The Democratic Party Continues to Ignore Reality

[desura]

Reagan formula? WTF was that, other than the beginning of the long con of trickle down economics?

I remember the slogans of the era, my fave being "Greed is Good!" It's been Repubs' slogan ever since... so here we are... where the greediest are the winners & ready to administer the coup de grace to the middle class as we know it.

Reagan set the GOP on a bad path. This supply side garbage is supremely irresponsible.

But we're talking electorally. Trump's campaign had more in common with Pat Buchanan than Reagan. And voters aren't hungering for a Reagan repeat. Like, times are different.

If anything, the people who have too much Reagan nostalgia are the big GOP donors. That might explain why all the GOP candidates keep on trying to put on the Reagan mantle.

 

[UberNeuman]

Contrary to what people may think, I am NOT a fan of constant obstruction by EITHER party.

Most people think you're a worthless troll.

just sayin'.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Most people think you're a worthless troll.

just sayin'.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Jhhnn]

Quit making comparisons to her as Sec of State and Bernie's popularity now. We can look at during and after the primaries, which is the better indicator. He was double digits on Trump and beating the other GOP candidates generally. What planet are you from? The establishment was crushed on the Republican side as the base became split, and the same problem existed on the Democrat side. Hillary was the embodiment of the establishment. Trump wasn't the Condorcet winner in the primaries (one vs. one, he would have lost to Rubio, Cruz, etc.). Hillary would have done badly in the general election if it was another GOP candidate, even Lyin' Ted probably would have beat her.

Bullshit. This whole "Bernie woulda won!" routine is specious, not to mention tedious in the extreme. It also runs counter to what Bernie said he wanted in running as a Democrat- to not split the progressive vote, remember? And yet here you are, keeping the wounds open.

 

[desura]

Well, Clinton did lose.

Would Bernie have won? He seemed to do well in the states that cost Clinton the election. He might not have gotten as high margins in the safe blue states, but he still would have carried them.

He did escape from really negative ads. Like, his Russia sympathizing would have been broadcast. and his flirting with leftist marxists in South America.

But that stuff is so old that most people don't remember it, and probably wouldn't care. And he'd find some charming way to spin it.

Maybe he would have won. We'll never know.

 

[Indus]

Can't believe I'm disagreeing with jhhn and agreeing with desura. What's wrong today?

 

[desura]

Can't believe I'm disagreeing with jhhn and agreeing with desura. What's wrong today?

Everyone here has pretty severe misconceptions about my political beliefs.

 

[Maxima1]

Because that's exactly the situation Sanders is in now and that's what people were using as evidence of his electoral viability. Did you read the thread?

I think his election viability was already shown in the primaries. Bernie's popularity I think shows the split in the base as more people realize that Democrats are sort of Republican-lite. The progressive wing of the Democratic party collapsed with Carter.

Voters don't vote based on policy though, or at least infrequently do.

That's sort of accurate, but obviously a candidate who pushes for what does well in the polls should do well. What undermines this is the MSM drives the narrative and agenda (i.e. what issues are important). They were biased in many ways against Bernie.

Approval ratings are not actively misleading, unlike matchups between nominees and non-nominees.

How are approval ratings not misleading? They don't correlate well at all.

Can you show a historic example of a candidate tanking that significantly after entering a general election match-up?

Oh it's likely he would have lost a lot more than 10%. Negative partisanship is the defining aspect of our elections right now.

LOL Some Bernie voters were going Trump. And some Obama voters went Trump. So BS. And it's difficult to think Bernie would have been hated as much, since it's Hillary who had the concerning scandals and the negative history that made her unappealing, especially their fear she would take all the guns and other nonsense.

they are just partisans who care about image.

I don't disagree.

See above, comparing non-nominees with nominees is a terrible idea.

Again, show a historical example.

 

[agent00f]

Classic trolling.

