All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Tendrin]

See, I don't really disagree.

That said, those seats aren't the same sort of race as a Presidential general election. I just don't see the point in potentially throwing any votes you might need away.

I'd say that people are pretty animated. And besides, the real issue confronting Democrats at the national level is 'voter suppression' and 'gerrymandering'.

No, Mets, this isn't an invitation for you to come in and start ranting about 'geographic sorting' again (which is a nonsense way to talk about the urban/rural divide and the fact that people tend to congregate in dense population centers.).

As for Sanders, he'll have to say 'I'm a Democrat' and actually walk the walk and have a 'D" after his name. That shouldn't be a problem for the guy. /If he wins/, he'll have all the leverage he needs to force changes that he approves of. Of course, given his track record with nominees and personal lack of transparency, that may not be such a good thing, no matter how much I agree with things he's said.

[numberthirty]

I'd say that people are pretty animated. And besides, the real issue confronting Democrats at the national level is 'voter suppression' and 'gerrymandering'.

No, Mets, this isn't an invitation for you to come in and start ranting about 'geographic sorting' again.

As for Sanders, he'll have to say 'I'm a Democrat' and actually walk the walk and have a 'D" after his name. That shouldn't be a problem for the guy. /If he wins/, he'll have all the leverage he needs to force changes that he approves of. Of course, given his track record with nominees and personal lack of transparency, that may not be such a good thing, no matter how much I agree with things he's said.

On that front, it just seems like the obvious question is "Which One Of These Will Be The Easiest To Accomplish?"...

- Successfully Contend With Gerrymandering Nationwide?
- Successfully Contend With Voter Suppression Nationwide?
- Not Potentially Throw Votes Away On A Move That Might Alienated General Election Voters?"

One of those is a lot easier to do than the others.

[Tendrin]

On that front, it just seems like the obvious question is "Which One Of These Will Be The Easiest To Accomplish?"...

- Successfully Contend With Gerrymandering Nationwide?
- Successfully Contend With Voter Suppression Nationwide?
- Not Potentially Throw Votes Away On A Move That Might Alienated General Election Voters?"

One of those is a lot easier to do than the others.

I think the number of voters who will actually be alienated by this is so few as to be negligible. And it is all resolved by telling Bernie he doesn't get to have it both ways. Pretty fine in my view.

[Tazirai]

I'm sorry. I have no problem with a guy who wants to be the leader of the Democratic party having to be a member of the party. You can have as many unorthodox views as you want but you still have to have a 'D' after your name. The Democratic party has plenty of room for a wide variety of views.

Bernie doesn't get to have it both ways. This shouldn't be up for debate.

Of course, given that many members of the left seem insistent on repeating the mistakes of other left movements in other countries faced with creeping authoritarianism at home, it isn't surprising to me that this is so.

NOWHERE did I say he shouldn't become a Democrat if he runs did I?
I said the party hates him, yet needs him, and shits on him every single chance they get.

We shouldn't have parties in the first place, that's part of the problem.

[Tendrin]

NOWHERE did I say he shouldn't become a Democrat if he runs did I?

Then I wasn't talking to you, was I?

Political parties are fine. We just need more of them. Unfortunately, that isn't the system we have at the moment.

[Malvolio]

Once again, you don't get to vote for "none of the above." When someone refuses to vote, what they're telling whoever wins is that it's okay to ignore them, pretend they don't exist. And many candidates want us to not vote. Because they don't need a majority of the potential votes. They only need a majority of the votes actually cast. For example, if you know you can get at least 35% of the voters to vote for you, then you know that if you can keep 40% of the voters from voting at all, you can get that majority of votes actually cast. In other words, you don't need to get that many people to vote for you, just get them to not screw things up by voting for someone else.

And that's why we see so many negative campaign ads. They don't care if you vote for them or not. Just don't vote for the other guy.

[Tazirai]

Spare me the holier than thou attitude. I'm not interested. I'm only interested in one thing. Ending Republican control of the US government. To quote Noam Chomsky, “Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?”

But, hey, Democrats might nominate Kirsten Gillibrand. And that's just as equally bad, am I right?

(Edit: I'm not even a Democrat.)

Kirsten is turning into Bernie everyday, because she can read the tea leaves. So is Booker, and Harris. I don't care WHY they become more Progressive, and less Establishment, as long as they do. Because Today's Progressive will be Tomorrows Establishment.

I'm just gonna quote Oliver Willis, liberal writer for Shareblue.

https://twitter.com/owillis/status/999120086748356609

I don't know who he is, . I'm a purity voter yes. /shrug. If your non pure candidate makes it to the general, then I'll hold my nose. SICK of holding my nose.

But even Willis admits in the three you posted, he agrees with us "purists" and when confronted by "purists" in the same thread, he concedes to them.

Because the Purist Crap is crap. The Democratic party has moved so far right, that a Liberal from two years ago seems "Far left". Lol.

If that is the goal, where is there an upside in even the possibility that this move could lose you voters in a general election?

