kentucky state House seat in district Trump won by 49 points
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374777-dem-wins-ky-state-house-seat-in-district-trump-won-by-49-points
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on February 21, 2018, 09:01:05 AM
Dem wins Kentucky state House seat in district Trump won by 49 points
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374777-dem-wins-ky-state-house-seat-in-district-trump-won-by-49-points

With a couple states set for re-districting BEFORE the midterm via court decisions, this may be a bigger swing than usual to Dems
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 21, 2018, 09:16:16 AM
Dem wins Kentucky state House seat in district Trump won by 49 points
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374777-dem-wins-ky-state-house-seat-in-district-trump-won-by-49-points

That's 37 flips since Trump inauguration.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 21, 2018, 09:23:05 AM
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Thousands-vote-in-Harris-County-as-nation-s-first-12628908.php

Quote
Thousands of early voters cast ballots Tuesday in Harris County, kicking off the nation's first primary election.

Overall voter turnout was normal for a midterm, primary election, officials said. But Harris County Democrats reported voters clogging telephone lines, and GOP officials told of long lines at polling places throughout the morning.

Quote
The 3,800 in-person votes cast Tuesday by Democrats represents a 300 percent increase as compared to the first day of early voting in 2014, the last non-presidential-year primary, according to Jay Kumar Aiter, a Texas Southern University political science professor. In-person Republican votes were also up about 25 percent since 2014, Aiter wrote on Twitter.

In nation's first primary of the year, Democrats see 300% surge compared to 25% for Republicans.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on February 21, 2018, 09:52:08 AM
Dem wins Kentucky state House seat in district Trump won by 49 points
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374777-dem-wins-ky-state-house-seat-in-district-trump-won-by-49-points

That's 37 flips since Trump inauguration.
I would not look at this as an indictment on Trump, more about what is going on in the KY Statehouse . Trump is still highly popular in coal country.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on February 21, 2018, 09:55:50 AM
^ TBH this particular seat was held by a Republican who committed suicide due to a scandal.  The amount of Dem swing is definitely an outlier.  However, Dems have been over-performing in nearly every race by a lot.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 21, 2018, 01:25:57 PM
Quote
A Kentucky District that Backed Trump 72-23 Just Backed a Democratic Woman 68-32

Guys, that's an 85 point swing if I can do math.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on February 21, 2018, 02:26:10 PM
Quote
A Kentucky District that Backed Trump 72-23 Just Backed a Democratic Woman 68-32

Guys, that's an 85 point swing if I can do math.

As Kentucky native Larry Flynt would say, "we're swingin' now."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 10:26:34 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-18-governorships-democrats-could-pick-up-this-year/

If the "Blue Wave" materialized Democrats could pick up 18 governorships this fall.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 23, 2018, 10:20:10 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17013730/conor-lamb-rick-saccone-pennsylvania-special-election

A Democrat getting outspent 17-1 is now neck and neck in deep-red Pennsylvania
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on February 24, 2018, 10:25:56 AM
Sanders promoted false story on reporting Russian trolls
The Vermont senator’s claim of sharing suspicious activity with the Clinton campaign never happened.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/bernie-sanders-russian-trolls-false-story-423413
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 26, 2018, 04:47:47 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/cnn-poll-congress-democratic-advantage-widens/index.html?utm

Quote
Democrats once again hold a wide advantage in a generic congressional matchup, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, backed by a base of supporters who are more enthusiastic than Republican partisans and more motivated by core issues.

The poll finds 54% of registered voters say they back a Democrat in their congressional district, 38% say they back a Republican.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 27, 2018, 01:31:29 PM
https://www.dailykos.com/blog/TexKos

(D) early vote turnout in 15 biggest Texas counties higher than (R) A first since 2008
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 28, 2018, 10:01:18 AM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrat-wins-nh-state-special-election-for-38th-flip-since-trumps-inauguration

Democrats Flip Two State Legislative Seats in CT and NH, Bringing Trump-Era Total to 39

Quote
Democrat Phil Spagnuolo won a special election in New Hampshire's Belknap County District 3 on Tuesday night 968-841 (54%-46%).

