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

[The Overlord]

It will decay and rot if Republicans continue to win elections as well. There has to be some degree of balance. Yes, push the conversation and the ideas left, but balance it with winning elections.

I've said here before, I'm not tied to any one candidate. I like various things about various candidates. As a non-Dem or non-Republican I have one and only one objective: losses for Republicans. Any centrist, independent, liberal, socialist, or anything else that can deliver a Republican loss has my support.

That's not bad idea, but I think you have to think longer term. It just seems like the Dems ignored governorships during the Obama years, letting the GOP amass a giant power base. Democrats have to stop betting everything on the White House and at a minimum we need more left wing representatives in deep blue districts, rather then putting more centrists there. Alabama, fine run a centrist. But I am glad AOC beat an establishment dinosaur like Crowley. I think the US needs more of that, get rid of guys like Crowley and put in people like AOC.

[Theleviathan]

As for this, let's go on ahead and roll tape.

Joe Manchin. Most folks have heard of the guy, and he was supposedly untouchable in his primary.

Polling? Had "Undecided" at thirty-eight percent and his opponent at about seven percent.

Come the primary, his opponent(who had never run for office and obviously lacked any party support) took thirty percent of the total.

If you think that a supposedly untouchable "Business As Usual..." Democrat having thirty percent of the vote swiped out from under him points to their not really being an untapped group of progressive voters, you would have to be able to explain a nobody walking in with no support and walking out with thirty percent of the vote.

I get the feeling that thirty was not moderates.

This in no way answers my question. You made a claim, I checked to make sure it was your claim, and now you need to explain it. Strained speculation about a Democrat in hot water in a red state is not very compelling.

Show me anything that confirms their existence. Or at least that such a pattern is rampant across the country.

[Theleviathan]

That's not bad idea, but I think you have to think longer term. It just seems like the Dems ignored governorships during the Obama years, letting the GOP amass a giant power base. Democrats have to stop betting everything on the White House and at a minimum we need more left wing representatives in deep blue districts, rather then putting more centrists there. Alabama, fine run a centrist. But I am glad AOC beat an establishment dinosaur like Crowley. I think the US needs more of that, get rid of guys like Crowley and put in people like AOC.

What I think you need to understand is that far more of America is in the direction of Alabama than AOC's district. I hope the Dems run hardcore progressives where they can win, but AOC wasn't going to make Ted Cruz sweat in Texas. For that you need someone like O'Rourke.

Republicanism is a toxic cancer, it has to lose elections. It's really that simple. Whoever can deliver should have our support. Trying to Out Progressive ourselves to the point that we're bashing Obama just to get at Biden is stupid. It's just plain stupid.

[numberthirty]

This in no way answers my question. You made a claim, I checked to make sure it was your claim, and now you need to explain it. Strained speculation about a Democrat in hot water in a red state is not very compelling.

Show me anything that confirms their existence. Or at least that such a pattern is rampant across the country.

That's about how I figured this would go...

Obvious example?

I can explain that away...

[Tendrin]

Some folks are seriously underestimating how much time and work went into creating the current radical GOP, let alone voters willing to elect them.

[numberthirty]

As for the idea that it was moderates who won...

- https://prospect.org/article/how-pro...on-house-seats

How a Progressive Message Won House Seats

[Theleviathan]

That's about how I figured this would go...

Obvious example?

I can explain that away...

So....no, you can't? That's also how I figured this would go.

It'd be really interesting if it was true. I'm sorry reality doesn't offer us that possibility.

[numberthirty]

So....no, you can't? That's also how I figured this would go.

It'd be really interesting if it was true. I'm sorry reality doesn't offer us that possibility.

You are talking in terms of "Proof..."

If a nobody walked in with no support running on a progressive platform and took thirty percent of the vote away from someone who was "Untouchable...", you need to be able to show that it was not said progressive platform that snagged that thirty percent.

Otherwise, I've got no reason to doubt that folks voted for a progressive based on that they were a progressive.

Never mind the clear reality that more moderate Dems have clearly benefited from a bigger picture that is made up of progressives like AOC and progressive policy.

