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

[Tami]

Williamson is a deeply kind person. She has no business up there

I agree. I have nothing personal about her, but she has no management government experience of any kind. At least Yang has management experience.

[TriggerWarning]

If you don't nominate Warren you are either getting Sanders who is left of her, who obviously a lot of people here have severe issues with or you are getting someone to the right of her which many in that Progressive coalition are going to be very hesitant to accept in the current climate.

The progressive coalition will vote for whoever the dems run because it will be against Trump. Thus the progressive coalition is utterly irrelevant after the primaries. The progressive coalition is dominant in states like California, Massechusets, New York, and other solid blue states that will go blue regardless of candidate.

The only states that matter are the swing states and its not progressives that matter there. Its moderates and swing voters who don't want another clown car election like 2016. Its going to come down to likability and not being too extreme either way to get their votes and turn states in the rust belt to the dem side.

Progressive might matter in the primaries but in a general election they are an anchor on the dem candidate.

[Iron Maiden]

Luis Alvarez fought for 9/11 first responders who became sick. He has died at 53.

Just saw this. R.IP, Mr. Alvarez. You no longer need to worry about going to another chemotherapy appointment. You're in the Hands of the Lord

[numberthirty]

You keep claiming I don't like Sanders when there's nothing I've said that proves otherwise -- in fact I support many of his policies even if I don't think (based on both past history and objective data) that the majority of Americans will vote for them, especially if it means higher taxes.

You can dodge that truth all you want but it doesn't change the facts behind what I'm saying: I'll believe people really support "progressives" and progressive policies when I see the votes behind them on a national level, both in midterms and presidential elections, and I say that as someone who preferred "progressives" like Kucinich to Obama but had no problem supporting Obama in the general election.

Until then, you're just arguing with a strawman because I've never once said I dislike Sanders -- I just don't blind myself to the weaknesses of "progressive politics" or the merits of other more "moderate" candidates in the process.

As many others have pointed out, it's Sanders supporters that tend to be the problem -- they seem to want to "fight" other Democrats more than Republicans.

Out of honest curiosity here...

How does that Ilhan Omar just got elected in the sort of mid-term election you are saying that you don't believe progressive candidates can get elected it?

Lets set aside the other examples that someone could point to, and just make it about that one candidate who obviously won.

Is that not really a national election the way you see it?

[aja_christopher]

Out of honest curiosity here...

How does that Ilhan Omar just got elected in the sort of mid-term election you are saying that you don't believe progressive candidates can get elected it?

How does the election of a one-term representative somehow represent a "progressive" sea-change in national politics unless you refuse to admit that your anecdotal example (and political ideology) isn't equally effective in every other national race?

I never said they can't get elected -- just that I don't I don't see where Americans are voting for them or their policies enough to attack "moderate" Democrats for not being more progressive when it might cost them the general election to do so.

This isn't even something to be argued -- this is something to be proven at the same ballot box where moderate Democrats have already dominated for decades.

Your argument isn't with me -- it's with the American voter.

[numberthirty]

How does the election of a one-term representative somehow represent a "progressive" sea-change in national politics unless you refuse to admit that your anecdotal example (and political ideology) isn't equally effective in every other national race?

I never said they can't get elected -- just that I don't I don't see where Americans are voting for them or their policies enough to attack "moderate" Democrats for not being more progressive when it might cost them the general election to do so.

This isn't even something to be argued -- this is something to be proven at the same ballot box where moderate Democrats have already dominated for decades.

Your argument isn't with me -- it's with the American voter.

Again, honest curiosity...

If someone elected in a mid-term doesn't really make a difference either way in what you are talking about, why did you clearly mention mid-term elections as a metric?

I get that a national general election is a different ballgame. Just seems like mid-terms either counts or it's something to not even discuss.

[heretic]

Just the usual male Republican shouting over a woman reading a letter from a black man on the state senate floor. oh WBE-eeeee....

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/...819943936?s=21

The desperation with with he seeks to shout her down is... at best, Not A Good Look.

[aja_christopher]

Again, honest curiosity...

If someone elected in a mid-term doesn't really make a difference either way in what you are talking about, why did you clearly mention mid-term elections as a metric?

I get that a national general election is a different ballgame. Just seems like mid-terms either counts or it's something to not even discuss.

As I already pointed out -- progressives did not do especially well in the midterms, especially in contrast with more "moderate" Democrats.

