Should the goal of the Dem Party in 2020 be to appeal to the center or move to the left?

[UglyCasanova]

Where in your opinion should the target of the party be directed during the presidential election (and in general)? Move more towards the left, they are good where they’re at, or move more towards the center? The answers I’m sure will be more complex and I’d be interested in hearing those complexities, meaning move different directions for different issues.

Personally as a whole I think the party is in battle with itself and age groups tend to be a good dividing line. The new younger generation seem to want change and a move more (much more imo) to the left and he older demographic seem to be more comfortable where it’s at. AOC vs Nancy is a good example. Who will reign supreme is anyone’s guess.

To me I think the party needs to move more to the left in regards to climate change, that is the number one issue facing us and unfortunately is treated as an afterthought or good talking point but nothing ever seems to happen. Huge infrastructure investments need to be made to develop a more environmentally sustainable economy and it shouldn’t be simply offshoring our pollution either. I also think they need to move more towards the left if you want to call it that on the military and we need to cut it drastically. Currently the party doesn’t really seem to care much about the military budget and it’s more of a tool to get conscessions from the Repunlicans. It needs to be cut and not worry about what the right thinks. The party needs to move more towards the center as far as Bernie's promise of "free stuff", the promise of free four year colleges for example. That’s completely unrealistic and even though it sounds good nothing is ever free and flooding our higher ed institutions with more students will raise the costs (supply and demand) and those costs have the potential to explode since the typical economic mechanisms of pricing something goes out the window. I do think government funded community colleges is a much better idea since they end up with a tangible skill vs the pursuits of a four year that is more nebulous.

 

[IJTSSG]

The Democrats should continue slithering to the left as quickly as possible.

 

[Indus]

Anything remotely other than Trumpterroism is extreme leftism so left it is.

 

[Jaskalas]

Good... where they are at? Democrats' last great act in power was the Affordable Care Act. A Republican inspired (over multiple decades) insurance company boondoggle that mandated coverage but failed to secure payment for that coverage. It was a moderate compromise, and that "center" concept meant it was a crock of !@#$.

Paying for healthcare will be expensive, no doubt. But the human cost of avoiding early treatment and healthcare = bankruptcy needs to end. And that is a cost that can ONLY be soaked by insurance. And the only insurance large enough to soak something that large is the United States dollar. I hold Healthcare in third place, in terms of priorities, but that does NOT mean it is not very important or crucial for public health and economic security. It is just that I find Basic Income and Housing Loans to be an even greater concern.

Plus, I think the "well has been poisoned" when it comes to discussing the benefits of paying for healthcare. Republicans deluded far too many people into thinking they'll never get sick, that the concept of insurance must be privatized and for profit. That people must be rich, or get sick and die. Far too many people want and/or expect that outcome after the fight over the ACA in 2009. I think we need to first start by readily demonstrating the impact of bold, sweeping changes that provide an immediate return on investment.

As you can see, my policy is further "Left" than anyone running for President. Some of the Democrats, like Sanders, may be quite friendly and ultimately supportive of my policy goals, but they wouldn't dare campaign on it. So, of course I am torn on what we need to do, VS what we need to do to win. And that is a question of what can inspire voters more? Lukewarm policy that may help a few people, a special interest group here and there, or bold and sweeping changes that can benefit everybody? The former only slightly raises taxes. The latter is transformative to our society, but might not have the votes to achieve it.

The Presidency may be too much of a reach for my goals. It might first require a grass roots campaign that seeks to build up the party behind it - before launching such policy issues onto the Presidential stage. The office of the President may necessarily be a place to formally seal social changes after they have already occurred throughout the halls of Congress and throughout local offices across the nation. So I remain torn on exactly how the Presidential campaign should be waged. Bold and inspirational VS tepid and cautious.

This is also a unique time in American history, Trump is utterly unfit to be President. We must do everything to vote him out in 2020. Problem is, no one knows exactly what that is. We just know it ultimately does not matter who his Democrat opponent is - they will have our vote guaranteed. So we are looking for characteristics to attract voters. They need to be charismatic in a way that draws the energy both Bill Clinton and Obama achieved. But as far as policy goes, both approaches attract different voters. Both will disappoint people and have them abstain.

