Sick of hearing that we can't go too far left

[Calculating]

The Republicans have driven us so far to the right that we're stuck in the ditch on the side of the road. Slow and moderate isn't gonna get us back on track. Why is it ok for them to express radical right wing ideas, but on the left we need to keep it reasonable and moderate? If the country wanted reasonable and moderate then Hillary would have beat Trump and we wouldn't be in this mess. People want candidates who inspire and excite them. The real issue is whether the country has drifted right overall. If it has then we're screwed anyway.

[George II]

1. Maybe people are saying that because they know Democrats won't win that way....

....as proven out in our 2018 Democratic primaries.

[TidalWave46]

2. I truly hope you see the blatant flaws in your argument...

that render it completely impotent.

That is on both flawed points that you try to make. A somewhat fundamental response can't even be drawn from what you put forward about Clinton. The first point you make is similarly flawed. There is no basis for debate as the initial point does not exist in reality.

[NurseJackie]

36. You're correct.

And far too kind. I just don't have the patience that you do.

[ehrnst]

43. +1000

[BannonsLiver]

3. Well that makes two of us

Only, for me, it’s people who think the answer to everything is moving more to the left.

[Calculating]

18. Exactly

Couldn't agree more

[NYMinute]

62. There are not enough Democrats to win the electoral college

We need independents to win and they are centrists.

[demosincebirth]

106. Yup - also, you move far to left you'll be shaking hands with the extreme right. Not good at all

[The Mouth]

23. "The only thing in the middle of the road

is yellow lines and dead armadillos"

Molly Ivins, but I think she was quoting someone else, maybe Will Rogers

[rampartc]

80. jim hightower

[The Mouth]

83. Thanks!

[Aquaria]

32. Convictions doesn't get you across the street

Dennis Kucinich was full of convictions. Couldn't even make a blip in the primaries.

Ted Kennedy was full of convictions. Couldn't win the nomination when he ran.

Walter Mondale was full of convictions. Got slaughtered in the general election he ran in.

George McGovern was full of convictions. Got slaughtered in the general election he ran in.

Hubert Humphrey was full of convictions. Lost his general election.

Being full of convictions isn't enough. You have to be smart about building your campaign organization, putting together the financing necessary to keep the campaign competitive, coming up with an effective message, getting it out there--and more.

Campaigns are work. HARD work, and lots of it. Who has the best campaign usually wins.

But don't discount the luck or zeitgeist factors. Sometimes, the right candidate with the right message for the right time comes along with the right campaign. It all falls into place, somehow, and the breaks work your way more often than not. JFK's campaign was that way, according to my mom, who worked on his 1960 campaign. Obama's 2008 campaign is another great example of that zeitgeist factor at work.

I can attest to how Clinton's 1992 campaign was not one of those campaigns. It was all about hard, back-breaking, bone-crushing, brain-melting W-O-R-K. He earned that damned office with that campaign. We worked our asses off for him in CA, and I know that the states further east were doing the same.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Other factors to consider:

Dennis Kucinich - Not widely known; looks like his first job was baking cookies in a tree.

Ted Kennedy - Easily the least popular Kennedy; sordid history with alcohol easily exploited by opponents.

Walter Mondale - Ran against Ronald fucking Reagan.

George McGovern - 1968.

Hubert Humphrey - Enormous cranium, ran against a guy who was arguably the sexiest American president of all time.


If you think this puerile or superficial, you're absolutely correct. But the public is also puerile and superficial. I think if you sat down and crunched the numbers, you'd find people's picks rarely represent their actual political beliefs, if they even have any.

[LV487]

69. First time posting, be kind

Crossing fingers I don't end up in an alternate universe...

Hubert Humphrey - Enormous cranium, ran against a guy who was arguably the sexiest American president of all time.

My history is a little shaky, but Richard M. Nixon could never be described as sexy, did Hubert run against anyone else?

[dflprincess]

74. Humphrey did run for the nomination in 1960

which would have put him up against JFK during the primaries.

[dflprincess]

75. McGovern ran in 1972

I remember this as it was the first vote I ever cast.

Humphrey ran in 1968 & lost mainy because of Vietnam. BTW, there was nothing sexy about Nixon.

[Act_of_Reparation]

90. Humphrey ran in the 1960 primary against JFK.

I stand corrected about McGovern. Still, he ran against a relatively popular incumbent, which was probably somewhat more significant than his policy positions.

[greatauntoftriplets]

109. Tricky Dick was as sexy as a turd.

[The Mouth]

84. Hard work and many years of planning

That's what shot down Harris, I think- you just can't compete with the 20 years of prep, of doing favors to be called iin, of making connections, that Biden (or Hillary) have/had. It takes many election cycles to build the infrastructure. Obama was the exception, with immense charisma, and a pretty energized party after 8 years of GWB.

[Kaleva]

35. Where is the enthusiasm that would win someone you approve of the nomination?

[Dem4Life1102]

37. Maybe some people's convictions are middle of the road.

Did you ever consider that?

[ehrnst]

41. "center-right corporatists?" Like who, specifically? (nt)

[BlueTsunami2018]

5. Hillary won.

Just like Gore did, just like Kerry did. All three were cheated. This is a return to normality election, not a revolutionary election.

[Iwasthere]

11. Exactly!

This is what many seem to forget. It has bearing on EVERYTHING. We fight fair, THEY DO NOT!