[Mister Mets]

Again, who has the most popular policy positions? Why did Warren and Sanders kick everyone's butt at that debate this week?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...-the-gops.html

They offer real solutions to real problems, while likes of Biden or Delaney or Beto O'Raorke offer pablum.

Really how was Clinton not ''moderate'', because she did some progressive lip service that means nothing when you look at her record? She is the same type of center-right neoliberal Dem Biden is:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/181731...y-clinton-2020

How is supporting the Iraq war progressive or supporting mass incarnation or her ''super predator'' comments or supporting her husband scrapping Glass Steagall?

If she is progressive, the word has no meaning. Trump beat up on her for being a neoliberal war hawk who was beholden to corporations, why wouldn't that be even more effective against Biden, who has a lot of the same weaknesses as Clinton did?


The GOP does not bother with moderation, they created an environment where they have become a far-right party, but they will label any Dem who moves from the center an inch, an extremist. Any Dem who plays by those rules cedes half the battle right away.

While some items may poll well, Democrats are also advocating for some really unpopular positions as well. As Nate Cohn of the New York Times wrote "Whatever you think of it, it is really incredible that the Democratic debates have devoted so much oxygen to fairly unpopular policy questions like busing, ending private health insurance, giving health insurance to undocumented workers, and decriminalizing illegal immigration"

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...ze-border.html
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status...rc=twsrc%5Etfw


We're certainly coming at things with different definitions if you think Clinton and Biden are center-right. These things come down to comparisons. I would argue that to be a centrist (and not even a center-right Democrat or center-left Republican) one must be appreciably to the center of the typical statewide officeholder of their party.

It also doesn't really matter in the context of whether she ran as a progressive what Hillary Clinton believed in 2002. The measure of her ideology comes down to what she was saying in the 2016 election.

There is an argument that she was hurt because her relationship was the activist base was weak, which prevented her from being able to take more moderate positions, whereas Obama got more flexibility in 2008 and a Sanders might have it in the future. But that's more nuanced than just saying that Hillary ran too centrist a campaign.

It's also worth noting that Trump took some moderate positions when he won the election. He vowed to avoid new Middle Eastern military adventures, was an opponent of cutting Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid), and tried to position himself as an ally to the LGBTQ community.

As for this, let's go on ahead and roll tape.

Joe Manchin. Most folks have heard of the guy, and he was supposedly untouchable in his primary.

Polling? Had "Undecided" at thirty-eight percent and his opponent at about seven percent.

Come the primary, his opponent(who had never run for office and obviously lacked any party support) took thirty percent of the total.

If you think that a supposedly untouchable "Business As Usual..." Democrat having thirty percent of the vote swiped out from under him points to their not really being an untapped group of progressive voters, you would have to be able to explain a nobody walking in with no support and walking out with thirty percent of the vote.

I get the feeling that thirty was not moderates.

Someone getting 30 percent in a primary against the most conservative Democrat in the Senate isn't a big deal.

She got 48,594 votes in the primary. She'd need to get six times more votes in the general election to beat Manchin.

It is also worth noting West Virginia Democrats can make unusual decisions.

A perennial candidate serving time in a Texas prison got 40 percent of the vote in the 2012 presidential primary against Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.3255cf7d0036

[Mister Mets]

If moderates are key to winning, why do a lot of them lose? Clinton lost in 2016, Kerry lost in 2004 and the Dems lost a 1000 seats during the Obama years. Why will Biden be different? If he loses, will you accept this promise is flawed or double down? You said Kerry lost because he faced an incumbent, so will Biden, so why would he do better then Kerry?

You just to want ignore all the times your premise is false and it comes off as dogmatic, not fact based, what would convince you that this premise is wrong?

This was addressed before.

This one's really bad for Republicans.


The losses under Obama are largely explained by general trends when a party holds the White House.

Part of the problem in election comparisons is the idea that every election is the same (IE- that we should compare why Hillary lost in 2016 to why Obama won in 2012) when there are other reasons for headwinds including consistent political trends of the party in the White House typically losing seats in midterm elections, and voters eventually getting tired of the party in the White House.

One take on the issue -- I'd add race had something to do with it as well, as the "birther in Chief" now in the White House can attest to personally.

