Jump to content


Democrats Have to Do What They Haven't - Fight for What They Want


106 replies to this topic

#101 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3786 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:23 AM

 JackD, on 08 February 2020 - 10:39 AM, said:

One thing Bitecover's analysis doesn't explain is why, in 2018 House races, moderates flipped red seats and progressives didn't. That was a really marked contrast. AOC and like minded winners prevailed in reliably blue districts, not red ones. They didn't win a singe red district and there were enough efforts to be noticeable. It suggests to me that positions may have significant impact and practicality is important.

Without knowing exactly how red those districts were, judging it only upon outcome doesn't seem a fine enough tool to determine of the model was correct or not. Does the data say that the progressive failed to get more people to the poll? Or does it say they progressive did get more people to the poll but the incumbent Republicon still had enough of an advantage to overcome those extra voters. If the district is red enough, even a surge in votes for the Dem candidate, whether progressive or moderate, may not be enough to overcome the inherent conservative nature of the district.
Well, fuck.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

"There seems to be a lot of people dying of ignorance while living in the information age." my sister-in-law.

#102 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 09 February 2020 - 10:24 AM

Don't have the answer to your question and agree the analysis is pretty crude but the number of districts involved does get one's attention. The "centrists" (I hate all these labels) won 40 red districts. I'm not certain but I believe the progressives lost 12.

Another number that got my attention was the recent polling that resulted in 70% of respondents opposed to Medicare for All with private insurance prohibited. Enough of an issue to cause a vote for Trump? Probably not many but it might be enough to cause non votes and certainly to put a damper on enthusiasm.

#103 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10718 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 February 2020 - 12:47 PM

 JackD, on 09 February 2020 - 10:24 AM, said:

Another number that got my attention was the recent polling that resulted in 70% of respondents opposed to Medicare for All with private insurance prohibited.

One reason I sincerely hope we don't end up with Sanders. His way or GTFO? I remember McGovern -- I even voted for him. I don't want a replay.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#104 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 09 February 2020 - 01:42 PM

I voted for McGovern too. I didn't want to but my Dad talked me into it to "cut the other bastard's margin".

#105 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32837 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 24 February 2020 - 04:34 PM

This piece explains how the Green New Deal isn't at all radical compared to the science denial of the GOP which is incredibly radical. The Dems need to sell some version of this harder. Every hurricane, tornado, flood, drought, or other natural disaster which "might" be caused or exacerbated by global warming needs to be pushed as Republicans murdering Americans to pay off their big, fat donors. It's long past time to fight dirty.

Quote

Democratic candidates are these days identified as radicals often in relation to three policies: 1) taxes on wealth or the wealthy, 2) Medicare for All, or 3) a Green New Deal. These assertions do not make much sense. Taxes on wealthy Americans today are proportionately lower than on middle class wage earners. Universal health care exists in all prosperous democracies except America. That said, my focus here is primarily on the Green New Deal.

One underlying reason the “radical” label sometimes sticks is, of course, asymmetric political polarization. Republican politics has moved well to the right, while Democrats as a whole have not moved significantly to the left. This asymmetry is so comprehensive (and conservative media so strong) that reasonable policy advocacy can be branded negatively. Amazingly, denying that climate change requires us to alter our behavior — or just ignoring it outright — are not considered radical.

The Green New Deal — as proposed in a 2019 bill introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) — offers action on renewable energy, infrastructure, transportation and agriculture and largely eliminating carbon emissions by 2050. The bill foresees cooperation with farmers and the creation of more “good, union jobs” than would be lost. It also includes job and retraining guarantees for those with fossil energy jobs at risk.

Democrats up and down the ticket — and Republicans! — would do well to get behind some variant of this approach to clearly distinguish themselves sharply from Trump’s inability to even acknowledge the problem.

And legislators need not be concerned with the claims that the Green New Deal is a radical overhaul of the economy that Americans oppose: those claims don’t make any sense.

The need to reduce carbon emissions has been widely accepted by science and most nations for decades. Given that, what makes the idea so radical? In addition, most major American corporations and cities have already invested heavily in reducing emissions. And, reductions can be achieved while economic growth continues. Yes, some environmentalists advocate slower growth, but most versions of a Green New Deal do not.

While climate action does challenge fossil energy companies, it need not challenge America’s economic system as a whole. Nor will it necessarily challenge existing income or wealth distribution. Indeed a Green New Deal, as generally articulated, seeks restoration of pre-1980 wealth distribution, and can harness some of the populist outrage that has buoyed left-leaning Democrats as well as, ironically, Trump.

Important politically within the U.S. are the economic benefits of climate action to the relative advantage of rural, Southern and other Republican regions. Texas and the Midwest are windy and Florida is the Sunshine State for a reason. Likewise, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada — all purple states — are well-suited for renewable energy. Democratic candidates can sell strong climate action precisely where they need to grow their appeal.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#106 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14364 posts

Posted 24 February 2020 - 10:50 PM

 LFC, on 24 February 2020 - 04:34 PM, said:


Just as McGovern was not nearly as radical as the Nixon campaign painted him. If you listen to his acceptance speech the points he stressed for their platform were really quite reasonable, many of which happened under Nixon anyway, such as protection of the environment. And don't forget "we are all Keynesians now."
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#107 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32837 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 04 March 2020 - 03:56 PM

Donna Brazile has been a Democratic insider for ages and sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton's campaign was super sleazy but I do love it when she gets her hackles up at Republicans.

Quote

Former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile lashed out Tuesday at Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel during a Fox News appearance, repeatedly telling McDaniel to “go to hell” for claiming the Democratic primary will be “rigged” against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Hours before polls close in 14 Democratic primary states, Brazile—now a Fox News contributor—was asked by America’s Newsroom anchor Sandra Smith to react to comments made by McDaniel earlier on the program.

“It does depend on how big a lead that Sanders takes out of California is,” the GOP chair said. “If he picks up a huge proportion of delegates. I don’t see anybody getting out soon. It is leading towards a brokered convention, which will be rigged against Bernie if those superdelegates have their way on that second vote.”

Brazile immediately became indignant over McDaniel offering up her take on the Democratic race, calling on her and other Republicans to “stay the hell out of our race,” adding that she’s “sick and tired” of Republicans telling her about the Democrats’ process.

“First of all, they don’t have a process,” Brazile declared. “They are canceling primaries. They have winner-take-all. They don’t have the kind of democracy that we see on the Democratic side.”

“For people to use Russian talking points to sow division among Americans is stupid,” she continued. “So Ronna, go to hell! This is not about—go to hell! I’m tired of it.”

After Fox anchors Smith and Ed Henry audibly shouted “whoa,” Brazile went on to call McDaniel’s remarks “stupid” while accusing her of “using Russian talking points.”

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users