All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Tami]

Kentucky Democrats: 'Just say Nyet to Moscow Mitch'

[Theleviathan]

There's a fair argument to be made that more liberal policies might potentially draw in more (or newer) Democratic voters in a general election, but both data and history are on the side of the more moderate Democrats.

With the stakes being what they are, while everyone has the right to support their chosen candidate, it doesn't make sense to also try to sabotage what has proven to be the most effective (Democratic) political strategy in the process.

I agree. I'm all for being 100% behind a candidate and loving them, but what I don't like is the projecting of further left liberals on the larger voting bloc. It's rampant right now.

[The Overlord]

I also know we had corporate regulations, police oversight and reform, statewide marijuana legalization, equal pay for women legislation, LGBT marriage, the reversal of a record recession into record economy growth and deficit reduction, and an affordable care act passed under Obama, along with a lot of other "progressive" environmental and education legislation.

Even more could have been done, especially on healthcare, if "moderate" Obama had the "progressive" votes in Congress.

The problem isn't the "moderates" -- its the regressive and obstructionist Republicans.

No one gets everything they want in politics -- not the "left" nor the "right" and definitely not a minority of "progressives" in Congress.

It's fine to want a tougher candidate than Obama (and in his defense he had good, if misplaced, intentions with regards to his trust in the Republicans to work with him across the aisle in good faith) but acting as if no real progress has been made under "moderates" is an unfair position to take, especially when many modern-day progressives have yet to pass any serious legislation on a federal level.

If moderates are always the way to go, why didn't Clinton win in 2016? Heck, why didn't Kerry win in 2004? Pragmatism should be a means, not an end and it shouldn't an excuse to elect someone like Biden, who is just a moderate Republican.

The reason why Warren and Sanders kicked everyone else's butt at the first debate this month because they offered real solutions to real problems and everyone else offered pablum. These are popular policies, we should go with them over a bunch of meaningless pap. The Dems have ceded the economic debate to the GOP for so long, that they have become just as responsible for the hollowing out of the middle class and Trump was able to take left-wing arguments about trade and use them against Hilary Clinton because she is a center-right corporate Dem. He beat her because of that, if someone could make a better working-class argument then Trump did, then those arguments of his neutralized.

The right seems to get a lot of it wants all the time, Turtle Man Mitch stole a Supreme Court seat and managed to keep 106 judicial appointments during the Obama years, Brian Kemp was able to run a dirty election in Georgia, the GOP uses gerrymandering to maintain their power base, how exactly are they being they are being punished for their actions? The Democrats are so weak, they let the GOP walk all over them, why did Obama appoint a Republican like Comey to run the FBI? If Comey was not in that position, maybe he wouldn't have resurrected the e-mail thing so late in the 2016 election? How often do the Republicans return the favor and appointment Democrats to such positions? The Republicans are not going to play nice, why should we? Being nice to people who want to dominate you is foolish.

The Republicans come off as stronger then the Dems, because they present an image where they will fight as hard as they can as long as they can for their base, while Dems have just ceded half the ground to the GOP right away and come off as people who often just cave in with a little pressure from the other side?

Frankly, Obama was the last chance to show that this type of Clinton era neo-liberal, center-right policy agenda to work and the GOP did every to scuttle it, doing that again is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

[aja_christopher]

If moderates are always the way to go, why didn't Clinton win in 2016?.

Because while moderates win, they don't always win.

Again, when I see progressives start winning in Congress, much less winning the presidency in a contest where "moderate" votes matter the most, then you can make the argument that being more progressive is the better option.

Until then, I'm going with history (Bill Clinton and Obama) and data (economic and popular success and re-election) and not the exception in Hillary, especially given the issue of foreign interference in the last election.

You can't convince people that progressives can win on a national stage until people start seeing more progressives win on a national stage -- losing to Hillary by millions of votes on the "left" isn't good enough, especially in contrast to Bill Clinton and Obama.

[Gray Lensman]

The Fed. I don't understand how one group has so much control on the flow of money in the United States and everybody is okay with it.

The idea is to insulate the Fed from day to day politics. It's a bad idea to allow that to shape something so important.