Definitely wasn't about "moderates" being less viable than progressives in the midterms, regardless.

-------
"When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators; now there are 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats has shrunk from 257 to 188.

There are now nine fewer Democratic governors than in 2009. Democrats currently hold fewer elected offices nationwide than at any time since the 1920s.

How did this happen?

1. There are two different electorates in America

There is Presidential Election America, where turnout is diverse. The electorate is younger, browner, more single, more secular — more Democratic. Then there's Midterm Election America, where the electorate is older, whiter, more rural, more church-going — in other words, more Republican. What's great for Republicans and bad for Democrats is that the vast majority of the governorships and state legislative seats are elected in the midterms.

And those positions are the seed corn for a party — they're the farm teams for higher-level offices. Right now the Democrats are at a very low ebb.

This is something President Obama lamented when he campaigned for Democrats in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014. Republicans manage to turn out their voters every two years, but Democrats, for some reason, only turn their voters out every four. Maybe, Obama mused, because Democrats just don't think midterms are "sexy enough."

2. Bad luck

Democrats had one spectacularly bad piece of luck. The Republicans' Tea Party-fueled surge in 2010 was perfectly timed to coincide with the decennial census, after which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by governors and state legislatures. Republicans' huge gains in the 2010 midterms put them in the driver's seat when it came time to draw new congressional districts in 2011. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell remembers what happened when Republicans took over the governor's mansion and the Legislature in his state:

"When I left office in January of 2011," says Rendell, "there were 13 Democratic congressman and six Republican congressman. As a result of redistricting in the 2010 election, that turned around and we now have 13 Republican congressmen and five Democratic congressman."

3. Democrats don't care

It's not only bad timing and gerrymandering that have hollowed out the Democratic Party. Mo Elleithee, a former Democratic National Committee official, says Democrats have never put enough effort and resources into state legislative races. Republicans, on the other hand, make those races a top priority.

4. Too many Democrats live in cities

This is another problem that makes it easier for Republicans to draw congressional and state legislative districts that disadvantage Democrats. Democratic voters are clumped together in urban areas. You could say that for the purposes of winning elections, Democratic voters are just not efficiently distributed.

Its why even in red states like Texas and Utah there are cities that are solidly Democratic — and why lesbian mayors were elected in Houston and Salt Lake City. When Democrats cluster in and around cities, they win local elections, but that doesn't help them win suburban or rural congressional seats."

https://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/46905...ency-heres-why

Kerry lost in 2004 running against a wartime President in a historically unfavorable circumstance (there's only been one time since the end of the 19th century that a party got kicked out of the White House after just one term.)

[numberthirty]

This article was some interesting reading...

- https://time.com/5641038/democratic-...-flint-voters/

‘Everybody Uses Us.’ What It Was Like to Watch the Democratic Debate in Flint, Michigan

But the skepticism towards the establishment ran deep, especially in a community that has been as failed by elected leaders as badly as Flint has. They were unimpressed by lip service that didn’t come with an infrastructure plan or a promise of increased funding. “Everybody uses us, because it looks good,” said Shanta Smith, 43, who runs a Flint substance abuse facility. “They’ll drive through Flint, they’ll touch on it, but what are you really doing for Flint?”

Smith came to the debate thinking he wanted to hear from Harris or Booker, but found herself listening closely to Yang. “He was really talking about real issues, not just attacking and playing the politics game. He had his math together,” said Smith. “He’s not the usual candidate.” Other voters at the watch party agreed: in an informal poll conducted after the debate, Yang won overwhelmingly.

Some voters said that if nobody captures their trust, they may not vote at all. Amber Hassan, who calls herself a “selective voter,” says choosing between two imperfect candidates is like choosing between “dirty lettuce or rotten lettuce,” and she’d rather walk away with nothing.

“We’ve been lied to so many times,” says Lendra Brown, 59, a former food stamp manager. If she had to vote tomorrow, she says, “I would vote for Mickey Mouse.”

[GindyPosts]

https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Al...513480621.html

Alaskans are beginning the process of running a recall election to oust Mike Dunleavy from office, thanks in large part due to his draconian budget cuts.

