Dems voting to roll back Dodd-Frank shows how centrists tie Democrats hands in MAJORITY

[yurbud]

Even when Democrats are in the majority or even supermajority in the Senate, centrists Democrats give Republicans a de facto supermajority on privatization of government services, economic, trade, foreign policy, and many budget priorities, which is why even if Obama had wanted a more progressive healthcare reform policy, stimulus, or strings on Wall Street bailouts, he probably could not have gotten it.

And because he was constrained by those centrists, he could not draw a stark enough contrast with Republicans to hold the Congress or even the presidency at the end of his term.

If you don't like what Republicans are doing, Democrats who support them in all but the Klan & NRA rallies are not the ones to keep them out of office, and more importantly, not the ones to keep the worst of their policies from being implemented.

[democratisphere]

1. This is all about being bought off. A repeat of 2008 or much worse

is just around the corner. Some politicians have very short memories or just don't care about anything but themselves.

[poboy2]

2. I prefer 'corporate Dems' as apposed to 'centrist', although I know it is the popular vernacular.

Centrist, imo, implies and should seek a medium, a balance, middle of the road...sensable in reality, not the 'sensible woodchuck', if you will. That animal is corporate, despite its claim to be otherwise.

[True Blue American]

20. They used to call them

,”Blue Dogs, “ Democrats in name only!

When did they become, “ Centrists?”

[poboy2]

21. Yes, yes, the blue dogs. The conservative Dems mainly from the southern states.

George Rodrigue (artist, La.) -Blue Dog, named after

But what does a conservative or a corporate stooge have to do with 'centrism'?

[True Blue American]

26. Nothing that I can see.

When they vote for the corporate world just to win another election I have to wonder how they excuse themselves in the mirror.

As a Moderate Democrat myself, I have certain Conservative leanings. But Daddy was a Republican with a big set of ethics. He would spit on this group today.

[ehrnst]

60. The Blue Dogs certainly had a particular progressive candidate pulling for them....

“I’ve been meeting with unionists, independents, progressive Democrats,” Sanders explained via satellite from Columbia, South Carolina. “And they are tired of being abandoned by the national Democratic party. They want some help, and they believe that with some help they can start winning in these conservative states.”

One cause for concern, Sanders explained to Schultz, was seeing many white, working-class voters in “low-income states” like Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina voting against their own best interest.

“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues,” Sanders told Schultz. “They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together: Defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, that veterans’ programs are not cut.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. IMO they are right wing Democrats, not centrist.

If there is a left wing of the party, there is a right wing. Even though some deny that.
Our right wing is like the Republican right wing of 30 years ago.

[elmac]

38. correct because a centrist would be someone

who votes in line with the parties majority. They are voting far right of center. They will destroy the party.

[poboy2]

43. "Messaging is important" - it cannot be said enough and is not valued or used on our side.

So, we get even people on our side using THEIR language.
The OP called these people 'centrists'. We should be more deliberate in our use of terms.

[trotsky]

3. I am reminded of this fantastic quote:

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S Truman

[Demsrule86]

15. That has not been the case. We have had only three presidents in thirty years...none have been

super left.

[shanny]

35. From the New Republic (totally not a leftist rag)

https://newrepublic.com/article/130737/democrats-still-dont-get-george-mcgovern

A specter is haunting the Democratic Party—“McGovernism.” In 1972, President Richard Nixon shellacked his Democratic opponent, George McGovern, by a 23-point margin in the popular vote. Following McGovern’s defeat, Democrats began running towards the center and haven’t looked back, even though that center seems to have moved further and further to the right with each passing election.

For the past 40 years, whenever a Democratic presidential hopeful has given off the slightest whiff of leftish anti-establishmentarianism, party leaders and mainstream pundits have invoked McGovern’s name. In 2004, Howard Dean was the new McGovern. In 2008, Barack Obama became the new McGovern. This year, it’s Bernie Sanders’s turn.

But the Democrats’ fear of McGovernism is misplaced. McGovern didn’t lose because he was too far to the left. He lost because he was facing a popular incumbent presiding over a booming economy. Moreover, the Democrats’ belief that they need to steer clear of McGovernism, assuming it was ever correct, now looks increasingly misguided. With each passing decade, the types of voters drawn to McGovern’s 1972 campaign have become a larger and larger share of the American electorate, while the issues championed by McGovern have become more and more salient.

My bold.

[Demsrule86]

41. We have had a number of left left run in primaries who did not win...

Also, If you look at the country as a whole, it has moved right. I say this with great sadness...but reality bites sometimes. We need to win moderate and red states...we can't do that with a candidate who is too far to the left. A socialist would never win for example...even though my opinions on issues borders on socialism. When you elect Republicans, the country moves right...it is just a fact...a sad one.

[shanny]

63. All due respect, but the "left left" in this country is barely liberal elsewhere

...and "elsewhere" does a lot of stuff better than we do. Perhaps if our party offered an actual, full-throated defense of liberalism (like FDR welcoming the hatred of the bankers and oligarchs of the day) our country would/will not have continued to drift right...when even our own party buys into rightwing framing, and allows that to limit the discussion, we continue to lose ground.

[ehrnst]

81. I think you need to remember that FDR was the 1% of the 1%, which would get him demonized today

Groton, Harvard, Columbia Law school. And was very experienced in goverment before taking office, from a dyasty, even. W You think that would fly today among the leftward? Eleanor was indeed vilified as far left by many who adored her husband (especially in the South), but she was so outside the norm, that many people just considered her eccentric.

He was also very charismatic, and had the urgnecy of a full on Depression to wield against those who opposed him politically.

When SCOTUS rejected the constitutionality of some of the New Deal programs, he threatened to pack SCOTUS.

You also have to acknowledge that the voting electorate in this country is not as left as the populations in Europe, for an abundance of reasons.

If our country wanted leaders farther to the left, then Jill Stein would have way more of the vote than she did. We have had a huge swing to the right in our culture, and that's not going to be fixed by our party going the way of the Greens.

I'm not saying that's good. I'm just talking about what we have to deal with. Here on DU, we are indeed farther left than most citizenry.

Wishing something would work doesn't mean that it will, and hanging on to it despite evidence to the contrary makes us no better than the right wingers who will never turn loose of the idea that closing down Planned Parenthood will end women getting abortions in the US.

[shanny]

97. The 1% hated his guts. For his policies.

I for one doubt that today's "leftward" would despise him for his background if his policies were in line with what they wanted--that's a attribute I would expect of right-wingers, who I find stunningly superficial and tribal.

As for Americans being more conservative than our European counterparts, they/we are well-trained and have endured decades of leaders telling them that the things they want are Just Not Possible, or Too Expensive, or maybe even UnAmerican. All this while the Federal govt cuts taxes on those most able to pay, and spends 57 cents of every tax dollar on "defense." I submit that as a country our worldview is constrained by these artificially-imposed restrictions.