The contest for this state House race pitted Spagnuolo, a substance abuse recovery coach, against Republican Les Cartier, a former employee at the state fire marshal's office. The seat was left open after the death of Republican State Rep. Donald Flanders last September. Donald Trump won the district by a sizable 54-41 margin in 2016, four years after Barack Obama carried it by just one point, 50-49.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 02:39:39 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/01/voters-vow-elect-congress-stands-up-trump-poll-shows/376578002/

Quote
If the election were held today, though, those surveyed say they are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress than the Republican one by 47%-32% — a yawning 15 percentage-point advantage. Democrats need to flip 24 seats now held by Republicans to gain control of the House of Representatives. Winning control of the Senate is more difficult in a year in which 26 Democratic seats and just eight Republican seats are on the ballot.

"A 15-point lead in the generic ballot — that's a Democratic House, without a doubt," said David Wasserman, an analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "That would be a big wave."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on March 01, 2018, 03:34:55 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17013730/conor-lamb-rick-saccone-pennsylvania-special-election

A Democrat getting outspent 17-1 is now neck and neck in deep-red Pennsylvania

This district is a bit of a paradox.... Blue registrations are nearly equal to red; but Trump dominated it.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on March 01, 2018, 03:38:37 PM
That's common in a lot of places, where old school white working class Democrats ("Reagan Democrats" I guess) who have been voting Republican for a good while, still are registered Dems, for whatever reason. You'll see it throughout the South and also in Appalachia. Maybe even here in the rust belt, to an extent.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 03:54:09 PM
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/new-survey-young-staying-liberal-conservatives-dying-off.html

Quote
The most recent Pew Research Survey has more detail about the generational divide. It shows that the old saw that young people would naturally grow more conservative as they age, or that their Democratic loyalties were an idiosyncratic response to Barack Obama’s unique personal appeal, has not held.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on March 01, 2018, 03:58:47 PM
I think some people do get more conservative as the age, it's just that it's relative, not absolute. ie, just because a millenial Obama voter may be more conservative than what they were ten years ago, that doesn't mean they're now all of a sudden a Republican. It just means that they're more Hillary than Bernie. Because of increased polarization, it makes actual party switching very unlikely.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on March 01, 2018, 04:15:06 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17013730/conor-lamb-rick-saccone-pennsylvania-special-election

A Democrat getting outspent 17-1 is now neck and neck in deep-red Pennsylvania

This district is a bit of a paradox.... Blue registrations are nearly equal to red; but Trump dominated it.

A lot of Democrats simply voted for Trump.  Without them he couldn't have won.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on March 01, 2018, 04:33:00 PM
A lot of these "Democrats" have been voting for GOP candidates in national elections for a while, though. The ones who flipped, while obviously significant to the result, are still a small group as a whole.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on March 01, 2018, 04:59:13 PM
If they remain "Democrats" it shouldn't be that hard to win them back.  The Reagan Democrat phenomenon had more to do with personality than with policy.  But policy shifts were made and the party has suffered for it ever since.  Obama's successes also had more to do with personality than with policy, and those successes have distracted us from how badly the downballot races have gone.  Here's hoping for a turnaround this year!
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on March 02, 2018, 07:20:37 PM
  But policy shifts were made and the party has suffered for it ever since. 

These changes seemed to peak with the nomination of Hillary, but even after that mess they doubled down by keeping Pelosi and Schumer as the faces of the party.   Even the GOP learned from the Goldwater and Dole debacles.  McGovern's was a historically special case.

Though in the past couple weeks we've had a "Republican" President advocate letting illegal aliens stay, taking guns without due process, and implementing protectionist tariffs that will benefit big corps and harm small businesses.   So who knows....
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on March 03, 2018, 11:36:13 AM
this is interesting. It appears the Democrat party, at least in California, has gone so far off the rails that they didn't even endorse Dianne Feinstein for re-election, for (according to another article I had read) being too moderate in respect to Trump on some issues. I'm not sure how they're going to remain a national party if they keep going in this direction. It seems their identity is entirely wrapped up in Trump Derangement Syndrome with nothing else to offer.

California Dems’ hard-left turn could be the whole party’s future

By Post Editorial Board March 2, 2018 | 6:45pm

https://nypost.com/2018/03/02/california-dems-hard-left-turn-could-be-the-whole-partys-future/
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on March 03, 2018, 01:10:53 PM
Probably a Russian bot-generated story out of Texas, but here it is just in case it's not....