Yes, you're undermining genuine discussion. If you genuinely care about what you profess then you really have to admit that Dems "get it" a Helluva lot more than Repubs. So tearing down Dems just makes Repubs relatively stronger, which is apparently what you really want. That, or you're not as smart as you think.

BothSides types as a matter of self-interest derive their status from pretending to be above the fray, which rather aptly demonstrate how little is going on upstairs.

 

[fskimospy]

I think his election viability was already shown in the primaries. Bernie's popularity I think shows the split in the base as more people realize that Democrats are sort of Republican-lite. The progressive wing of the Democratic party collapsed with Carter.

I'm ambivalent here. I hope the Democrats go in a more progressive direction but I don't see it changing that much. Also, that increase in progressivism has also come with anti-trade sentiment that needs to be gotten rid of.

That's sort of accurate, but obviously a candidate who pushes for what does well in the polls should do well. What undermines this is the MSM drives the narrative and agenda (i.e. what issues are important). They were biased in many ways against Bernie.

Bernie got more favorable coverage in the media than Clinton did.

How are approval ratings not misleading? They don't correlate well at all.

Again, it was in response to someone saying that Bernie's approval numbers now were somehow relevant. They are not.

Can you show a historic example of a candidate tanking that significantly after entering a general election match-up?

Research indicates general election matchup polls that happen between hypothetical candidates during the primary are not very predictive at all.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

It stands to reason that other hypothetical matchups are not useful either.

LOL Some Bernie voters were going Trump. And some Obama voters went Trump. So BS. And it's difficult to think Bernie would have been hated as much, since it's Hillary who had the concerning scandals and the negative history that made her unappealing, especially their fear she would take all the guns and other nonsense.

It's not possible to refute speculation based on nothing but gut feelings so... not sure what you want me to say here.

I don't disagree.

Again, show a historical example.

See above.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Clinton did lose.

Would Bernie have won? He seemed to do well in the states that cost Clinton the election. He might not have gotten as high margins in the safe blue states, but he still would have carried them.

He did escape from really negative ads. Like, his Russia sympathizing would have been broadcast. and his flirting with leftist marxists in South America.

But that stuff is so old that most people don't remember it, and probably wouldn't care. And he'd find some charming way to spin it.

Maybe he would have won. We'll never know.

The last paragraph is the only thing you said that has real meaning. The rest is just more of the usual misdirected bullshit. Bernie got behind Hillary. Why didn't his supporters? Because they let themselves be concern trolled into a self righteous snit with the "Can't trust Hillary!" bullshit.

What do you think the Russians intended to happen when they released the hacked emails of the DNC & Podesta, anyway? They intended for their Repub friends to troll the shit out of Bernie's supporters, who promptly fell for it, big time. They're still falling for it, even with Trump in the Oval Office.

 

[dank69]

I think his election viability was already shown in the primaries. Bernie's popularity I think shows the split in the base as more people realize that Democrats are sort of Republican-lite. The progressive wing of the Democratic party collapsed with Carter.

...

Let's assume your ridiculous claim the Democrats are Republican-lite is true. The main reason the Democrats are moving toward the center is because the GOP is acting so insane. This allows them to be "not quite as bad" and still be the better choice. Now, what's the best way to fight this? Vote GOP to send a message to Dems? That fails because it rewards the GOP for extremism which allows them to act even more insane. Vote third-party or abstain? In a 2-party system that is the same as voting for the party you want to lose, which still rewards the GOP. No. The answer is to soundly reject the extremist party to make it clear their extremism is not viable and that they must change. When they come back in order to regain popularity it will naturally force the Dems further left to differentiate themselves.

 

[Indus]

The last paragraph is the only thing you said that has real meaning. The rest is just more of the usual misdirected bullshit. Bernie got behind Hillary. Why didn't his supporters? Because they let themselves be concern trolled into a self righteous snit with the "Can't trust Hillary!" bullshit.