You mention Jill Stein. I believe that the more appropriate measure of more populous policies are the campaigns of Bernie Sanders, who in a year went from zero name recognition to near parity with the most prepared candidate in history; and also that of Donald Fucking Trump, who also ran a populist campaign, and "defeated" the most prepared candidate in history by--yes,exploiting racial prejudice--but also by running to her left.

[ehrnst]

116. The left is excoriating Patrick Kennedy for being "wealthy"

all over social media.

I'm sure it's fueled by Russian trolls, but it's being eagerly consumed by those who think that he might be even slightly more popular than their candidate.

Trump ran to HRC's left????

Can you explain what you mean?

[Demsrule86]

108. And that means nothing because they are running in this country and need to get elected here...

regardless, they lost...Perriello was endorsed by both Sander and Warren he lost the Virginia primary...others did too. A moderate who once voted for George Bush won the Virginia governorship.

[shanny]

113. How did Ossoff do? And Rob Quist?

Both lost (early in the tRump regime) but one under-performed Hillary in his red district, and one out-performed her. Which was which?

Bi-partisanship and letting the rightwing set the terms of the debate has been tried and it isn't working so well, is it? We all get excited about flipping 30-some state legislature seats under tRump: Yea us! Only 960-some to go.

[ehrnst]

117. Are you saying that Our Revolution endorsed candidates have a good track record of victory?

They don't.

As of June 2017 “Our Revolution” endorsed 25 candidates that lost their 2017 elections and only endorsed 12 winning candidates, giving the group a 32 percent success rating.

I am looking for updated stats.

[shanny]

124. Nope.

I am saying that we have been doing the same stuff over and over and expecting different results. And all we do is continue to lose ground.

Until we changed what we normally do--like in the races for the Virginia legislature.

[ehrnst]

125. What is it that you think Dems are doing "over and over" that is not working? (nt)

[shanny]

127. running to the middle. obviously.

even as "the middle" shifts ever further to the right. it has been happening for decades and in my view is the reason independents outnumber Democrats and Republicans--clearly, many do not feel represented by either party. this shouldn't be news

[ehrnst]

128. Not sure of what you mean by "running to the middle"

Please specify examples, especially since you say it has been "happening over and over," for "decades."

[shanny]

129. oy vey

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/

https://grist.org/politics/2011-04-26-ezra-klein-obama-moderate-republican-early-1990s/

[ehrnst]

130. So you can't provide examples of the Democratic party "running to the middle" for decades.

All you have is three anti-Obama articles that popped up in an "Obama centrist" google search, and no actual analysis or commentary of your own other than a feeling.

Oy vey.

You do understand that POTUS is by definition a centrist position? The reason that any politician - no exceptions - goes further towards the center when they win the primary is because of having to govern a larger group than your base.

And yes, there are leftists who really expected Obama to pump a fist in the air after taking the oath of office. He was so "Republican," he have Planned Parenthood, gay rights, environmental protections. Oy, vey....

This is why we have activists - like MLK. And then we have politicians, like LBJ. They have different jobs, goals and metrics of success. To apply those of one to the other is not only unrealistic, it's a recipe for failure.

[shanny]

135. oh honey

you gotta do better than that.

"I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that," Obama said. "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

that's a quote from Obama included in the first article. And the other two--if you had bothered to read them--were defenses of Obama from right and left on the "soshulist" charge.

do try to connect the dots

[ehrnst]

136. Still got nothing, eh?

No surprise.

[shanny]

139. One would almost think

that you are attempting to get me in dutch for calling out the Party and/or it's leaders. So I prefer to quote them. You know?

Proof's in the pudding, isn't it. Here's a question I would like an answer to: FDR is (according to presidential historians) third on the list of the greatest presidents, trailing only Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. The pukes never tire of bragging about being the Party of Lincoln--even though they agree with nothing he did or stood for--so why do we avoid our greatest president? Inquiring minds want to know.

Bye.

[ehrnst]

140. Still nothing.

And FDR would never pass muster now as a progressive: Wealthy (see the excoriation of Patrick Kennedy for that sin in social media on the left), Groton/Harvard/Columbia, experience as a government bureacrat, part of a DYNASTY.....

Paul Wellstone was being called a "sellout" in 2001, FFS.

People want a target for their frustration, so they mythologize those who have passed on and slam those who are doing the work of keeping Planned Parenthood funded, legislating LGBTQ rights, opposing gerrymandering and voter suppression, starting a consumer protection agency, getting us closer to universal health care coverage than we have ever been. Only to the privileged, are those insignificant. To the rest of us, they are lifelines, and progressive victories over the actual "middle."

Avoiding answering the question of what specifically Dems have done in the last few decades that indicate a "race to the middle" reveals the futility of being able to articulate or support an emotional response with facts.

Angst looking for validation isn't a movement. Us progressives depart ways only in strategy, not goals. It's important to remember when one is frustrated with political realities of being the minority in the house and Senate, and looking for a scapegoat.

[Demsrule86]

119. Are you telling me a liberal would have done better in Georgia? And in fact Rob Quist was backed

by Senator Sanders. And a Democrat won the governorship in Montana in 16...a more moderate candidate than Quist might have won. As for Ossoff...I lived in that district...Newt's old seat...very red and it is gerrymandered as well. The entire state of Georgia is gerrymandered which is why the first blue victories will be in statewide or national elections. If you think you can run liberals in red states, you are just plain wrong. May I remind you Perriello lost and Northam won Virginia? He was the right candidate for that state. We need a 50 state solution in order to take back the majority. And with the gerrymanders in most red states, that will be tough enough. Allow me to also point out that the one of my favorite progressives...Russ Feingold lost in 16. There is no evidence that running left will prevail in 18 or 20...in fact, it could lead to a terrible loss for our party and the country. Play it safe until Trump is gone...get the most liberal elected possible in blue states after 20. No primaries for sitting Democrats until Trump is gone. We get who we can in red states ( moderates will do) in order to win a majority. We will get way more in terms of policy if we embrace a 50 state solution and tolerate those who disagree with us on some issues but vote with us on most issues than if we continue to fight amongst ourselves and lose to Republicans who never agree or vote with us.

[shanny]

123. whoosh

I'm telling you to change a losing game. You're telling me to stick to the decades-long losing game plan in our time of crisis.

Thanks but no.

[Demsrule86]

133. Change for the sake of change is meaningless...there is no indication that the sort of change you

advocate will help us win...in fact the opposite seems true.

[ehrnst]

137. When one can't even specify how "dems have raced to the middle."

but still yell "CHANGE NOW!" there really can't be a coherent plan on what 'change' would involve.

It's meaningless to demand change when one can't articulate what's wrong with what's going on now, other than "I'm not happy!"