The Democratic party is now publicly attacking progressive candidates
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/democratic-party-laura-moser-texas?CMP=share_btn_fb
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on March 04, 2018, 11:39:31 AM
Canadian friend posted this gem....
American Democrats' new slogan: Ban guns so we can't shoot ourselves in the foot.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on March 05, 2018, 12:05:52 PM
Democrats do indeed have a gift for shooting themselves in the foot.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 06, 2018, 10:14:26 AM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-texas-turns-blue-it-starts-tonight-three-districts-to-watch?source=articles_sum&via=rss

Three districts to watch tonight in Texas if Democrats hope to turn the Longhorn state blue.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 06, 2018, 05:00:16 PM
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM1212Y17/filters/PD1:1

Latest Ipsos poll has Democrats up 44%-34% in latest Novemeber generic ballot.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on March 06, 2018, 05:07:00 PM
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM1212Y17/filters/PD1:1

Latest Ipsos poll has Democrats up 44%-34% in latest Novemeber generic ballot.

Polls are fake news. Don't you know they were wrong once.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on March 06, 2018, 06:12:41 PM
Probably a Russian bot-generated story out of Texas, but here it is just in case it's not....

The Democratic party is now publicly attacking progressive candidates
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/democratic-party-laura-moser-texas?CMP=share_btn_fb

This story appears to be real, and if so, it's disconcerting.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on March 07, 2018, 11:56:41 AM
Democrats will unveil a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which would create 15 million jobs.

How will they pay for it?  By reversing the GOP's tax cuts on the wealthy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-to-unveil-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan-seek-reversal-of-gop-tax-cuts-to-finance-it/2018/03/07/0de718f6-21c8-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 07, 2018, 04:41:27 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXsuwlkVAAATHe6.jpg)

Quote
if you look closely at the relationship between primary and GE turnout in Texas, the 40% Dems got last night (12% over 2014) actually predicts a Beto win by double digits.

The author notes there's only four data points, so extremely small sample size.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377191-poll-democrats-up-10-points-on-generic-midterms-ballot

New Quinnipiac poll has Dems up 49-39 on generic congressional ballot.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: YABO713 on March 07, 2018, 05:00:50 PM
Ted Cruz's new jingle shows me that the guy is at least 1/3 alien

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/03/07/senator-ted-cruz-takes-shot-congressman-beto-orourke-new-radio-ad-texas-election/402085002/
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on March 07, 2018, 08:05:11 PM
"Primary Turnout Alone Points to O'Rourke Win in Texas"

Luckily, when literally any other factor is considered, this seems like nonsense. The Republican primary wasn't even a contest, and the turnout was still spectacular. Liberal Robert has no chance.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 07, 2018, 08:06:47 PM
Canadian Rafael the Carpetbagger trying to make liberal Robert a thing is cute.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: KJP on March 11, 2018, 07:15:29 PM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: surfohio on March 12, 2018, 02:12:44 AM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html

This kind of hyper focus on skin color is strange to me.
 
The U.S. progressive movement needs an overhaul, Phillips says, one that changes "the complexion of the leadership of its organizations, campaigns and institutions" - more people of color and fewer people with what he describes as "Smart-Ass White Boy Syndrome." (That syndrome, he notes, is a matter of perspective and doesn't just afflict white men.) He's a co-founder of a group Quentin James created called Inclusv, a hiring tool to help campaigns find staffers of color.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on March 12, 2018, 08:47:34 AM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html

This kind of hyper focus on skin color is strange to me.
 
The U.S. progressive movement needs an overhaul, Phillips says, one that changes "the complexion of the leadership of its organizations, campaigns and institutions" - more people of color and fewer people with what he describes as "Smart-Ass White Boy Syndrome." (That syndrome, he notes, is a matter of perspective and doesn't just afflict white men.) He's a co-founder of a group Quentin James created called Inclusv, a hiring tool to help campaigns find staffers of color.

He doesn't define what that syndrome is, though. 

This focus on identity politics is what Trump pointed at.  The policy wonks never came up for an effective counter for it.

Their approach may not be what elected Trump, but it's how he carried Cuyahoga Heights.   And its ilk.

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on March 12, 2018, 09:25:53 AM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html

For the sake of the Republican Party, I seriously hope this kind of thinking takes root (more deeply than it already has) in the Democratic Party.  Democratic whites and Democratic nonwhites turf-warring for party and movement positions (while denying that that's what's going on, like a married couple in "we're not fighting, you're just wrong" mode), necessarily upping the identity politics ante because they've insisted on dividing even themselves along those lines that ought to be meaningless.  Like what really matters for flipping swing districts is the color of the campaign staffers.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 14, 2018, 09:25:09 AM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pennsylvania-18-district-lamb-results/

Quote
Counting Tuesday’s result, Democratic candidates in federal special elections have now outperformed the normal partisan leans of their state or district by an average of 17 percentage points. In recent midterm election cycles, that number has tracked closely with the eventual national popular vote for the U.S. House.