[GindyPosts]

Meet the "New Illinois" movement, another attempt to oust Chicago out of the rest of the state of Illinois

The problem with these types of "get the damn liberal cities out of our states" secession movements, which while addressing the fact that rural communities do get the shaft in services and needs, stems less from the fact that they historically vote Republicans, who historically oppose services that could help rural communities but instead offer more short-term "cure-alls" like lower taxes and less regulations, and more about looking for scapegoats to contend with when things go pear shaped. It's no secret Illinois isn't in the best shape, compared to Indiana, but you have to consider Indiana's in it's "robust" shape due to more than a decade of Republican dominance (going on two with 2020 all but locked up for them) not investing in fundamental programs, making it more difficult for people to get assistance, and selling off or dropping assets they didn't want to bother with anymore. However, Chicago is the backbone of Illinois's economy, and my trip throughout central and southern Illinois back in June just highlights how screwed the state would be without Chi-Town to the point where I'd just call it "New Indiana". For example, a few years back, the state legalized digital gambling at institutions like truck stops, gas stations, bars, what have you, everywhere except in the Chicago metropolitan region. I actually went into two of these during my trip through the state, and while just two shouldn't highlight how much of a failed idea the program was, it just made me feel more and more like I never left Indiana in some ways (even though we don't have gambling at truck stops and are just finally getting human tellers at our casinos). Coupled with other oddities, such as Effingham's massive cross over by the I-70/I-55 intersection, and practically everything Mount Vernon on south, this part of the state isn't the kind that would encourage people to get out of the quarry and cave digging businesses, which ironically, given the need of an education, would likely be harder to get in a "New Indiana".

The other problem would be that succession, while granting the Senate two additional Republicans, would also mean granting the Senate two additional Democrats, not to mention that the Chicagoland region would appropriate Representatives, reducing New Illinois's electoral vote count.

I dunno; I'm just tired (I won't sleep for another hour until I get to Cincy), and these things always baffle me since they're motivated for the stupidest reasons and ignore the logical nightmares, not to mention that they would likely disadvantage themselves politically just so they could put Republicans in charge of the state.

[numberthirty]

On that...

What passes for the "Movement" there tends to frame things in terms of using I-80 as the border. If anyone could ever execute that, they wouldn't just lose Chicago when they did. They would lose Naperville/DeKalb/Aurora/Fermi In Batavia. It's just not the most well thought out plan.

[aja_christopher]

I feel you want argue in circles with me, you are telling me information I already know.

Okay, answer me this, how is the argument for making Biden the candidate now different then the argument to make Clinton the candidate in 2016? Is there any lessons be learned from Clinton's defeat that we can apply to this election?

Nope -- I don't want to argue at all, which is why I say votes and not rhetoric are what matter in this "debate". It has nothing to do with me arguing for "Biden" or "Clinton" or "Obama" and everything to do with the simple fact that moderate Democrats get more votes than progressives at the polls.

The lesson is that if people want progressives like Sanders to win, then they need to vote for them instead of trying to drag down other more moderate Democrats who beat both progressive and Republican candidates in elections -- there's an argument to be made that Warren is doing better than Sanders because she focuses more on policy than attacking other Democrats or the Democratic party as a whole.

Divisiveness and anger, rather than strategic thinking and planning based on actual data, leads to failure, which is exactly why the Republicans (and Russians) promote these divisions within the Democratic party whenever possible.

-----
"Democratic lawmakers were left shaken and worried by Wednesday night’s bruising presidential debate, which left some fearing the fight will hurt the party and result in a damaged nominee.

Senate Democrats are frustrated that candidates are spending too much time and effort attacking each other for relatively small policy differences, while not focusing their ire on President Trump.

They worry the intraparty food fight is overshadowing what they see as the main goal: Drawing a clear contrast between the Democratic candidates and Trump on health care and other key issues.

“I’m of the view that we have always been a party of ideas,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). “I think everybody should sort of consider that.”

She said there is “concern” within the caucus of the increasingly vicious attacks, particularly against the front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden.

“People take sides and then they become hypersensitive and that just makes divisions all over the party and we don’t want that,” she said. “I want every one of our candidates to do well.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-negative-tone