Agreed.

See, I don't really disagree.

That said, those seats aren't the same sort of race as a Presidential general election. I just don't see the point in potentially throwing any votes you might need away.

Yeah, I don't disagree either. But many of them are winning simply because they have more money, and name recognition, not actual policies. The Centrists at any rate. But their Liberal/Progressive primary opponents are making them look in the mirror and that helps.

As for Sanders, it's just about being able to take a realistic look at the bigger picture.

If he can walk in next time and actually take the nomination(which is anything but a given)? Why shouldn't he be able to do things his own way?

If it's going to be like this...

That's how it should actually be. Not "I Won Something.", but the DNC will still be dictating terms.

I don't want him cake walking into the next election either. Sanders should get a Primary challenge like everybody else. Force him to hold up his policies.

I can't stand Bill Maher, but lasts weeks interview of Sanders was perfect.

IF Sanders does win the nod, then yes because of party rules he'll be a Democrat. NOWHERE has any Progressive said otherwise. Problem is so many "Liberals" are caught up in Tribalism, "WHERE'S HIS D?????"
They need that letter lol. But even when they get it, they'll still hate him lol.

[Tazirai]

Once again, you don't get to vote for "none of the above." When someone refuses to vote, what they're telling whoever wins is that it's okay to ignore them, pretend they don't exist. And many candidates want us to not vote. Because they don't need a majority of the potential votes. They only need a majority of the votes actually cast. For example, if you know you can get at least 35% of the voters to vote for you, then you know that if you can keep 40% of the voters from voting at all, you can get that majority of votes actually cast. In other words, you don't need to get that many people to vote for you, just get them to not screw things up by voting for someone else.

And that's why we see so many negative campaign ads. They don't care if you vote for them or not. Just don't vote for the other guy.

Democrats and Republicans are just as guilty of this. Dems love to saqy they want more voters to vote. BUT, when the time comes they just need that extra 10-100 or so. They don't, either party, mind winning by a hair.

[Tendrin]

Because the Purist Crap is crap. The Democratic party has moved so far right, that a Liberal from two years ago seems "Far left". Lol.

This is just not as true as people like to say it is. When was the party more progressive than it is now? The New Deal? Please. The Great Society, maybe? Bet a lot of people would have some things to say about that. You know, like gays wanting to get married and people (Still) getting arrested for selling pot.


Of course, just how progressive the politicians running are /depends on where they are/. That's the peril of a big party.

[Kevinroc]

Kirsten is turning into Bernie everyday, because she can read the tea leaves. So is Booker, and Harris. I don't care WHY they become more Progressive, and less Establishment, as long as they do. Because Today's Progressive will be Tomorrows Establishment.

Gillibrand is one of the most prominent Democrats around. So are Booker and Harris. You act like Manchin and Heitkamp represent the entire party. If either of them ran for President, neither of them would get it. Someone like Gillibrand or Booker or Harris? Much more likely than Manchin and Heitkamp.

And I agree that Manchin and Heitkamp are awful. But they're not the focus.

I don't know who he is, . I'm a purity voter yes. /shrug. If your non pure candidate makes it to the general, then I'll hold my nose. SICK of holding my nose.

But even Willis admits in the three you posted, he agrees with us "purists" and when confronted by "purists" in the same thread, he concedes to them.

Because the Purist Crap is crap. The Democratic party has moved so far right, that a Liberal from two years ago seems "Far left". Lol.

Where did Willis "concede" to the "purists"?

Ask a gay man who can marry his sweetheart if he thinks the Democratic Party has moved "so far right." You'll never see a National Democratic candidate against same sex marriage again. (Even if they claimed otherwise in the past.)

[Tendrin]

And I agree that Manchin and Heitkamp are awful. But they're not the focus.

Or ask someone who's not dead because of Obamacare.

Oh wait. You can. That's me.

[Kevinroc]

Or ask someone who's not dead because of Obamacare.

Oh wait. You can. That's me.

Speaking frankly, watching the Trump administration so blatantly try to bring back "pre-existing conditions" infuriates me. Like, "give me a red lantern ring" levels of rage.

Democrats ain't the best. But the GOP are a force of pure evil in this world. There's a reason Noam Chomsky said, "If we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is that today’s Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally."

And doubled down on it? "I mean, has there ever been an organization in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organized human life on Earth?"

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...-human-history

[Carabas]

...look at the bigger picture.

Is a turn of phrase you lost any right to use.

...but the DNC will still be dictating terms.

The DNC and RNC are crippled institutions that barely have the power to order a pizza. This is one of the main causes of the current chaos: strong partisanship coupled with very weak parties.

[PaulBullion]

So, the sum up the G7 Meeting...

If Merkel runs again in 3 years, this on a billboard will guarantee she'll win.

[PaulBullion]

According to a correspondent for the New York Times...

While Trey is constantly trying to damage the Democratic brand, Trump is forming a new Axis of Evil with Putin and North Korea.