There is no clear path forward. Just the certainty that we must move on and make progress. 2020 is the beginning of a campaign, and no matter the outcome it cannot be the end of one. There is far too much at stake and too much work that needs be done.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The Democrats should continue slithering to the left as quickly as possible.

From the rights perspective I could definitely see them advocating for that.

 

[Indus]

Good... where they are at? Democrats' last great act in power was the Affordable Care Act. A Republican inspired (over multiple decades) insurance company boondoggle that mandated coverage but failed to secure payment for that coverage. It was a moderate compromise, and that "center" concept meant it was a crock of !@#$.

Paying for healthcare will be expensive, no doubt. But the human cost of avoiding early treatment and healthcare = bankruptcy needs to end. And that is a cost that can ONLY be soaked by insurance. And the only insurance large enough to soak something that large is the United States dollar. I hold Healthcare in third place, in terms of priorities, but that does NOT mean it is not very important or crucial for public health and economic security. It is just that I find Basic Income and Housing Loans to be an even greater concern.

Plus, I think the "well has been poisoned" when it comes to discussing the benefits of paying for healthcare. Republicans deluded far too many people into thinking they'll never get sick, that the concept of insurance must be privatized and for profit. That people must be rich, or get sick and die. Far too many people want and/or expect that outcome after the fight over the ACA in 2009. I think we need to first start by readily demonstrating the impact of bold, sweeping changes that provide an immediate return on investment.

As you can see, my policy is further "Left" than anyone running for President. Some of the Democrats, like Sanders, may be quite friendly and ultimately supportive of my policy goals, but they wouldn't dare campaign on it. So, of course I am torn on what we need to do, VS what we need to do to win. And that is a question of what can inspire voters more? Lukewarm policy that may help a few people, a special interest group here and there, or bold and sweeping changes that can benefit everybody? The former only slightly raises taxes. The latter is transformative to our society, but might not have the votes to achieve it.

The Presidency may be too much of a reach for my goals. It might first require a grass roots campaign that seeks to build up the party behind it - before launching such policy issues onto the Presidential stage. The office of the President may necessarily be a place to formally seal social changes after they have already occurred throughout the halls of Congress and throughout local offices across the nation. So I remain torn on exactly how the Presidential campaign should be waged. Bold and inspirational VS tepid and cautious.

This is also a unique time in American history, Trump is utterly unfit to be President. We must do everything to vote him out in 2020. Problem is, no one knows exactly what that is. We just know it ultimately does not matter who his Democrat opponent is - they will have our vote guaranteed. So we are looking for characteristics to attract voters. They need to be charismatic in a way that draws the energy both Bill Clinton and Obama achieved. But as far as policy goes, both approaches attract different voters. Both will disappoint people and have them abstain.

There is no clear path forward. Just the certainty that we must move on and make progress. 2020 is the beginning of a campaign, and no matter the outcome it cannot be the end of one. There is far too much at stake and too much work that needs be done.

Yeah lets just vote for Pete Buttigieg. Young, charismatic and the complete contrast of Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

The Democrats should generally move to the left. The important part of a presidential candidate is to inspire people, not to offer centrist policy.

I mean if centrist policy were the answer Clinton would be president as she was super centrist. Politics are tribal, not policy based.

 

[whm1974]

What is considered to be left or even extreme left these days? If you told me back when Bill Clinton was POTUS, that I will have voted for his Wife in 2016, I would looked at like you have gone Mad.

I was against both Single Payer Health care and Gun Control at the time. Since then I have grown up and my perception has changes on both issues greatly.

 

[Indus]

What is considered to be left or even extreme left these days? If you told me back when Bill Clinton was POTUS, that I will have voted for his Wife in 2016, I would looked at like you have gone Mad.

I was against both Single Payer Health care and Gun Control at the time. Since then I have grown up and my perception has changes on both issues greatly.

Yeah I was a Republican at that time. Voted for Dole and Bush the first time.

 

[thraashman]

Yeah lets just vote for Pete Buttigieg. Young, charismatic and the complete contrast of Trump.