Quote
In other words, the result in Pennsylvania 18 is just the latest indication that Republicans are in trouble. The best predictors of midterm strength we have — President Trump’s approval rating, the generic ballot, congressional retirements and special elections — all are saying the same thing. In fact, of those, special election results may suggest the rosiest future for Democrats.

Quote
But, crucially for Democrats, the results hinted that maybe that Democratic turnout advantage is transferable to the higher-turnout environment of a midterm election. The 228,177 votes cast in the special election exceeded the 214,912 votes the 18th District cast in Pennsylvania’s 2014 gubernatorial election. In other words, turnout on Tuesday was even higher than it was in the last midterm.

Quote
The big-picture takeaway is this: If Democrats can win districts like Pennsylvania 18, they won’t need to stretch and scrape together a House majority. According to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean measure, 118 Republican-held districts nationwide are less red than the Pennsylvania 18th is. Of course, the entire country is unlikely to shift 22 points to the left in November the way the 18th did — and the country may not even shift the full 17 points implied by the aggregate of special-election results — but Republicans should still be very worried.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on March 14, 2018, 12:38:02 PM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html

For the sake of the Republican Party, I seriously hope this kind of thinking takes root (more deeply than it already has) in the Democratic Party.  Democratic whites and Democratic nonwhites turf-warring for party and movement positions (while denying that that's what's going on, like a married couple in "we're not fighting, you're just wrong" mode), necessarily upping the identity politics ante because they've insisted on dividing even themselves along those lines that ought to be meaningless.  Like what really matters for flipping swing districts is the color of the campaign staffers.

I agree that identity politics is a boon for Republicans in general.  And in swing districts it probably doesn't matter what staffers look like.  But Democrats depend on heavy turnout in their strongholds, where that sort of thing carries more weight.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: E Rocc on March 14, 2018, 01:05:35 PM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html

For the sake of the Republican Party, I seriously hope this kind of thinking takes root (more deeply than it already has) in the Democratic Party.  Democratic whites and Democratic nonwhites turf-warring for party and movement positions (while denying that that's what's going on, like a married couple in "we're not fighting, you're just wrong" mode), necessarily upping the identity politics ante because they've insisted on dividing even themselves along those lines that ought to be meaningless.  Like what really matters for flipping swing districts is the color of the campaign staffers.

I agree that identity politics is a boon for Republicans in general.  And in swing districts it probably doesn't matter what staffers look like.  But Democrats depend on heavy turnout in their strongholds, where that sort of thing carries more weight.

James Carville, whose successes should probably carry some weight considering his track record, once said a campaign that plays to its base risks getting shelled back into its bunker.

Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on March 14, 2018, 01:20:13 PM
Analysis: The post-Obama generation is done with the Democratic Party's old ways
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-black-candidates-20180306-story,amp.html

For the sake of the Republican Party, I seriously hope this kind of thinking takes root (more deeply than it already has) in the Democratic Party.  Democratic whites and Democratic nonwhites turf-warring for party and movement positions (while denying that that's what's going on, like a married couple in "we're not fighting, you're just wrong" mode), necessarily upping the identity politics ante because they've insisted on dividing even themselves along those lines that ought to be meaningless.  Like what really matters for flipping swing districts is the color of the campaign staffers.

I agree that identity politics is a boon for Republicans in general.  And in swing districts it probably doesn't matter what staffers look like.  But Democrats depend on heavy turnout in their strongholds, where that sort of thing carries more weight.

The Democrats have performed much better when they didn't rely on heavy turnout in their strongholds.  Look at what they just did in PA-18 with a relatively pro-gun, pro-life Democrat.  Trump carried the district by something like 20 points, largely on disaffected blue-collar white Reagan Democrats who, surprise surprise, actually can be enticed into voting Democrat again.

Admittedly, the Dem there had the good fortune of running against a hardline libertarian in a blue-collar labor-dominated district, which was a truly awful job of Republican recruiting, which happens when you have to find a candidate in a hurry because your incumbent is shamed out of office by an abortion scandal.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on March 14, 2018, 01:20:56 PM
Playing to the base has been pretty effective for Republicans, hasn't it?  Opinions vary but I believe the Carville/Clinton approach has been discredited by history.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Gramarye on March 14, 2018, 01:23:05 PM
The Republicans can play to the base in rural Alabama.  There's enough "base" there to carry districts without much further effort (but see Roy Moore, even there).