[ehrnst]

53. That writer also writes for Jacobin, which is totally a leftist rag. Here's another view

McGovern didn't just have to beat a president who oversaw a booming economy. He had to beat a president who oversaw a booming economy and had, as far as American casualties were concerned, drawn down a war. According to Hibbs's model, that doomed him doubly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/22/was-george-mcgovern-doomed-to-lose-in-1972/?utm_term=.eb597439f6ac

[shanny]

66. OK--works for me: I take that to mean we should be anti-war also.

Is that our default position?

[ehrnst]

80. I'm simply saying that there are differing opinions as to McGovern's huge defeat

and going farther left may not have moved that needle at all.

[LeftInTX]

44. We just ran an Our Revolution candidate for Texas governor

He was an awesome guy. He was one of the first candidates to announce his candidacy. He campaigned on Medicare for all, legalization of marijuana, state income tax, minimum wage of $15 etc. He was a great campaigner.

He got 3.5% of the vote in the primary.

[PDittie]

71. Tom Wakely

I donated to his campaign and voted for him. He was completely ignored by the corporate media.

[LeftInTX]

74. Yes

Very nice guy.

[Autumn]

4. The Republican party wants 2 parties. Insanely RW Republicans and Moderate Republicans.

They are hurting their supporters, it's more important than ever that the Democrats show a sharp contrast. The Republicans need to be pounded hard on every thing they do with no letting up.

[LBM20]

5. This is a veiled call for ideological purity which is DEATH for a political party. Enough!

One reason the Dems have been crushed nationally is ideological purity. Better to have a moderate Dem than a right wing Republican any day. You need to think big picture, unless you would like to be a permanent minority party.

We have a good chance to capture a red seat this coming Tuesday. But it is with a moderate candidate. There would be no chance with a far left candidate.

So enough of the political death null and abject nonsense of ideological purity in a country as large and diverse as ours.

[leftstreet]

7. So red state voters marched in the streets against Dodd-Frank?

I don't think so

[DBoon]

78. Exactly, there are hot-button issues but not this one

I could see Manchin voting against something that does not favor the coal industry, as a good number of his constituents depend on it.

Aside from local economic issues, the only areas where red state voters tend to get riled are social issues - reproductive rights, LGBT rights, etc.

Repealing Dodd-Frank? That is all about big corporate donations. I doubt any actual voters strongly favor it, at least not enough to matter in elections.

[Glamrock]

8. I see what you're saying. I do.

But what's the difference if we're in the minority and the country marches toward oligarchy, or we're the majority and facilitate the march toward oligarchy?

Personally, I'd rather die fighting than win capitulating.

[Demsrule86]

14. We get some of what we want...and the GOP doesn't get to destroy social security

Medicare and Medicaid, a woman's right to choose ...and starve babies etc. 80 % of something is better than 100% of nothing...consider the plight of DACA...they would not be endangered if we had the majority.

[Glamrock]

16. What I'm hearing, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, just a discussion.

What I'm hearing is kick the things you mentioned down the line to be lost at a later date. Because, IMHO, we don't stand up to oligarchy now, we lose later, and we end up with the same results. Dens are held to a different standard. We can't be wishy washy on these topics. Again, I understand your argument. I do. I see the logic in what you're saying. I'm really not trying to get in a pissing match here. But, if we don't stand up now, we lose regardless. When the economy tanks because of bank deregulation, it's gonna be "both sides" all over again for a large part of the electorate.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. Stand up? How is it standing up if more Republicans are elected in the short run?

you have seen what they can do in 15 months, right?

In the short run some on the left dont have the luxury of standing up to oligarchs the way you describe it, they will lose their rights and lives NOW.

[Glamrock]

50. By backing bank deregulation (which is the point of this thread)

we lose votes in the future. If the thought process is we have to go along to get along, we've already lost. People need to understand our party has principals. We can undue most of what the GOP does later. I understand people will be hurt now. I'm not OK with that. But more people will be hurt if we can't differentiate and give them a reason to vote for our party.

[Demsrule86]

46. If we stand up now in such a way that causes us to lose...we lose it all...that is what I am saying.

Democrats have to be willing to get things incrementally or we get nothing...we will lose the courts for a generation if we don't up our game and win...and that is checkmate for our party. We will likely lose health care of any sort including Medicare and Medicaid....Social Security gone...maybe we don't ever get fair and free elections again.The stakes are simply to high ...and in a country that looks very center left at best, it seems foolish to take the chance. Dean won elections by using a 50 state strategy and fielding good candidates for the districts or states they were trying to win. Nothing is more important than winning a majority.

[whathehell]

57. Ever diminishing returns ..What will we have to give up NEXT?

to save..oh, I don't know..Our right to exist as a party?

This weak kneed approach sucks!

[Demsrule86]

109. what will we give up if the Reublicans keep winning...what do you suppose you will get under Trump

as opposed to what might have been possible under Clinton? If the GOP gets even a couple more justices, we are screwed for a generation so I would worry about the 18 and 20...and what is possible right now.

[whathehell]

112. Not sure how capitulating to them now

would help with.that.

[Demsrule86]

120. It is not capitulating to win elections...it is the only way...you have recognize that we have no

power to stop Trump which is why it is important to win the House in 18. We have to overperform to do that. I for one will not trash the only party that can stop Trump...the Democratic party even when they do things I disagree with...I vote Democratic always. And if more followed my example, we would not be fighting on the GOP turf in order to save programs dating back to Roosevelt. You will never agree entirely with any party...and until we manage to write a law to neuter United, money is going to be an issue.We can't write any laws without Congress...so if you want to have progressive policy as I do, you have to get the GOP out...you won't do that by fielding inappropriate candidates and having purity tests. After we get back in power...primary any of the elected who voted for the bank bill in blue states...get the most liberal candidate we can. But recognize until we win hearts and minds in red states, we are going to have to field moderates to get and retain a majority. Also, how about voting in midterms Democrats...all this obsession with a president...congress is equally important.

[whathehell]

126. I'm not talking about winning elections, I'm

talking about Democrats voting against Dodd Frank and no, I don't think that's necessary to win elections, even in red states..

In addition, I vote in EVERY election, so lectures on that subject are unnecessary.

[Demsrule86]

131. I am pissed about that myself...I say when we get back in power we primary every blue state

Democrat who voted for it...they didn't need to. No point in doing it to red state elected. But those who did it for whatever reason but didn't have to should be tossed out of office. I only think we need to wait until we get back in power...then let them have it.

[whathehell]

138. Okay, I get what you're saying now. n/t

[KPN]

17. That's really the point isn't it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. No. it is more nuanced than that

I think I long ago established my standing at DU as a leftist Democrat, yet I have also remained generally supportive here of relatively centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin from states like West Virginia. Political context matters, and as they say in a sense all politics is local. I supported Mello, the Democrat running for Mayor of Omaha, last year also even though is pro choice record was checkered (he had local support from pro choice activists). Many here who are upset with progressives over so called purity tests opposed Mello last November.

