Thoughts on Democrats-

[monovillage]

How does the map look for the Democratic primaries? Oh that's right, the Democrats stifled all dissent and made sure no one can or would run against Obama in this election.



This thread was created from the extracted off-topic derail posts that were originally contributed to the Super Tuesday thread.

Administrator Idontcare

I hope we'll see other threads like this one in the future. - monovillage
I will say mea culpa - monovillage

 

[MovingTarget]

How does the map look for the Democratic primaries? Oh that's right, the Democrats stifled all dissent and made sure no one can or would run against Obama in this election.

Anyone running against Obama as a Democrat in a primary right now would be out of their mind, not because "dissent is stifled", but because Obama, despite his faults, is too popular amongst Democrats. Democrats do not want to hurt their chances in the November elections, which the Republicans have all but assured that it will be a slam-dunk for the Dems.

 

[monovillage]

Anyone running against Obama as a Democrat in a primary right now would be out of their mind, not because "dissent is stifled", but because Obama, despite his faults, is too popular amongst Democrats. Democrats do not want to hurt their chances in the November elections, which the Republicans have all but assured that it will be a slam-dunk for the Dems.

So Democrats are all marching in lockstep behind Obama and the Democrats that were criticizing him just a few months ago for his corporatism, his delay in ending the wars, his lack of support for the environment, his failure on the carbon tax, his failure for not pushing for single payer health care, etc. are all now happy with him? So you admit the Democrats sold out for a better chance to win in November rather then get someone who upholds the left's values?

 

[Aluvus]

How does the map look for the Democratic primaries? Oh that's right, the Democrats stifled all dissent and made sure no one can or would run against Obama in this election.

Oklahoma is having a Democratic primary with 5 contenders.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120226_16_A15_ULNSbO432322

 

[MovingTarget]

So Democrats are all marching in lockstep behind Obama and the Democrats that were criticizing him just a few months ago for his corporatism, his delay in ending the wars, his lack of support for the environment, his failure on the carbon tax, his failure for not pushing for single payer health care, etc. are all now happy with him? So you admit the Democrats sold out for a better chance to win in November rather then get someone who upholds the left's values?

One value that the left holds is compromise. Obama isn't their knight in shining armor, but he is one that not only gets stuff done as a matter of pragmatism, but keeps a total nutjob out of the whitehouse (i.e. a no-compromise republican). Besides, there isn't support for any other Democrat to run except for maybe Hillary.

 

[CallMeJoe]

How does the map look for the Democratic primaries? Oh that's right, the Democrats stifled all dissent and made sure no one can or would run against Obama in this election.

There are no credible national Democratic figures who wanted to challenge an incumbent president in the primaries.

There were also no credible national Republican figures who wanted to challenge the Democratic incumbent, which is how we ended up with the Bozos in the Republican contests now.

 

[Jhhnn]

How does the map look for the Democratic primaries? Oh that's right, the Democrats stifled all dissent and made sure no one can or would run against Obama in this election.

Mew! It must be torture watching Repub hopefuls rip into each other, waste their resources & point out each others' flaws. None of them can resist putting their foot in their mouth, either.

At first, it was like a clown car, but now it's just the three stooges slapping each other around...

 

[monovillage]

Oklahoma is having a Democratic primary with 5 contenders.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120226_16_A15_ULNSbO432322

Thanks for posting that! I didn't know.

 

[monovillage]

One value that the left holds is compromise. Obama isn't their knight in shining armor, but he is one that not only gets stuff done as a matter of pragmatism, but keeps a total nutjob out of the whitehouse (i.e. a no-compromise republican). Besides, there isn't support for any other Democrat to run except for maybe Hillary.

I shouldn't have to be the one saying this, i'm a right winger, but at least some of the left/liberal/progressives here should have the balls to say "yeah, we're not happy with Obama and we're running a candidate that is closer to our views and values", but it didn't happen. They stifled their objections, they compromised their values for a better chance at winning.

I'm not surprised.

 

[dawheat]

I shouldn't have to be the one saying this, i'm a right winger, but at least some of the left/liberal/progressives here should have the balls to say "yeah, we're not happy with Obama and we're running a candidate that is closer to our views and values", but it didn't happen. They stifled their objections, they compromised their values for a better chance at winning.

I'm not surprised.

<sarcasm>
I'm not surprised right wingers/conservatives didn't have the balls to say "yeah, we're not happy with GWB and we're running a candidate that is closer to our view and values". They compromised their values for a better chance at winning.</sarcasm>

Unless their values were to get involved in 2 wars (one epically pointless and expensive), run huge deficits, oversee a huge bubble in housing prices (for which the future cost was historic).

This is a ridiculous and frankly dishonest argument either way. I've been disappointed in Obama's first term but he has accomplished a lot. He led the country through the Great Recession, acted decisively to stabilize the financial and automotive industries, passed watered down health care reform, had the Iraq War come to a practical end, got Osama, repealed don't ask, don't tell and kept taxes at historic lows.

 

[monovillage]

<sarcasm>
I'm not surprised right wingers/conservatives didn't have the balls to say "yeah, we're not happy with GWB and we're running a candidate that is closer to our view and values". They compromised their values for a better chance at winning.</sarcasm>

Unless their values were to get involved in 2 wars (one epically pointless and expensive), run huge deficits, oversee a huge bubble in housing prices (for which the future cost was historic).

This is a ridiculous and frankly dishonest argument either way. I've been disappointed in Obama's first term but he has accomplished a lot. He led the country through the Great Recession, acted decisively to stabilize the financial and automotive industries, passed watered down health care reform, had the Iraq War come to a practical end, got Osama, repealed don't ask, don't tell and kept taxes at historic lows.

Bu bu bu but Bush! Why am I not surprised you can't talk about the 2012 election instead of the 2004 one?