What do you think the Russians intended to happen when they released the hacked emails of the DNC & Podesta, anyway? They intended for their Repub friends to troll the shit out of Bernie's supporters, who promptly fell for it, big time. They're still falling for it, even with Trump in the Oval Office.

The thing is most of them are millenials who want less college debt and universal healthcare not mandatory health insurance. If someone says they're going to give it to them, there go 50 million voters.

 

[Jhhnn]

The thing is most of them are millenials who want less college debt and universal healthcare not mandatory health insurance. If someone says they're going to give it to them, there go 50 million voters.

Peachy. Their yearning for unicorns put Trump in the White House & Repubs atop both houses of Congress cuz their feelings wuz hurt when Bernie didn't win. They let themselves get trolled.

 

[desura]

The last paragraph is the only thing you said that has real meaning. The rest is just more of the usual misdirected bullshit. Bernie got behind Hillary. Why didn't his supporters? Because they let themselves be concern trolled into a self righteous snit with the "Can't trust Hillary!" bullshit.

What do you think the Russians intended to happen when they released the hacked emails of the DNC & Podesta, anyway? They intended for their Repub friends to troll the shit out of Bernie's supporters, who promptly fell for it, big time. They're still falling for it, even with Trump in the Oval Office.

I say something relatively centrist and you respond with far left conspiracy and nastiness

Off to the ignore list for you.

 

[Jhhnn]

I say something relatively centrist and you respond with far left conspiracy and nastiness

Off to the ignore list for you.

So, uhh, the Russians didn't hack Podesta & the DNC? They didn't release the material at a time that would do max damage to the Clinton campaign? And Bernie's supporters weren't chumped into staying home so that Trump could win?

Far left conspiracy theory? Bernie & his supporters are more left than I am.

 

[Jaskalas]

The problem with this type of ideological analysis is that it ignores the practical realities of actually getting votes.

You win by energizing the base to turn out the vote and inspire others. Obama did that very thing in 2008. Not by appealing to Wall Street. Only downside is the DNC didn't catch on and continue to embrace rising populism. Pelosi !@#$ing calls it anti Capitalist.

 

[Indus]

Pelosi is the old guard.

It's like that thing that was caught on video with the Jesse Jackson saying who does Obama think he is? The old guard is never receptive of the new guard.

 

[agent00f]

You win by energizing the base to turn out the vote and inspire others. Obama did that very thing in 2008. Not by appealing to Wall Street. Only downside is the DNC didn't catch on and continue to embrace rising populism. Pelosi !@#$ing calls it anti Capitalist.

Obama himself talks of the fragile coalition democrats need to hold together for victory. Good thing he didn't listen to conservatives instead, who have a somewhat differing strategy per their base as mentioned.

 

[Jaskalas]

Obama himself talks of the fragile coalition democrats need to hold together for victory.

You just named the very problem. Fighting for what you already have, and not what you need.
There's a more united platform out there waiting to be utilized. It's a bold economic message.
And it strikes to the heart of trickle down.

 

[agent00f]

You just named the very problem. Fighting for what you already have, and not what you need.
There's a more united platform out there waiting to be utilized. It's a bold economic message.

You're almost good enough for Trump's PR team.

 

[Blackjack200]

...



The premise "for regime change" is completely false as far as US taking out another country is concerned. Applying pressure to Syria's card holders to make a positive change in ending the bloodshed is FAR removed from US unilaterally going in and destroying another country.

You read the article you say? Then how the hell did you skip the most important, distinguishing, feature in favor of a catch phrase with ZERO context?

I don't understand what you're arguing. Higgins said Sanders called for regime change, and then you said he was a liar for it, and then posted a link supporting the very thing he said. Unilateral US action has nothing to do with it.

That's what the public demanded at that time. Even California was passing 3 strike laws in 1994. If your point is that Clinton is a politician with his ear to the public opinion, I am not denying that at all.