Republicans in wealthy, educated, racially and ideologically (/religiously) heterodox suburbs can get hammered when they play to just the base.  If the Republicans lose the House in November, it will almost certainly be because of setting up an impossible needle to thread for suburban-district incumbents (or challengers for retiree seats).
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 14, 2018, 01:26:42 PM
The Republicans can play to the base in rural Alabama.  There's enough "base" there to carry districts without much further effort (but see Roy Moore, even there).

Republicans in wealthy, educated, racially and ideologically (/religiously) heterodox suburbs can get hammered when they play to just the base.  If the Republicans lose the House in November, it will almost certainly be because of setting up an impossible needle to thread for suburban-district incumbents (or challengers for retiree seats).

I think the Democrats have the right strategy.  Play to the base in liberal places and play to union workers and college educated in suburban areas.  This is why Lamb was successful.  The type of districts Dems should target are those with large suburban populations.  Candidates like Lamb can clean up there but candidates like Bernie Sanders will get defeated handily.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on March 14, 2018, 01:33:04 PM
The Republicans can play to the base in rural Alabama.  There's enough "base" there to carry districts without much further effort (but see Roy Moore, even there).

Republicans in wealthy, educated, racially and ideologically (/religiously) heterodox suburbs can get hammered when they play to just the base.  If the Republicans lose the House in November, it will almost certainly be because of setting up an impossible needle to thread for suburban-district incumbents (or challengers for retiree seats).

I think the Democrats have the right strategy.  Play to the base in liberal places and play to union workers and college educated in suburban areas.  This is why Lamb was successful.  The type of districts Dems should target are those with large suburban populations.  Candidates like Lamb can clean up there but candidates like Bernie Sanders will get defeated handily.

There are also huge swaths of population moving into the social security years as the baby boomers are retiring.  The GOP Congress has made it no secret that they plan on going after these "entitlements."   The Dems need to come up with a plan to ensure it's safety. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 14, 2018, 01:36:03 PM
& Interestingly, the word entitlement has gotten a negative connotation lately but Social Security and Medicare are entitlements by definition.  The word really shouldn't have a negative connotation at all. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on March 14, 2018, 01:37:13 PM
Dems absolutely should run different types of candidates depending on the district, and they should be honest with the public on this. It is a necessary consequence of the geographic packing of liberals into cities, something the Republicans don't really have to deal with.

Then, they should run a candidate who can unite the two sides for the White House.

This requires standing up to the party's purity wings, and that could get difficult.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 14, 2018, 01:39:04 PM
^ I think Republicans have to run different types of candidates too.  You can't run Roy Moore types in Mass.  You need Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on March 14, 2018, 01:41:07 PM
The Republicans can play to the base in rural Alabama.  There's enough "base" there to carry districts without much further effort (but see Roy Moore, even there).

Republicans in wealthy, educated, racially and ideologically (/religiously) heterodox suburbs can get hammered when they play to just the base.  If the Republicans lose the House in November, it will almost certainly be because of setting up an impossible needle to thread for suburban-district incumbents (or challengers for retiree seats).

Renacci?  Jim Jordan?  Those guys are all base all the time, and they represent suburban Cleveland.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Cleburger on March 14, 2018, 01:41:51 PM
^ I think Republicans have to run different types of candidates too.  You can't run Roy Moore types in Mass.  You need Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. 

Yeah they probably shouldn't run Roy Moore types anywhere....that was disgraceful.  The fact that Trump disses a war hero like McCain but throws his support behind Roy Moore is a head shaker. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 14, 2018, 01:43:45 PM
The Republicans can play to the base in rural Alabama.  There's enough "base" there to carry districts without much further effort (but see Roy Moore, even there).

Republicans in wealthy, educated, racially and ideologically (/religiously) heterodox suburbs can get hammered when they play to just the base.  If the Republicans lose the House in November, it will almost certainly be because of setting up an impossible needle to thread for suburban-district incumbents (or challengers for retiree seats).

Renacci?  Jim Jordan?  Those guys are all base all the time, and they represent suburban Cleveland.

Oh god. I just at the shape of Jim Jordan's district.  No wonder we have such fools in Congress.  His district is a hodgepodge of ex-urban and rural areas. 
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 14, 2018, 01:44:16 PM
^ I think Republicans have to run different types of candidates too.  You can't run Roy Moore types in Mass.  You need Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. 