I expect centrist Democrats to usually compete best in conservative red districts and states and I understand the implications of needing majorities in State Legislatures and Congress in order to move any time of Democratic agenda forward. But relatively conservative Democrats tend not to be content with being influential within conservative leaning areas. They often harness national corporate money that flows to them with the at least implicit understanding that they will work with those special interests to neuter any leftist drift in the national Democratic Party.

That is to be expected I suppose but not to be complacent about. To counter that corporate influence we must elect true progressive Democrats from regions where a true progressive message can triumph. And that is a much broader swath of the nation than centrist Democrats will ever admit to. The bottom line is, no political message can resonate widely if it is rarely forcefully articulated. Money too often pulls Democrats to the center when they need not electorally be there - and that becomes a self perpetuating cycle, perhaps best illustrated by the fact that in 2008 President Obama did not feel it viable to even allow single payer health insurance to be fully debated as a policy option.

[Demsrule86]

12. That is exactly correct. In areas where we get them elected...get the most Progressive

Democrat you can, in red areas get who you can...

[NurseJackie]

22. Correct.

[KPN]

31. I disagree. It's a call for policy that serves public

interests best. It does exactly what we should be doing: raising our voices and clamoring loudly about bad economic policy. Our message needs to be stronger, not subdued on issues like this that ultimately affect the economic well-being of the average public. Ideological purity/ death for our party? Hardly. The constituents of these particular Senators aren't exactly marching in the streets in support of watering down Dodd-Frank are they? Being quiet and subdued on stuff like this is what ultimately will be the death of out party.

[ehrnst]

115. Quiet and subdued? You mean like Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer?

That kind of "quiet and subdued?"



Manifesto thinking doesn't get the job done, and Democrats have never been a party to march lockstep in solutions. We are a coalition of groups, and that diversity of ideas is our strength, not our weakness.

[bluecollar2]

40. Better to die on my feet

Than live on my knees.

The Democratic party needs to stand for something or it will stand for nothing.

[Demsrule86]

47. The Democratic Party was successful when it was a big tent party...what you demand will doom it to

minority status...and you are very likely to die on your knees if that happens...we all are.

[ehrnst]

99. Don't like Bill Clinton, eh? (nt)

[NurseJackie]

100. Heh-heh!

[Demsrule86]

104. It ceased being a big tent party when "pure" was demanded after United conservadems were voted

out in favor of Republicans...dumbest thing some on our side ever did...and regardless of who's fault it is...we need to go back to to a big tent /50 state solution in order to get a majority...we have no shot at getting anything done without one. And we have no shot at a majority without a big tent...and we won't get one by attacking Democrats...also running our revolution candidates in Texas ...a seat we really have a shot at is snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[George II]

114. Sorry, to most of us Democrats the Democratic Party is STILL the "big tent party", so-called....

...."catering" notwithstanding.

[yurbud]

102. I think people are more worried about their K street prospects being doomed.

Good policy doesn't reward the politicians who enact it with jobs as lobbyists, CEOs, do-nothing board members, or give six to seven figure speaking fees when they leave office.

[Demsrule86]

103. We live in the age of United and I think you are unfair to Democrats...and no matter what...

if we lose, there will be more of that...what you think will happen...it will not. What will happen is progressive policy lost since Roosevelt because some on the left made a big mistake at a very important time.

[leftstreet]

6. DURec

[RandomAccess]

10. I totally agree

I find it absolutely heartbreaking -- and also infuriating -- when centrist Dems betray the base and vote against the party. What's the fucking POINT?

[Demsrule86]

11. and yet given how the Senate works...you can't have a majority without moderates...ah

reality bites. So I look at it this way...you get some of what you want with a majority that includes moderates...without them, you don't have the majority so you get nothing.

[JCanete]

13. keep considering whether or not that is actually true. There is far from any proof of it, and

you can't simply use the map we've used as that proof since it has perpetuated itself by virtue of being our party's model for "success.

I'm hoping you will at least agree with me that what we've had in the last decades does not amount to success. We've been losing for years.

Also, when ideas are put to people distinct from party logos, it turns out they are far more liberal than we continue to be led to believe on a whole range of issues. We just don't tap into those.

[poboy2]

18. The 'ousting' of 'centrists' on their side sure was effective for them.

And still is, so far. Tight knit group of criminals, but effective.

[Demsrule86]

49. And why is that? I is because we have lost key elections by turning on the Democratic party.

1994,2000,2002,2010,2014 and 2016 are all examples...you can't elect three presidents in 40 years and win anything...now look at governors and legislatures...the country is center left. I am a liberal if thought moving left would allow us to win...I would run run left, but it won't. We have seats we need to win in red states in order to attain a majority. Thus a big tent with candidates who can win is our only option...and times up. We don't win in the next couple of years it is game over for the party and I think this country. The GOP will destroy this country if they stay in power much longer. This is particularly true if Trump somehow manages to win re-election and they will have the courts.

[JCanete]

67. Yes, I know where you stand on this, and you know where I do. Look, take the

recent banking legislation as an example. We could win in the next 2, probably 4 years, and still lose control after the next 2, not because we decided we wanted to win, but because of who it was decided we should or should not run because of some mythological mindset of the nation. Again, the mindset of the nation is formed. It is shaped by leaders. Running to the supposed mindset always, WHEN IT IS AN UNHEALTHY MINDSET, is madness. Running away from populism(not simply the rhetoric but the meat behind good populist policy) prevents us from showing in stark contrast to the GOP on things related to voter lives and not their fucked up moralistic belief system. You want to see how fast that morality can bend if these people actually see the benefit of supporting democrats?

I know, the benefit is real even today, even with the moderates over the GOP, but the messaging is weak and convoluted and dragged down by the least progressive of our members. And then when they do something shitty, there may be wrangling behind closed doors, but God forbid our leadership publically shame them for their votes to apply real pressure. Instead that topic becomes a third rail and laws are passed as quietly as possible to keep these seats "safe." Safe from what? What good is the gate keeping the hordes at bay if occasionally somebody trying to appease the subset of people who want to be pillaged(hint, that subset doesn't exist) pulls the bolt from the gate in the name of bipartisanship?

And edited to add...try to attack the GOP for bringing the hordes when they can say with evidence, "Democrats did it too...see that dude over by the gate! Hell we at least told you we were bringing the hordes you shmucks, to deal with your rat problem or some other bullshit we made up, but we did tell you the hordes were coming... but can you really trust the democrats?"

[Demsrule86]

107. I hate the banking legislation...only those in deep red states should have voted for it...maybe

not even them...not sure. But that doesn't change the fact we need a majority. There is not one message in the Democratic Party ...never was a specific message. And we have to learn to get along with one another or we continue to lose, and the GOP enacts their
crappy policy. We can't get the majority without moderates.