Weren't we just talking about how we shouldn't be doing what Sanders says just because he's popular? Are we not able to connect the dots between the disastrous crime bill, the resulting incarceration rates, and devastation to poor and working class communities? We're going to excuse that away as a "politician with his ear to public opinion"?

Let's assume your ridiculous claim the Democrats are Republican-lite is true. The main reason the Democrats are moving toward the center is because the GOP is acting so insane. This allows them to be "not quite as bad" and still be the better choice. Now, what's the best way to fight this? Vote GOP to send a message to Dems? That fails because it rewards the GOP for extremism which allows them to act even more insane. Vote third-party or abstain? In a 2-party system that is the same as voting for the party you want to lose, which still rewards the GOP. No. The answer is to soundly reject the extremist party to make it clear their extremism is not viable and that they must change. When they come back in order to regain popularity it will naturally force the Dems further left to differentiate themselves.

The problem with this construction is that it only works in a fantasy world where everyone who is eligible to vote votes, and every voter makes a rational decision in the booth, based on the policies that the candidates are likely to support. The reality is that many people (and I'm not talking about the "class anxious" Trump voters) have been so devastated by the American economy in the last 40 years that they're no longer politically engaged. The girls behind the counter at Taco Bell, the guys that work at Home Depot. The Uber drivers that can't afford to move out of their parents' basement. The 30% of high school graduates that don't have to worry about the college debt crisis because they never went to college in the first place, and face the worst job and life prospects ever facing working class Americans.

You think these people care about climate change, Citizens United, cap gains tax rates, etc.? The problem with pushing the party further and further to the right to capture moderate Republicans that are turned off by the extremists is that it doesn't work, (they still vote Republican anyway) and it alienates your base.

 

[theeedude]

If they are coming they are coming in part because of you. That's where you're in denial. You blame the other side and don't offer up as an alternative someone who is good but has not focused like a laser on the economy and why it's not providing for average people.

She says we have cancer but talks about identity and race as if that would appeal to white males who are hurting. They are all hurting for one reason, a shortage of work for average people to do that can support their families. Focus on the pie size, not over who has been getting the smallest piece and needs more of the tiny slice the working class gets.

Too bad, so sad. I support help for the displaced working class. Universal single payer and eventually basic income. But if you think anything will stop the trend of automating away jobs, that is a pipe dream, and those who promise a worker paradise, either from the right or the left, are just lying populists. That ship is sailing. The era of demand for working class labor is largely ending, just like demand for farm labor has largely ended with automation.
Also, us liberal "elites" are done trying to help ungrateful flyover country people who trash us at every opportunity. You are on your own. Help yourself. Or not. Your move.

 

[theeedude]

Weren't we just talking about how we shouldn't be doing what Sanders says just because he's popular? Are we not able to connect the dots between the disastrous crime bill, the resulting incarceration rates, and devastation to poor and working class communities? We're going to excuse that away as a "politician with his ear to public opinion"?

And if he ignored the overwhelming public sentiment for tougher sentencing at the time, he would have lost to a Republican in 1996 and even tougher stance would go into effect, as you are witnessing with Jeff Sessions as AG, plus a total loss for the middle class issues. Keep your eye on the ball or pay the consequences. Republicans rallied around Trump, no matter how flawed he was, because they are fighting for an overall agenda, not personalities. They turn out to vote against their own self interest like clockwork, but Democrats need all the stars to align to vote for their self interest.

 

[ivwshane]

And if he ignored the overwhelming public sentiment for tougher sentencing at the time, he would have lost to a Republican in 1996 and even tougher stance would go into effect, as you are witnessing with Jeff Sessions as AG, plus a total loss for the middle class issues. Keep your eye on the ball or pay the consequences. Republicans rallied around Trump, no matter how flawed he was, because they are fighting for an overall agenda, not personalities. They turn out to vote against their own self interest like clockwork, but Democrats need all the stars to align to vote for their self interest.

Some people are just seriously short sighted. I think that's what helped push trump over the electoral edge.