Yeah they probably shouldn't run Roy Moore types anywhere....that was disgraceful.  The fact that Trump disses a war hero like McCain but throws his support behind Roy Moore is a head shaker.

I meant the Roy Moore type sans the pedophilia.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on March 14, 2018, 01:48:23 PM
& Interestingly, the word entitlement has gotten a negative connotation lately but Social Security and Medicare are entitlements by definition.  The word really shouldn't have a negative connotation at all. 

I disagree that Social Security is a true entitlement in that the more you pay into it the more you are going to get out of it when you begin drawing.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 14, 2018, 01:48:51 PM
^ I think Republicans have to run different types of candidates too.  You can't run Roy Moore types in Mass.  You need Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. 

Yeah they probably shouldn't run Roy Moore types anywhere....that was disgraceful.  The fact that Trump disses a war hero like McCain but throws his support behind Roy Moore is a head shaker.

I meant the Roy Moore type sans the pedophilia.

Oh, so homosexuality should be illegal?  Muslims shouldn't serve in Congress? Women shouldn't be allowed to run for office or vote?

That type?
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on March 14, 2018, 01:49:28 PM
^ Exactly.  A true Southern Patriot Conservative.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: GCrites80s on March 14, 2018, 01:53:32 PM
^The kind that protects our American Heritage.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: mu2010 on March 14, 2018, 02:01:12 PM
^ I think Republicans have to run different types of candidates too.  You can't run Roy Moore types in Mass.  You need Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. 

I know, but I think the gap is wider with the Dems. Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, and Roy Moore differ in demeanor but they don't differ in that they're all generally on the same side of the big wedge issues. It's a little different with Conor Lamb, Joe Manchin, etc.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 14, 2018, 02:12:38 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/14/17109448/pennsylvania-special-election-conor-lamb-defeats-rick-saccone

It's official - Conor Lamb wins PA special election by 627 votes.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 14, 2018, 02:39:26 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/L230IH7.png)

Good luck, GOP.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 15, 2018, 09:49:50 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/mississippi-is-now-in-play-for-democrats/article/2011938

Even Mississippi might be in play for Democrats though it's a long shot.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on April 05, 2018, 11:55:55 AM
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/05/tennessee-us-senate-2018-poll-phil-bredesen-marsha-blackburn/485649002/

Quote
Former Gov. Phil Bredesen has a 10-point lead over U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn in the race to succeed U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, according to a new poll from Middle Tennessee State University.

Democrat holds a 10-point lead for a Senate race in....Tennessee.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: Ram23 on April 05, 2018, 12:08:50 PM
^ You might be able to find a poll here or there that makes you feel good about the 2018 Senate elections, but the reality should be very, very scary for Democrats (especially if the economy stays as great as it has been):

https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/sabatos-crystal-ball-2018-senate-ratings
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: jonoh81 on April 05, 2018, 05:26:15 PM
^ You might be able to find a poll here or there that makes you feel good about the 2018 Senate elections, but the reality should be very, very scary for Democrats (especially if the economy stays as great as it has been):

https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/sabatos-crystal-ball-2018-senate-ratings

You might be able to find a poll here or there that makes you feel good about Trump's presidency (Rasmussen), but the reality should be very, very scary for Trump Republicans. 

Democrats have already been winning.  And that's with a decent economy.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: eastvillagedon on April 16, 2018, 03:39:24 PM
looks like things are shifting (that dream of impeachment may have to wait--lol)--

Poll: Democrats’ advantage in midterm election support is shrinking

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-democrats-advantage-in-midterm-elections-has-been-cut-more-than-half/2018/04/15/5450d99e-3f6e-11e8-8d53-eba0ed2371cc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.06c60064379b

"Democrats hold an advantage ahead of the midterm elections, but a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that edge has narrowed since January, a signal to party leaders and strategists that they could be premature in anticipating a huge wave of victories in November."
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: 327 on April 16, 2018, 03:43:08 PM
It's 6 months away.  We don't even know who the candidates are yet.
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: freefourur on April 16, 2018, 03:45:16 PM
Democrats are still leading is good news to those following a morally deficient president.  No mention of the enthusiasm gap which is yuuuuuge
Title: Re: The Democratic Party
Post by: DarkandStormy on April 16, 2018, 03:54:10 PM
Democrats are still leading is good news to those following a morally deficient president.  No mention of the enthusiasm gap which is yuuuuuge

Every single poll taken is of registered voters.  All that matters is likely voters because likely voters will translate to actual votes.