But what can we do about the banking shit...not vote for Democrats so the GOP gets more power? That doesn't seem rational. If Clinton was president, there would be no banking legislation that could pass. We need to elect Democrats and expect that they will screw up and do things we don't like at times. And not abandon Democratic presidents at the first midterm. Obama was basically neutered in terms of getting progressive policy for six long years because the 'Obama is a used car salesman crowd' abandoned him with the ACA issues and for not getting single payer. The banking bill is one of the times, Democrats are screwing up. I called Sherrod Brown but he said he wouldn't vote for for it...no chance with portman...although I did write him an email...he doesn't answer his phone....next time we are in a solid majority, let's primary the hell out of those Democrats who voted for it running in blue areas.

[bottomofthehill]

85. Using Dodd Frank as the Example

The Legislation was passed with a Democratic President, House and Senate. It would never have passed if there was Republican Control of any of the three.

Dodd Frank was passed with centrist votes from Senators Baucus, Bayh, Carper, McCaskill Pryor, Dorgan, Hagan, Johnson, Landreau, Leiberman. All well to the right of me. Senator Feingold was the only Democrat that voted against it, so Leader Reid had to sweeten the deal to get some Republicans, Snowe and Collins from Maine and Brown from Massachusetts who was trying to get re-elected.

Do you think we are better off with Democratic Majorities and Dodd Frank? I do, and it is not even close in my opinion. Without the majority, we dont get any part of good legislation. The age old not letting perfection be the enemy of good is so true. We are barely a center left country. Can you think of any legislation passed with Republican Majorities which would not have been made better with Democratic Majorities.... I can not!

We may not like it here on this board, but the country is somewhat evenly divided and if center left is the best we can do, than I say do it.

I am a pro education, pro environment, pro science, pro choice, pro union, pro equality, pro diversity, pro progressive tax code, anti poverty, anti hunger, anti hate, anti war unreconstructed Liberal Democrat. I worked on the Ted Kennedy Presidential Campaign in 1980 before I was old enough to vote and cast my first vote for Fritz Mondale once I was old enough to vote. I am not a bible thumper, or pious faker, I think of myself as more spiritual than religious, but I believe that the greatest political speech ever given was by Jesus Christ, the Sermon on the Mount.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn: for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

I always believe that we are ALWAYS BETTER with a Democratic Majority.

[JCanete]

86. You are also drawing conclusions that can't be supported. You are also

propagating the notion that the only reason we have held onto or attained these seats is because we put up these democrats who are heavily influenced by the heavy hitters in their districts and states and vote accordingly, as if that's somehow done to appeal to more centrist voters.

That may be common sense, but its all too common and unvetted. Yes, of course, being perpetually in the minority gets us nowhere. How is that working out for us? That's what we've been doing for most of the last 30 years. Holding on to a weaker Senator and not demanding that he or she show up for us, thus undermining the larger war effort in the process is not winning us seats, it is losing us seats. I repeat it ad nauseum now, but it always bears repeating. 1000 seats! that's how many we've lost in 30 years. So, we have tried it this way. It has not worked.

And no, we aren't talking about center left any more. This is not what center left used to look like. Granted, we as a nation have moved on social issues, but the economic issues that feed some of that social unrest and distrust have only been exacerbated and continue to be preyed on as both easy pickings and a distraction by the GOP.

[bottomofthehill]

89. I dont know.

We did not loose those seats to Green party progressives. We lost them to Republicans and many of them tea bag right wing nuts. I don't think the solution is to run candidates that are further to the left only to get blown out.

[JCanete]

90. Again, an assumption that people like corporatist policy. They don't. Why would they?

[bottomofthehill]

96. because that is the majority, they do seem to vote for them

over their own self interest some would say, but maybe it is due to other issues.

[Demsrule86]

122. Add up red states and add up liberal states...we can't have a working majority without

moderates. It is not about a map that we arbitrarily choose. It is voting patterns...and when a state turns blue like Virginia, they don't run to the left but to the center. Northam was elected remember. Consider Montana where a moderate Democrat won the governorship in 16 and Quist lost in 17. This could mean a more moderate candidate might have won...and with a gerrymander, we can't judge 'success' in the House. I see no evidence that people in red states are voting on liberal issues. It doesn't matter if they agree with us on a couple of issues...that is bound to be true. It matters on what they vote for.

Consider guns...most want reasonable gun control laws (polls show this), but it is not a voting issue...which I hope is changing with the kids in the street ( I will join them in Cleveland in March..can't get to DC this time). The most electoral success we have had recently was with Dean who pursued a 50 state solution and was very successful (I was a Deaniac -love the guy). I would also like to point out that Limbaugh's operation chaos and a long primary in o8 gave us political infrastructure in states we normally didn't win or have much of a Democratic organization in. As Clinton and Obama fought to win the primary- the Obama campaign put money in states like Virginia and had an infrastructure during the general as result. This was a 50 state solution if you think about it and I believe Virginia turned blue several elections cycles sooner as a result. Also, Virginia was very encouraging for liberals like me...consider the sort of candidates who won the legislative seats. They came close to flipping the legislature even in a gerrymandered states...and those candidates were mostly liberal who won on local issues...that may be the key to electing progressives which of course is our goal...and maybe, we can start with grass roots...legislatures which we need an get our message out that way.

My concern in the next couple of elections is to take back some power and stop the Republicans and Trump...after that is done we get the most liberal candidates possible in blue states. And those who voted for the Bank legislation should be primaried then if they are in blue states. No point in doing that in red states. Run someone who can win in red states or support incumbents who have an advantage and vote with us most of the time...we won't win all but we can make some headway, and we will be able to get some of what we want...not everything...but some. And we won't be fighting on GOP turf. If we don't win, we could lose hard won progressive programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA...some dating back to roosevelt.

[Egnever]

106. Well what do you know I finally agree with you on something

[Demsrule86]

121. Hell has frozen over!!!! hehe...I think we agree on the important things...

We all want the same thing...we have different methods of achieving it.

[aeromanKC]

19. I love my DINO Senator Claire McCaskill l!!

Because I know if not for her, we'd have Senator "legitimate rape" Akin.

[JCanete]

23. If not for her or a better democrat you mean.

[NurseJackie]

25. LOL!

[JCanete]

29. LOL!!!

[NurseJackie]

45. I know, right?!! :-D

[JCanete]

68. LOLOLOLOLOL!! best conversation ever! LOL!

[aeromanKC]

32. Not in Missouri

I live here. Missouri is redneck hillbilly RWNJ whackadoodle central!!

[workinclasszero]

36. You speak the truth

Missouri republican governor was arrested for a felony recently, still in office of course, republicans own the state house.

Oh and they blamed the governor's blackmail with pics attempt on George Soros!!!!!

Missouri is redstate bastshit insane! It's a miracle that we have a democratic senator, that's for damn sure!