If you're very happy with President Obama then fine, but just months I heard quite a few Democrats complaining about what he was/wasn't achieving. You know like Sheehan and others angry about the wars, about Guantanamo, about single payer and other things. He certainly has seemed to kick up the pace lately... just in time for the election, what a coincidence!
You Democrats just keep on in lockstep behind your candidate, no dissent allowed.

 

[monovillage]

Sorry, but i'm still laughing about this.

<snip>He led the country through the Great Recession, acted decisively to stabilize the financial and automotive industries, passed watered down health care reform.............

Thank you for the humor, even if it was unintentional on your part.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bu bu bu but Bush! Why am I not surprised you can't talk about the 2012 election instead of the 2004 one?

He's just referencing your dishonesty. Not that you'd notice.

 

[MovingTarget]

I shouldn't have to be the one saying this, i'm a right winger, but at least some of the left/liberal/progressives here should have the balls to say "yeah, we're not happy with Obama and we're running a candidate that is closer to our views and values", but it didn't happen. They stifled their objections, they compromised their values for a better chance at winning.

I'm not surprised.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Democrats are pragmatists, not rigid ideologues.

 

[Screech]

Bu bu bu but Bush! Why am I not surprised you can't talk about the 2012 election instead of the 2004 one?

If you're very happy with President Obama then fine, but just months I heard quite a few Democrats complaining about what he was/wasn't achieving. You know like Sheehan and others angry about the wars, about Guantanamo, about single payer and other things. He certainly has seemed to kick up the pace lately... just in time for the election, what a coincidence!
You Democrats just keep on in lockstep behind your candidate, no dissent allowed.

You honestly see a party not running a candidate against its own incumbent as some sort of conspiracy to stifle dissent instead of ....um.......a party trying to vote for its incumbent?

Really?

Seriously, have you never seen a presidential election before?

Edit: Back on topic: This will probably go on for quite a while.......The republican convention could be really interesting this year!

 

[monovillage]

You honestly see a party not running a candidate against its own incumbent as some sort of conspiracy to stifle dissent instead of ....um.......a party trying to vote for its incumbent?

Really?

Seriously, have you never seen a presidential election before?

You mean where Kennedy ran against Carter in 80? Yes, I saw that one. Buchanan and Keyes against George H.W. Bush in 92? Yes I saw that one too.

Seriously, have you never seen a presidential election before?

 

[monovillage]

I'll have to look into Johnson as I don't know much about him. However, it does go to show that a decent pool of potential candidates does still exist within the GOP. Unfortunately, you are correct - they are either marginalized or they have to change their tone to accommodate the Tea Party, Limbaugh-listening crowd, thereby turning off moderates/centrists.

So the only party moving in lockstep is the Democratic party? Since the Republicans have and show so many different points of view.

 

[CallMeJoe]

You mean where Kennedy ran against Carter in 80? Yes, I saw that one. Buchanan and Keyes against George H.W. Bush in 92? Yes I saw that one too.

Seriously, have you never seen a presidential election before?

Is there anything you notice about the incumbent party in the two elections you cite?

 

[CallMeJoe]

So the only party moving in lockstep is the Democratic party? Since the Republicans have and show so many different points of view.

You may notice that the few candidates left in the Republican campaign are all working very hard to kowtow to one particular segment of that party. It's like reverse NASCAR.

 

[MovingTarget]

So the only party moving in lockstep is the Democratic party? Since the Republicans have and show so many different points of view.

Democrats moving in lockstep? Bwahahaha! Thats rich...

The Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory precisely because they do not move in lockstep like Republicans do. Winning isn't everything....doing the right thing for the country is.

 

[Screech]

You mean where Kennedy ran against Carter in 80? Yes, I saw that one. Buchanan and Keyes against George H.W. Bush in 92? Yes I saw that one too.

Seriously, have you never seen a presidential election before?

I don't remember the democrats doing particularly well in 1980 (unless getting 49 electoral votes is good) or the republicans doing particularly well in 92.

Like MovingTarget said above, the democrats are being pragmatists, not idealogues. Also, in general the incumbent party only runs someone against themselves for strong economic reasons (economy is shitty or taxes are increasing). The economy is improving now (albeit slowly) and the democrats usually don't run as the party of lower taxes, so it isn't surprising that they don't split the vote.

Also in general, the electoral results of 1980 are a pretty good example of how to lose an election, lol. I doubt the democrats want to repeat that.

@ Loki: That'd be fascinating, although a ron paul - romney deal is something that would probably lose paul a lot of support from his fanbase. It's possible though.

 

[monovillage]

Democrats moving in lockstep? Bwahahaha! Thats rich...

The Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory precisely because they do not move in lockstep like Republicans do. Winning isn't everything....doing the right thing for the country is.

You should be arguing with Joe then, not me. He seems to be of the opinion that winning is everything.

 

[CallMeJoe]

You should be arguing with Joe then, not me. He seems to be of the opinion that winning is everything.

You have an interesting way of misinterpreting posts and misconstruing positions. Have you been taking lessons from cybrstooge?

 

[monovillage]

You have an interesting way of misinterpreting posts and misconstruing positions. Have you been taking lessons from cybrstooge?

Is there anything you notice about the incumbent party in the two elections you cite?

I was talking about this post. It seemed to me that the incumbent party losing in those 2 examples were what you were pointing out and why you are so opposed to Obama getting any competition. I could be wrong though.

 

[nageov3t]

I was hoping Obama would see a primary challenger to make him defend stuff like his stances on Gitmo and turning his back on any kind of pledges of openness (no, promising to end lobbyist meetings in the White House and instead holding the same meetings across the street off the books doesn't count), but I don't think anyone was seriously expecting it.