He's actually my personal favorite. Now if I could just figure out how to pronounce his name

 

[brycejones]

Didn’t Bernie have a funding mechanism for his college plan?

 

[sportage]

Appeal to?
TO THE LEFT!.... A LOT!

The future of the party if they are to have a future is with the newly elected "YOUNG" democrats.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for one. Cortez has been attacked as too liberal. However, THAT is what democrats need.
And NEW IDEAS!
Also, Ilhan Omar from Minnesota.
She too can take a major role creating a new democratic party.
Too far left you say?
That is what republicans fear the most. It's obvious.
If too far left was not republicans number one fear then republicans would not even care to comment on something that doesn't concern them. But that is not the case. The right wing media is terrified of this new far left democratic party.
Or the potential of....

Hey Hey Ho Ho, Nancy Pelosi has got to go.
Actually, I like Nancy but her time has expired.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
It will take the youth of these newly elected democrats, every one of them, if democrats are to have a chance.
And remember, republicans are still stuck in that era of old white republican male. And that obviously includes old white Donald Trump.
The same-o of same-o.
Trump hasn't stirred things up, Trump has only enforced what is wrong with America.

Old white fat male republicans are not the future, young diverse democrats are the future.
We all know that. And republicans fear that the most.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Good... where they are at? Democrats' last great act in power was the Affordable Care Act. A Republican inspired (over multiple decades) insurance company boondoggle that mandated coverage but failed to secure payment for that coverage. It was a moderate compromise, and that "center" concept meant it was a crock of !@#$.

Paying for healthcare will be expensive, no doubt. But the human cost of avoiding early treatment and healthcare = bankruptcy needs to end. And that is a cost that can ONLY be soaked by insurance. And the only insurance large enough to soak something that large is the United States dollar. I hold Healthcare in third place, in terms of priorities, but that does NOT mean it is not very important or crucial for public health and economic security. It is just that I find Basic Income and Housing Loans to be an even greater concern.

Plus, I think the "well has been poisoned" when it comes to discussing the benefits of paying for healthcare. Republicans deluded far too many people into thinking they'll never get sick, that the concept of insurance must be privatized and for profit. That people must be rich, or get sick and die. Far too many people want and/or expect that outcome after the fight over the ACA in 2009. I think we need to first start by readily demonstrating the impact of bold, sweeping changes that provide an immediate return on investment.

As you can see, my policy is further "Left" than anyone running for President. Some of the Democrats, like Sanders, may be quite friendly and ultimately supportive of my policy goals, but they wouldn't dare campaign on it. So, of course I am torn on what we need to do, VS what we need to do to win. And that is a question of what can inspire voters more? Lukewarm policy that may help a few people, a special interest group here and there, or bold and sweeping changes that can benefit everybody? The former only slightly raises taxes. The latter is transformative to our society, but might not have the votes to achieve it.

The Presidency may be too much of a reach for my goals. It might first require a grass roots campaign that seeks to build up the party behind it - before launching such policy issues onto the Presidential stage. The office of the President may necessarily be a place to formally seal social changes after they have already occurred throughout the halls of Congress and throughout local offices across the nation. So I remain torn on exactly how the Presidential campaign should be waged. Bold and inspirational VS tepid and cautious.

This is also a unique time in American history, Trump is utterly unfit to be President. We must do everything to vote him out in 2020. Problem is, no one knows exactly what that is. We just know it ultimately does not matter who his Democrat opponent is - they will have our vote guaranteed. So we are looking for characteristics to attract voters. They need to be charismatic in a way that draws the energy both Bill Clinton and Obama achieved. But as far as policy goes, both approaches attract different voters. Both will disappoint people and have them abstain.

There is no clear path forward. Just the certainty that we must move on and make progress. 2020 is the beginning of a campaign, and no matter the outcome it cannot be the end of one. There is far too much at stake and too much work that needs be done.