Missouri Governor Eric Greitens indicted on invasion of privacy charge related to affair
by ASSOCIATED PRESS

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis grand jury on Thursday indicted Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens on a felony invasion of privacy charge for allegedly taking a compromising photo of a woman with whom he had an affair in 2015. The Republican governor responded that he made a mistake but committed no crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/grand-jury-indicts-missouri-governor-eric-greitens-invasion-privacy-charge-n850436

[Demsrule86]

54. She is the best we are going to get in Missouri. I like Claire.

[NurseJackie]

24. And there you have it!!! A perfect real-life example.

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. It wont matter, they will have an answer for that too.

[JCanete]

61. nvmnd...thought this post was at me at first....carry on.

[NurseJackie]

65. Okay.

[spanone]

33. centrists? rolling back banking regulations is right-wing bullshit

[Exotica]

75. Indeed it is. Banking dereg almost always ends in tears.

It is a foundational core philosophy of the RW loons. Of the 17 Democratic Caucus members who voted for this, 12 were co-sponsors, and 8 of the 17 actually flipped their 2010 votes from supporting Dodd-Frank to now in 2018 partially tearing it apart.

[LovingA2andMI]

34. Disappointing...

BOTH of Michigan's Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters voted for this mess. Did they FORGET HOW BAD (and it was Really, Really, Really Bad) Michigan SUFFERED in the Economic Crisis of 2007-2013?

Did Debbie FORGET about the Long-Term Unemployed (99ers -- Folks That Were Unemployed For 99 Weeks or more) when in 2007-2013, Michigan's UNEMPLOYMENT rate was between 10-15% -- plus SHE sponsored a bill (it did not get the votes) to EXTEND Unemployment Benefits 13 More Weeks during this time -- and it was ALL RELATED to the Economic Crisis of 2007-2013?

Seriously, HOW THE HELL did they Forget That Michigan was NUMBER #1 in the NATION for Foreclosures during this time AND we almost LOST what was left of the Auto Industry to the tune that We The American Tax Payers, had to bail out GM and Chrysler?

There is NO WAY Senators Stabenow and Peters forgot all of this and much, much more that happened to Michigan during the Economic Crisis of 2007-2013. So WHY did they vote for this Bill? WHY!!!

Disappointing, Indeed!

[jalan48]

37. Oligarch's are very rich and very powerful. They have a lot of money to throw at elections.

[yardwork]

39. Democrats are NOT in the majority in the Senate!

Republicans have the majority and thus, they control what comes up for a vote.

A Republican majority forces vulnerable Democrats into votes they would otherwise not have to make.

[Autumn]

52. My Senator is a co sponser of the bill, he is not vulnerable. This is his choice

The only one making him do this is him.

[democrank]

48. I hardly recognize what now passes for the Democratic Party's "center"

Paul Wellstone would be considered lunatic fringe.

[ehrnst]

51. Paul supported Hillary's plan over single payer

He would be considered a "corporatist" today....

[Exotica]

77. that simply isn't true

Single-Payer Health Plan Touted as Best Around : Insurance: McDermott, Wellstone say their proposal offers better benefits than Clinton's. Taxes would pay for universal coverage.

January 28, 1994

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-28/news/mn-16342_1_private-health-insurance

WASHINGTON — The Democratic authors of a Canadian-style health plan said Thursday that they could pay for health care for all Americans--and offer more generous benefits than President Clinton has proposed--through an 8.4% payroll tax on corporations and a 2.1% tax on individuals' earnings.

"The President's bill and ours are the only viable options" because they offer health coverage to every American, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said.

The program, known as a single-payer plan, would eliminate private health insurance. Instead, the money now paid in premiums by employers and workers would be collected in taxes by the federal government and distributed among the states. Each state would decide on the best way to deliver health services within its borders.

Every citizen would receive a plastic card that could be used to pay bills at hospitals, doctor's offices, nursing homes or pharmacies.

This approach--making the federal government the collector and distributor of all health dollars--was rejected by Clinton during last year's campaign. At that time, his advisers viewed it as politically suicidal, believing that opponents would attack the plan as a huge federal tax increase.

The single-payer plan was proposed by McDermott and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and has 92 liberal sponsors in the House and five in the Senate.

snip

[ehrnst]

79. That was earlier. I'm talking about 2001.

I worked with Paul.

And yes, he was already being called a centrist and "sell out" even then.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/01/seduction-paul-wellstone/

[Exotica]

82. thanks for the reply, I see that you were correct if talking about the 2001 Wellstone

Interesting article. The Senate processes seem to grind one down.

Cheers

[ehrnst]

84. It's called seeing the elephant.

Paul valued doing the job well, including the boring administrative and bureaucratic duties that make up the vast majority of statecraft. He kept hiring DC "insiders" on his staff over well meaning, but less efficient activists. This would also get him into trouble now.

He wanted to run for a third term, despite what he promised in the first two campaigns because he saw just how difficult it is to get done what he wanted to get done, once he got on the job.

I think that many on the Left have created a Paul Wellstone in death that wasn't quite the same as the real deal.

He was trying to be an effective politician, which has different metrics for success and timelines than that of an activist. This is not to say that one is more important than the other - both are needed.

Paul was a team player, not a soloist. He genuinely liked people, including republicans he worked with. I have to wonder if this would get him skewered today.

Would we trust someone as a "progressive" who was talked about in this way by a Republican? Or would we say that anyone who worked with "the enemy" so closely was a sellout?

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/264093-remembering-my-friend-senator-paul-wellstone-

[Exotica]

88. I have no problem with some level of bi-partisanship as long as it occurs in the middle

The huge problem today (IMHO) is that the Republicans have been absolutely captured by a batshit crazy RW base and ideology, so on most any "bi-partisan" move, it will always be in the RW to far RW area of the playing field. I also feel a huge problem is that moderate, centrist Dems now are up against such a wall of far RW shit that they get painted as LW loons, which is INSANE.

I consider myself a liberal centrist, maybe slightly to the left as I do believe in single payer (or some other scheme such as the Dutch model) EVENTUALLY (any tax increases would be more than covered by the premiums disappearance) and also (it's necessary co-part) free or very low cost tertiary education. Even the centre to mild centre-right parties here in the EU (or most of them) believe in some form of universal healthcare and low cost uni, so it hardly makes me a flaming socialist ultra radical LW'er. These goals are simply going to have to be achieved incrementally, its the way our American system works. I am also a late millennial, so I see these issues as huge for my generation. I was a Biden supporter until he refused to run, then went ALL out for Hillary, including working on GOTV projects here in the EU (I am working on my PhD here) for ex-pats. I find it insane that people thought her platform was somehow a corporatist sellout. It is madness.

Attacking Democrats, as Sanders does, is incredibly divisive, and in no way helps our unified fight against the far RW. I am at wits end how divided not only the country has become, but how divided as a party we are. Putin is laughing at how cheaply he has caused so much chaos via his non-linear warfare model.