It is a coalition of progressives and moderates that will beat the Republicans -- you can fight that all you want to but that's what happened in the midterms and that's what needs to happen in the general election and the Senate races in order to combat Republican obstructionism and corruption.

Which -- outside of Democratic infighting -- is the only real impediment to a "progressive" agenda in America.

-----
Progressives' plan for victory just took a gut-punch. Now what do they do?"

"[Ben] Jealous, a former president of the NAACP who championed single-payer health care, never really gained traction against Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan.

Other losing progressives included congressional hopefuls like Randy "Ironstache" Bryce, who ran for the Wisconsin seat being vacated by retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan, and both progressive insurgents who won upset victories in primaries earlier this year against Democratic establishment-backed candidates, Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Dana Balter in New York.

And Elizabeth Warren protege Katie Porter, a progressive who came out on top in a crowded primary in southern California, is trailing in a too-close-to-call House race, while some candidates who beat progressive-backed candidates in Democratic primaries in places like Kansas and Texas won their races.

Sean McElwee, the progressive activist who popularized the call to "abolish ICE," acknowledged that Democrats' biggest successes this cycle came in primaries in safe blue seats, where rising stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts ousted longtime Democratic incumbents and cruised to victories Tuesday.

"We should really take seriously the idea that the path forward is contesting for power in (primaries in) the deeper bluer seats," said McElwee, who runs the think tank Data for Progress, adding that approach would help progressives form a bulwark in Congress to press their agenda.

Moderates can hardly claim to have found a sure-fire recipe for success either after Tuesday night, however.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, who supported impeaching President Donald Trump, came within three percentage points of winning a Senate seat in Texas, which hasn't sent a Democrat to the upper chamber in 30 years.

Meanwhile, incumbent Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who both tacked aggressively to the center, lost by wider margins in friendlier states. And Tennessee Democratic Senate challenger Phil Bredesen, who said he would have voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, got trounced by 11 percentage points to an unpopular opponent.

Overall, the results offer mixed signals for Democrats, providing just enough evidence for both sides to continue their low-boil civil war."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...hat-do-n933771

[heretic]

We consistently overestimate how much having actual policies matter when it comes to getting elected. If people wanted a highly progressive, policy driven platform, they were able to vote for it in 2016.

You can argue that H. Clinton is an uncharismatic policy nerd with a ton of (largely smear campaign induced) baggage, but those who claim she was not running on a progressive platform in 2016 was not really paying attention.

She had the substance. Trump had style in his fast-talking grifter way (and quite likely outside help). The latter squeaked by while losing the popular vote.

[numberthirty]

As I already pointed out -- progressives did not do especially well in the midterms, especially in contrast with more "moderate" Democrats.

It is a coalition of progressives and moderates that will beat the Republicans -- you can fight that all you want to but that's what happened in the midterms and that's what needs to happen in the general election and the Senate races in order to combat Republican obstructionism and corruption.

Which -- outside of Democratic infighting -- is the only real impediment to a "progressive" agenda in America.

-----
Progressives' plan for victory just took a gut-punch. Now what do they do?"

"[Ben] Jealous, a former president of the NAACP who championed single-payer health care, never really gained traction against Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan.

Other losing progressives included congressional hopefuls like Randy "Ironstache" Bryce, who ran for the Wisconsin seat being vacated by retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan, and both progressive insurgents who won upset victories in primaries earlier this year against Democratic establishment-backed candidates, Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Dana Balter in New York.

And Elizabeth Warren protege Katie Porter, a progressive who came out on top in a crowded primary in southern California, is trailing in a too-close-to-call House race, while some candidates who beat progressive-backed candidates in Democratic primaries in places like Kansas and Texas won their races.

Sean McElwee, the progressive activist who popularized the call to "abolish ICE," acknowledged that Democrats' biggest successes this cycle came in primaries in safe blue seats, where rising stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts ousted longtime Democratic incumbents and cruised to victories Tuesday.

"We should really take seriously the idea that the path forward is contesting for power in (primaries in) the deeper bluer seats," said McElwee, who runs the think tank Data for Progress, adding that approach would help progressives form a bulwark in Congress to press their agenda.

Moderates can hardly claim to have found a sure-fire recipe for success either after Tuesday night, however.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, who supported impeaching President Donald Trump, came within three percentage points of winning a Senate seat in Texas, which hasn't sent a Democrat to the upper chamber in 30 years.