I dont agree with a lot of the policies you advocate for but thank you for a well thought and polite response

One thing that caught my eye that you mentioned was housing loans, I haven’t really heard that being mentioned or talked about really. What do you mean by it, more access to mortgages? Or development of affordable housing projects but not necessarily ownership? My opinion of it is that we do having localized housing problems that are the result of supply and demand in booming markets. The answer though seems to fall to the municipal level though with maybe some help from HUD. Zoning restrictions need to be alleviated and density be strived for. The house of the future shouldn’t be a house but rather a condo, with the increased urbanization of America and the world we shouldn’t strive for the typical single family home but rather condos and living in much more dense surroundings than we are used to. And I don’t really agree that ownership is for everyone (even though that’s my industry and I make money off of it). People end up getting themselves into situations they really shouldn’t be in and default. Affordability of housing should be the goal and people jump into the market for ownership if and when they’re ready.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah lets just vote for Pete Buttigieg. Young, charismatic and the complete contrast of Trump.

Ditto. I’m a libertarian but he’s got my vote absent him melting down or laying out some completely indefensible position. And I don’t see either of those happening.

 

[Indus]

He's actually my personal favorite. Now if I could just figure out how to pronounce his name

boot-edge-edge

 

[Jhhnn]

Ditto. I’m a libertarian but he’s got my vote absent him melting down or laying out some completely indefensible position. And I don’t see either of those happening.

And if it's some other, more likely Democrat, what then?

 

[Moonbeam]

There is a deeply hidden secret that every American needs to learn and can only learn through an extensive period of education. It is simply that all the evils of the American system can be solved by socialism, that everything good is socialism. It has another name too, some might like better, Christianity.

It is also the root moral foundation of a nation now long forgotten in history of which one of its now also forgotten leaders once described as a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

[glenn1]

And if it's some other, more likely Democrat, what then?

If we’re skipping ahead of the primaries to the hypothetical general election then we’ll see. Trump might be dead or not on the ballot and a 3rd party candidate could run. All that I’d commit to now absent magical predictive powers is that I wouldn’t vote a Trump no matter what. Basically my same position as 2016.

 

[whm1974]

There is a deeply hidden secret that every American needs to learn and can only learn through an extensive period of education. It is simply that all the evils of the American system can be solved by socialism, that everything good is socialism. It has another name too, some might like better, Christianity.

It is also the root moral foundation of a nation now long forgotten in history of which one of its now also forgotten leaders once described as a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

I think it is rather ironic that the Religious Right actually believe Jesus was a Free Market Capitalist, while by going by what Jesus said, he wasn't even close to being one.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If we’re skipping ahead of the primaries to the hypothetical general election then we’ll see. Trump might be dead or not on the ballot and a 3rd party candidate could run. All that I’d commit to now absent magical predictive powers is that I wouldn’t vote a Trump no matter what. Basically my same position as 2016.

I’m thinking depending on who comes out on top on the D side I’ll more than likely be abstaining or maybe a third party candidate for a symbolic vote.

 

[Atreus21]

boot-edge-edge

Tough, buttageeg it is.

 

[Jhhnn]

If we’re skipping ahead of the primaries to the hypothetical general election then we’ll see. Trump might be dead or not on the ballot and a 3rd party candidate could run. All that I’d commit to now absent magical predictive powers is that I wouldn’t vote a Trump no matter what. Basically my same position as 2016.

Which neatly avoids the truth that only a Democrat can stop Trump.

 

[sao123]

I think it is rather ironic that the Religious Right actually believe Jesus was a Free Market Capitalist, while by going by what Jesus said, he wasn't even close to being one.

Jesus was hardly a socialist... after all it was him or one of his desciples who said something to the effect of "If you don't work, you don't eat."

The left needs to return to reality with 100% full time employment for all.
Health insurance through employers.
Retirement through employers.
Cut the non-employer based safety crap.

Universal basic income and free healthcare for all... and ALL policies as such are delusional, and anyone who advocates for things as such should be committed to a mental health institution.

 

[glenn1]

Which neatly avoids the truth that only a Democrat can stop Trump.

Pick a Democrat that doesn’t suck then as my one vote against Trump won’t be the margin of error.

 

[Indus]

Pick a Democrat that doesn’t suck then as my one vote against Trump won’t be the margin of error.

But your 0.4% of your state's vote could very well be the margin of error.