[Theleviathan]

If moderates are always the way to go, why didn't Clinton win in 2016? Heck, why didn't Kerry win in 2004? Pragmatism should be a means, not an end and it shouldn't an excuse to elect someone like Biden, who is just a moderate Republican.

The reason why Warren and Sanders kicked everyone else's butt at the first debate this month because they offered real solutions to real problems and everyone else offered pablum. These are popular policies, we should go with them over a bunch of meaningless pap. The Dems have ceded the economic debate to the GOP for so long, that they have become just as responsible for the hollowing out of the middle class and Trump was able to take left-wing arguments about trade and use them against Hilary Clinton because she is a center-right corporate Dem. He beat her because of that, if someone could make a better working-class argument then Trump did, then those arguments of his neutralized.

The right seems to get a lot of it wants all the time, Turtle Man Mitch stole a Supreme Court seat and managed to keep 106 judicial appointments during the Obama years, Brian Kemp was able to run a dirty election in Georgia, the GOP uses gerrymandering to maintain their power base, how exactly are they being they are being punished for their actions? The Democrats are so weak, they let the GOP walk all over them, why did Obama appoint a Republican like Comey to run the FBI? If Comey was not in that position, maybe he wouldn't have resurrected the e-mail thing so late in the 2016 election? How often do the Republicans return the favor and appointment Democrats to such positions? The Republicans are not going to play nice, why should we? Being nice to people who want to dominate you is foolish.

The Republicans come off as stronger then the Dems, because they present an image where they will fight as hard as they can as long as they can for their base, while Dems have just ceded half the ground to the GOP right away and come off as people who often just cave in with a little pressure from the other side?

Frankly, Obama was the last chance to show that this type of Clinton era neo-liberal, center-right policy agenda to work and the GOP did every to scuttle it, doing that again is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

It's not about being nice, it's about winning. Aggressively losing on principle is still losing.

Even in a sweep in 2018 it was mostly centrists that carried the Dems to a majority. I don't know about you, but losing in 2020 is simply not acceptable. Pride and personal politics be damned. Keep moving the discussion with debates and candidates who can win very left districts. But don't be intentionally stupid and ignore what wins.

[The Overlord]

Because while moderates win, they don't always win.

Again, when I see progressives start winning in Congress, much less winning the presidency in a contest where "moderate" votes matter the most, then you can make the argument that being more progressive is the better option.

Until then, I'm going with history (Bill Clinton and Obama) and data (economic and popular success and re-election) and not the exception in Hillary, especially given the issue of foreign interference in the last election.

You can't convince people that progressives can win on a national stage until people start seeing more progressives win on a national stage -- losing to Hillary by millions of votes on the "left" isn't good enough.

How are supposed to whether they will win or not, if we do not give them the chance to try? Things change and I think the next generation wants a new progressive Democrat party not just a rehash of the failed Clinton machine from the 1990s.

Joe Biden may defeat Trump or maybe he will lose, but if he wins he will govern like a moderate Republican and Trumpism will grow under his watch, because he will do nothing to confront the factors created Trumpism. What evidence do you have that Sanders or Warren would lose to Trump? Because I think they could defeat Trumpism, while the moderates would nothing real to stop it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

While everyone debates what happened in the debate and all the angst over Biden, Sanders, Gabbard and the author, et al, what doesn’t seem to get much mention (at least to me) is the fact that winning back the Senate is just as important as the presidency to Democrats, if not moreso. Even if Dems reclaim the Oval Office next year, it won’t mean jack **** if Moscow Mitch is still in place as Majority Leader and obstructing everything to death.

[Theleviathan]

How are supposed to whether they will win or not, if we do not give them the chance to try? Things change and I think the next generation wants a new progressive Democrat party not just a rehash of the failed Clinton machine from the 1990s.

Joe Biden may defeat Trump or maybe he will lose, but if he wins he will govern like a moderate Republican and Trumpism will grow under his watch, because he will do nothing to confront the factors created Trumpism. What evidence do you have that Sanders or Warren would lose to Trump? Because I think they could defeat Trumpism, while the moderates would nothing real to stop it.