Meanwhile, incumbent Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who both tacked aggressively to the center, lost by wider margins in friendlier states. And Tennessee Democratic Senate challenger Phil Bredesen, who said he would have voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, got trounced by 11 percentage points to an unpopular opponent.

Overall, the results offer mixed signals for Democrats, providing just enough evidence for both sides to continue their low-boil civil war."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...hat-do-n933771

Lemme see if I have this straight...

Omar represents an anecdotal example, but one mid-term absolutely represents just how viable progressive candidates will be throughout the entirety of the future and not potential progress?

[aja_christopher]

"Progressive Democrats running in competitive House districts had a bad night on Tuesday"

Progressive energy helped moderate Democrats win on election night. But progressive candidates weren’t so lucky.

When all was said and done, 2018 was not the year of the winning progressive Democrat.

Moderate Democratic candidates were the big winners of swing congressional districts in the 2018 midterm elections, flipping most of the 28 key House districts from Republicans’ control and winning key gubernatorial races, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Illinois. Democrats’ net gain in the House was 26 seats.

Progressive candidates flipped few of those seats. For the most part, the biggest upsets for the left occurred during the summer primaries; most of those districts were already blue and primed to elect Democrats. Many of the left-wing candidates who tested the theory of turning out their base, even in more conservative districts, lost on election night.

But progressive energy still buoyed Democrats’ win in the House of Representatives. Even though Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not win the Senate race in Texas by running to the left, the race with Sen. Ted Cruz was still very close. And enthusiasm for O’Rourke helped boost Democrats in key House races in the Lone Star State. Democrats Colin Allred and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher trounced longtime Republican incumbents, and Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones appears to still be locked in a tight race with Republican Rep. Will Hurd.

“There was a seven-point popular vote margin in the House for Democrats,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of progressive grassroots group Indivisible. “Even in places where we didn’t get wins, there’s some pretty amazing infrastructure being developed on the ground.”

The major progressive wins happened in the primaries, but losses happened in November

There were two theories of how Democrats could win the midterms: by energizing their base or by turning out moderate voters in suburban and rural districts. On Tuesday, they did both, but their biggest wins came in suburban districts that had voted for Clinton in 2016 but had incumbent Republican House members. Democrats who attempted to win districts like that by appealing to the left’s base and running on issues like Medicare-for-all didn’t fare as well...

There’s evidence that progressive candidates in big races like Texas’s senator and Florida’s governor spurred turnout among youth and minority voters, helping Democrats in down-ballot races. But ultimately, their big wins and the flipped districts they took were in the suburbs."

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/180717...elections-2018

[4saken1]

False premise. Obama ran to the left in 08 even if he really was a moderate. Hillary lost to a Right wing joke and in the primary a bunch of red states built a firewall for her. If you want the strategy of catering to a bunch of voters who bring you no value towards winning, well you can die on that hill.

I don’t think you know what objective means. Why don’t you look at polls on progressive positions . It’s a waste of my time arguing with your opinion when there are metrics behind mine. Nobody really should worry about where you will vote. You’re among the most hard D Democrats here. As is most of the moderate wing. That bloc doesn’t add anything the Democrats won’t get to turn out anyways. You know who brings the young voters who don’t care and the independents? Yeah duh

Soooooo progressive just aren't that keen on voting in Primaries, then? If they represented a large enough share of the liberal electorate, wouldn't we be seeing these candidates beating moderates left and right instead of just here and there?

[heretic]

A reporter asked if Trump agreed with Putin that "Western-style liberalism" was in decline. Trump, either not answering or understanding the question, then criticized LA and SF, which he said are "sad to look at" because they're "run by liberal people."

Twitter Link

This may be less a clueless gaff and more a telling slip of the tongue, especially considering Mr. Trump's affinity for leaders that "can get things done."

[aja_christopher]

Lemme see if I have this straight...

Omar represents an anecdotal example, but one mid-term absolutely represents just how viable progressive candidates will be throughout the entirety of the future and not potential progress?

Don't argue with me -- argue with the voters who aren't electing your candidates into Congress or the general election.

[numberthirty]

Don't argue with me -- argue with the voters who aren't electing your candidates into Congress or the general election.

You are the only one who see this as an "Argument..."

I'm just pointing out that someone who seems like they can look at Omar's election and say "That might represent an anecdotal example..." should be able to think the same thought about what is clearly a single mid-term election.