I did a reply about this non-linear warfare here in another thread https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210257721#post6

[ehrnst]

92. I hear ya.

[Exotica]

93. Thanks for the chat

I learned some things.

[moondust]

55. Didn't Lieberman kill the public option?

i.e., one corrupt asshole is all it took.

[Magoo48]

56. Often, when I say anything about centrist vs progressive Dems, I get blocked...

This post expresses it nicely.

[still_one]

58. I will preface this by saying I am very much for Dodd-Frank, but it isn't perfect, and banks that

were NOT involved in the risky practices that led to the economic collapse, are required to follow a complex set of rules that were intended for large banks, but puts these community banks into a position that make at least a third of those banks unprofitable because they have to hire more people to their compliance department, and divert resources to compliances that do not even pertain to them.

That is the argument used by those Democrats and independents that are voting for this.

It is those community banks that account for most of the agricultural and small business loans, and make their importance to those communities vital.

The argument is that the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank caused many of these community banks to go under, and larger banks to take them over, thus reducing competition, and leaving them left with having to deal with large banks.

While the answer of course is not to get rid of Dodd-Frank, but modify Dodd-Frank so these community banks are not adversely affected by it, while the necessary rules are in place for the large banks.

If the Democrats controlled the WH and at least the Senate, Dodd-Frank would NOT be put at risk as it is now, and there would be a very real possibility that the right modifications would be put into Dodd-Frank without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Unfortunately, there were some self-identifed progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, and believed the nonesense that there was no difference between republicans and Democrats. My answer to them is, thank you for helping propel Gorsuch into the Supreme, helping whittle down the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights, women's rights, the environment,
healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so many other things that our now in peril, including the undoing of the financial regulation that was instituted after the economic implosion that brought our economy to its knees.

These Democrats that the OP is referring to in a disillusioned way, are between a rock and a hard place, that would NOT have happened if Democrats now controlled the Senate and the WH. They are faced by their constituents who are seeing these small community banks going out of business, and these constiuenct don't like it at all.

[GulfCoast66]

72. What the hell are you doing...bringing facts into this rant!!

Those of us from red states know that a Senator must first look out for the interest of his or constituents. They will not screw over their voters to make Democratic voters in a blue state happy.

I would not want my Senator to sit by and watch my 70 old local bank get devoured by Bank of America. Which has been happening continually since DF passed.

But again, those pesky facts that do not fit the narrative.

[still_one]

83. You said it much clearer and concise then I did.

[R B Garr]

87. Thanks, and doesnt some of this have to do with loosening

credit standards...anyone without a 750 FICO score better not even bother applying for a mortgage.

A 750 score means no late payments, no slow pays, no higher than 30% debt ratio on lines of credit, no write-offs, no excessive credit inquiries —I’m sure I’m missing some things there. So credit standards are also being relaxed, although that trend has been slowly coming about in the past couple years.

[NurseJackie]

91. "They will not screw over their voters to make Democratic voters in a blue state happy." -- BINGO!!

They will not screw over their voters to make Democratic voters in a blue state happy.

Bingo!

[no_hypocrisy]

59. Did any of the 17 Dems vote IN FAVOR OF Dodd Frank and are reversing their position?

[Exotica]

70. yes, 8 flipped, Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Carper (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI)

Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), and Mark Warner (VA)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/s162

[no_hypocrisy]

73. Thank you. Let's flip them back.

[Exotica]

94. Good luck with that, they appeared to be thoroughly captured on this issue

The very fact that NONE of them, NONE of the 17 Democratic caucus members who voted for this RW POS bill had to do so in order for it to pass shows their real leanings on bankster biz.

Very disappointed.

[George II]

62. Let me see if I can put a little perspective on the overall situation here:

Hypothetically, which is preferable:

A Democrat who votes 80% of the time on issues one wants, maybe even only 50% of the time, and he/she gets re-elected in his/her district?

A Democrat who votes 100% of the time on issues one wants, who is defeated by a republican who will vote 0% of the time with what one wants?.

So the choice is 50%-80% of what one wants or 0% of what one wants.

If one demands 100% of one's candidate, chances are in many cases he'll get 0%.

[JCanete]

76. as you say, its an entire hypothetical. You are assuming the outcome of the latter democrat,

AND the former democrat, and I think wrongly in both cases. As I've gone round and round about with Demsrule on this subject, you cannot take a single seat in a vacuum. How we have to protect that weakest candidate affects our overall message, affects our brand, affects our electability. We wouldn't know if progressives on class issues would win in these states because we never support them as a party. So in these states we aren't generating a progressive movement. We aren't introducing progressive ideas. We're staying away from them.

Now how, in your estimation will those states ever actually evolve a more progressive outlook if we keep running to the new center and avoiding that challenge?

[GulfCoast66]

95. You keep saying we. Who is we?

What kills leftist Senate candidates in Red states is the Democratic primary. The average democrat in those states is more conservative than the average democrat in blue states.


Dodd-Frank is a perfect example. Sure, big picture this bill may cause harm, and perhaps great harm. But DF as written has been and still is causing harm in small and medium town America. Losing a local bank to a big national one are the kinds of issues people will vote on.

Gun control is another example of many democrats having unrealistic expectations
If we were to win the house and Senate, we will move on gun control; universal background check is a given. We may be able to gin up support for limiting the size of magazines. But we will not move to Ban semiautomatic rifles. Because Democratic voters in red states do not support it. Saying that makes me unpopular on DU, but do you honestly disagree with my assessment of the situation?

Until we get a parliamentary system, which is never, the Senate will function this way.

I doubt I will ever live in a state where I am represented by a senator as liberal as I am. But I would rather it be a less left Democrat that a R.

Have a nice evening. I do enjoy reading your views even if I disagree. And I imagine we agree on most issues.

BTW, I think there are some left positions that can win in red states like increased minimum wage, strengthening Medicare and Social Security and cheaper, open internet access. And recently I think increased taxes on the super rich might fly if sold right.

[JCanete]

142. Hey! What kills progressives starts before the primary, and if you pay attention

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2018, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

to some of the trials candidates have regarding policies and rules seemingly designed to favor the incumbent or insider candidate, they sound pretty damn frustrating. I'm not going to declare that with 100 % certitude because at some point this shit really has just become a blur of same-old information to me and I am not putting a lot of effort into studying any specifics of the phenomena or to remember the specific affronts. That said though, I'd be willing to make a sizeable bet that if challenged on this I could make a solid case.