With all due respect, that's hot garbage. Can we please stop trying to slander centrists by calling them Trump-lite? That's the kind of "Rhino" bullshit the likes of Limbaugh did for years that got us in this place. Being a centrist does not make you evil and presenting them as evil is exactly one of the goddamn things that got us Trumpism. Please. Knock it off. It's so bad for our politics and our country.

[The Overlord]

It's not about being nice, it's about winning. Aggressively losing on principle is still losing.

Even in a sweep in 2018 it was mostly centrists that carried the Dems to a majority. I don't know about you, but losing in 2020 is simply not acceptable. Pride and personal politics be damned. Keep moving the discussion with debates and candidates who can win very left districts. But don't be intentionally stupid and ignore what wins.

It's not about being nice, it's about winning. Aggressively losing on principle is still losing.

Even in a sweep in 2018 it was mostly centrists that carried the Dems to a majority. I don't know about you, but losing in 2020 is simply not acceptable. Pride and personal politics be damned. Keep moving the discussion with debates and candidates who can win very left districts. But don't be intentionally stupid and ignore what wins.

I agree it's about winning, but who has the most popular policies the moderates or the left wingers?

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com...-the-gops.html

Again why did the moderate Clinton lose in 2016 or why did the moderate John Kerry lose in 2004?

What evidence is there that if the Dems choose Warren or Sanders that it would be a sure thing that the Dems would lose? Do you honestly think Biden does not have flaws Trump could

I am arguing for what I think is the best way to win, because I think the old ways have failed and some people are not choosing to learn from that failure.

If you do not counter right wing populism with left wing populism, you cede half the battle to Trump right away.

[Theleviathan]

While everyone debates what happened in the debate and all the angst over Biden, Sanders, Gabbard and the author, et al, what doesn’t seem to get much mention (at least to me) is the fact that winning back the Senate is just as important as the presidency to Democrats, if not moreso. Even if Dems reclaim the Oval Office next year, it won’t mean jack **** if Moscow Mitch is still in place as Majority Leader and obstructing everything to death.

Was it Bennet that made that comment in regards to impeachment? One of the candidates said this last night and it was one of the lines that should've had the most applause.

The Senate has to be 1B to winning the Presidency at 1A. Too often I think all the eggs are put in the executive basket and Democrats do a **** job running viable Senate candidates as a result.

[aja_christopher]

How are supposed to whether they will win or not, if we do not give them the chance to try?

We are -- that's why we have debates and primaries. Maybe Sanders and/or Warren will win, and maybe they will actually get progressive legislation passed through a moderate to obstructive Congress.

You have every chance to prove people wrong by voting for your candidate, rather than bashing and potentially sabotaging other Democrats and the Democratic party as a whole.

You don't have to constantly attack what already has worked in the past to progress toward the future -- pushing your own political agenda at the expense of others in the same party is a losing strategy.

[Theleviathan]

I agree it's about winning, but who has the most popular policies the moderates or the left wingers?

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com...-the-gops.html

Again why did the moderate Clinton lose in 2016 or why did the moderate John Kerry lose in 2004?

What evidence is there that if the Dems choose Warren or Sanders that it would be a sure thing that the Dems would lose? Do you honestly think Biden does not have flaws Trump could

I am arguing for what I think is the best way to win, because I think the old ways have failed and some people are not choosing to learn from that failure.

If you do not counter right wing populism with left wing populism, you cede half the battle to Trump right away.

Battling on populism is a pissing match that everyone loses. Build a voting coalition that is sustainable.

2018 is the data you need and has been posted here a lot. Far left candidates mostly got beat and centrists were the ones that flooded the House in a wave.

Kerry lost to an incumbent and Hillary lost because the name "Clinton" is toxic. They didn't lose because they were moderates. But let's flip the table...I can show, by such noted right-wing websites like Slate, that left-leaning candidates mostly failed in 2018. It was suburban centrists that carried the day.

You data about policies is irrelevant because policies are complicated. You can ask your average American about one thing (universal health care) and think you have a majority. You tweak the question even slightly (like, you'll lose your current insurer....even though that should've been obvious in the first question) and get TOTALLY different results. It's a bad place to hang your hat. So I ask...where is your election data showing a groundswell of far left support just waiting to burst out for a liberal?

[Tami]

#5crimesin5days

[Tami]