Add to that that money is a huge factor. What does our party apparatus get excited by? It gets energized by a candidates proven ability to fundraise. Well what does that typically mean? A whole lot of donors who spared their extra 27 bucks this month? Of course not. So yes, progressives, when they run, are likely to lose in the primary, because money is nearly insurmountable, but once money is a factor to the degree it is, its really hard to say with any confidence that its the will of the voters that put Manchin in the GE.
-
As you say, there are progressive issues that we could captivate these voters with. Of course there are some that take more time and even generations(though hopefully not at this point if done right) to move people on, but getting right down to brass tax with what we can get for people right away(which would be good for all of us-for instance, free education and a higher minimum wage just as examples aren't pandering giveaways but are paths to a healthier society), and making it crystal clear who is going to pay for it all, IS the way to wear down their anxiety driven hatred at otherness, because again, people would need to be on each other's side...because people would be far more willing to abandon deeply held prejudices if those prejudices were successfully and succinctly linked to a strategy literally propagated by an oligarchy to divide and conquer.

I mean, yeah, as I presented it, that's some flowery shit right there. Nothing is so clean or obvious in terms of its implementation or impact. I'm still not certain the party even survives it. I just don't think being the minority party perpetually is surviving(or if those at the head are surviving the rest of this organism is just..slowly bleeding out.)

-
Regarding who "we" is, I generally mean those of us who identify as democrats... so us as a party. It may be vaguer at times than it should be. If, like in this context, I'm talking about us losing, I'm talking about the preponderance of losses over a few wins, and arguing that a few wins does not mean an actual victory if in the process of procuring those pieces, we exposed our king. In chess you sacrifice pieces for the bigger win.

But to abandon the metaphor for more specificity, what I mean is if our strategy to get Manchin elected(for example) hurts our overall message and if our overall message(and record of fighting for the people on issues like the banking regulation) is ultimately so weak or ambiguous that it can't dominate Republicans on issues where we should be able to crush them, not simply limp out on top, well then what other races might we be losing because of this? What impact does an impression of a party playing too many sides, playing it way too safe, doing its level best not to offend the status-quo or the powers that be while meekly asking them to do a tiny bit more, have on the public? It convolutes. It makes it easy for corporate media to confuse voters as to who their best choice is...it makes us look like we're half-hearted or insincere about the things we purport to be selling(usually in very watered down terms).

Yes, we're far better as a party on social issues. Unfortunately, again, instead of judoing the anger that corporate media, megachurches etc. foster in their base, right back at them by making their masters the actual enemy, we continue to have a proxy war with their voters and their bought and paid for politicians only.

that's my beef. I agree that gun control can be a harder sell. I agree that even pro-choice can be. I'm not entirely ready to say that we can be flexible on pro-choice in these districts for the sake of a win, but I'm confident that the way to change minds is to inflitrate on issues that won't have red-state voters putting up a thick protective layer of impenetrable self-preserving soundproofing, at which point they won't be reachable on anything.

But its the very things that you and I agree on where we might make headway that we are not doing, and I think that is to our society's detriment, if not to our party's own(assuming second place is a cozy place to be).

[George II]

111. I don't know what much of that means, but getting back to my point:

If we're in a position to choose a candidate that will be with us 50-80% of the time and have a chance to win the seat vs. choosing a candidate who will be with us 100% of the time and has no chance of winning, which candidate should we choose?

My father was a brilliant political strategist, and I remember when I was very young asking him what a politician's most important job was. He said simply, "to get elected". Without actually getting elected a politician can't accomplish much.

I'd prefer a candidate that I agree with most of the time who gets elected vs. a candidate who I agree with ALL of the time who can't get elected.

Simple choice to me.

[JCanete]

141. That may be a politician's most important job, but it isn't the only way one can be influential.

Those who don't get elected can still shape the views of the nation. They can still bring issues to the forefront that the mainstream candidates adopt because public sentiment has slowly, or sometimes quickly, turned.

that said, yeah, out of office you can't write or vote on legislation, and those are certainly the most direct ways to influence policy. Also, damn straight, losing control can be a huge set-back, especially if the party which as taken control has no moral compass and has a voter base that is fine with it.

As to whether or not we are going to agree with a candidate 100% of the time, well of course we aren't. It would be nice if we could be confident that the candidate held the views he or she did on principle though, and not because money is a factor. You have to admit that some of the positions politicians like Manchin hold have nothing to do with what their voters want in their districts. They aren't running to the center because of their voters, they are running to the center or even to the right because corporations who see these politicians resist their influence are likely to go scorched earth on them.

Seriously though, would you vet a pilot that way? "8 times out of 10 he'll land the plane." It isn't that we are going to agree with everything a politician does, its that some things are just that egregious. They have long term or permanent consequences and we as a nation continue to get terminally sicker.

What I was trying to say in my other post(admittedly poorly) is that your certainty that politicians who have more progressive platforms than the ones we put forward would be doomed to lose, is far from actually assured. You are presenting a foregone conclusion to justify your position that we can't have nice things. I strongly disagree that the reason we have the Manchin's of the world is because of the voters own ideals. Its because of the fucking money. If we as a party decided no more of that shit(but we won't), I fully accept that it very well may turn into a blood bath for Democrats, because the rich industries and individuals would certainly make that their Stalingrad...but if we survived, we would clean the republican's clocks indefinitely.

But if we don't do something drastic like this, I assure you, it is all a matter of time before we yearn for the good ole "sane days" of Trump, because Trump himself is not an aberration. He is the current culmination of a natural regression that has been trending for 30, 40 years now, admittedly with some glimmers of hope scattered in here and there.

[mcar]

98. I want a Democratic majority

I recognize that this will include some centrist Dems, including my own Bill Nelson. Do people here really want Gov. Voldemort in the Senate? The hell with purity.

I don't expect to agree with everything our Dems do. But they will make this country better and save us from possible annihilation if we get them back in charge.

[Freethinker65]

64. Follow the $$$$

[KG]

101. dry powder and 3-d chess!

[Egnever]

105. Yes but...

It also allows Democrats to control the agenda. While they may not be able to do anything they want. They do control what can and can not come to the floor.

[Demsrule86]

110. Who can remember? Since it was so long ago we had a majority...just before all those

conservadems lost their seats...you know like Blanch Lincoln and Mary Landrieu etc. And we won't get one until we employ a 50 state solution and get some moderates back.

[Hortensis]

118. They're conservatives elected by conservative voters who

were always traditionally Democratic and just didn't switch to calling themselves Republicans.

They're a minority faction in our party, yes, but note that sometimes they work with us. NONE of the conservatives in our party voted for the Tax Heist bill. And that's not nothing.

Some other definitions:

Democratic Party -- The dominant left, liberal, progressive party in America. Our party includes radicals, centrists and conservatives, but is strongly dominated by liberals.

Centrists: Those liberals and conservatives who are moderate and tolerant enough to work together, within parties and across party lines.

Obama warned us that our nation is in grave danger because our nation's center has broken. He didn't say the way to fix it is to stomp on centrism and instead unleash extremism on right and left.

[ehrnst]

132. Who are these "Democrats who support GOP in all but the Klan & NRA rallies?"

Not famililar with them.

[librechik]

134. ballot security and cyber protection is the supreme issue.

I think if votes were not suppressed in many cunning ways and we brought more people to the polls we could overcome the blue dogs.