[Scotch-Irish]

31. Oh gawd! I totally agree! Biden is like soggy bread.

He isn't going to excite anyone. And P.S. Trump will make a fool out of him. Biden's a good man, but he doesn't think on his feet. If you give him two weeks, he'll come up with a good come-back. But he has NEVER been able to think on his feet.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. "Biden is like soggy bread"... don't think that's a fair characterization.

Joe's not the most exciting candidate, that's for sure... but, he's not "soggy bread" either. It's some of Joe's current policies and past positions, e. g., his Iraq War vote, that are most concerning.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[zentrum]

13. Yes. But she should have been able

....to trounce him.

The Blue Wall States should have voted in large numbers for her. The enthusiasm we needed for strong turn out was simply not there.

[brooklynite]

20. Apparently the enthusiasm wasn't there for Sanders' "bold ideas" in the Primary"

Why do you assume it’s there now?

[NYMinute]

63. ++++++

[ehrnst]

42. "SHE' should have been able to..."

However, you seem to ignore the fact that she actually got more votes than any candidate not named Obama.


She did that remarkable feat despite obstacles not seen by any other Democratic candidate:

*The statistical improbability of a party holding the WH for more than two consecutive terms (doubtless why few Dem men threw their hat in...
*Misogyny on the right and the left
*Russian interference with full support from Wikileaks
*Comey's bogus letter days before the election
*25 years of false smears from the GOP that the far left happily recycled
*Nationalism stoked by eight years of a black guy in the White House

But "She" was expected to not only defy all those, but 'trounce' him.

[dansolo]

65. Being attacked by progressives didn't help

The problem wasn't merely a lack of enthusiasm. There were people on the left who knowingly assisted the Republicans by repeating their propoganda against Hillary Clinton. The left actively worked against her, even knowing that Trump was the other option. I'm sorry, but anyone who didn't recognize the threat that Trump posed cannot call themselves progressive.

[napi21]

77. Voters staying home I blame the media! All we heard was Hillary will win, over & over again.

I think lots of voters didn't bother to go vote BECAUSE they'd been told she would win anyway.

[scheming daemons]

6. The flaw in your argument is simple. Winning the election is more important than ANY policy position

[Zeus69]

7. This election will be decided by moderates...

So, yes, we can go too far left.

[TheRealNorth]

8. I agree

Democrats parroting the "too far left" are only pushing Republican talking points where in the end any Democrat is "too far left".

You never see Republicans beating each other up over being "too far right".

[treestar]

58. Do we look anywhere we might see that?

Yes, right-wingers do that. The only thing they do differently is they still vote for the "liberals" their party runs.

[The Valley Below]

9. We should be unreasonable and immoderate?

We should mirror the insane radicalism of the right-wing?

No man.

That's the last thing we should do.

America needs a sane liberal alternative where reason is a paramount virtue.

Falsely claiming that the "Republicans have driven us so far to the right that we're stuck in the ditch on the side of the road" is a slander on our party.

You should retract this ugly smear.

[zentrum]

10. Yes. We've been moved too far to the right.

[The Mouth]

24. I wonder how far left, or right

JFK or Ike would be considered by today's Republicans or Democrats.

On one hand, Ike was far more pro union and social security, on the other, JFK was pretty hardcore regarding the cold war and I really wonder how his attitude towards many social issues would be.

[wcast]

12. I agree.

If we can only beat Trump with a moderate, what's the point of the Democratic Party because every policy position is labeled far left, no matter the popularity.

I guess it also depends on what people mean by moderate. I had a post a while ago about Trump being far right and there were people on this board who argued that he wasn't.

[squirecam]

92. Get 60 votes

For M4A and you can have any dem president sign it.

If you want ultra left ideas actually enacted, it’s not the presidency that’s in your way. It’s the senate.

[appalachiablue]

14. Like this perhaps,

- Why 2020 Won’t Be Won By Centrists, by Robert Reich, Oct. 8, 2019.

I keep hearing that the Democratic primary is coming down to someone who’s “electable” versus someone who has “ideas.”

This is pure nonsense. Beating Donald Trump requires getting out the vote. And in order to get people to turn out and vote, a presidential candidate has to be inspiring. Which means big ideas, a vision of an America that could become a reality if we all got behind it, a sense of where we need to be heading.

Don’t be fooled. This primary is not a contest between someone who’s electable and someone who has big ideas. Big ideas are essential in order to be electable.

Something else I’m hearing is that the contest is between someone who’s a moderate and a candidate who’s on the left. Well, that’s rubbish. All the babble about moderate or left assumes we’re back in the old politics where the central question was the size of government.

But today the real contest is between the people and the powerful – the vast majority of Americans versus an oligarchy that’s amassed most of the nation’s wealth and power...https://robertreich.org/post/188216802405

[emmaverybo]

15. Our most moderate candidate is way to the left of today's right on every issue, every policy. As

to Clinton, she’d have won without election interference and did win the popular vote.

[Ron Green]

16. I believe the whole "left-right" construct is counterproductive.

Red and blue, liberal and conservative, all have become a stupid shorthand for politics in this country.
Terms and phrases we rarely, if ever, hear:
Building community wealth.
A moral economy.
The beloved community.
Productive places.

Rather, we consume a sports-analogy narrative from a lazy media who never go beyond the right-left, my team-your team talking points. It’s laziness on the part of all of us.

[Hortensis]

17. Calc, all studies show Dems returned to as liberal as we've ever been,

after the failed 1990s experiment in moving toward the center (but still liberal) to remain relevant to a nation that had become more conservative. We ARE just as strongly liberal as we were most of the last century and more so than most eras. This is proven.

Whoever's been feeding you this "far to the right" crap is trying to turn you against your own interests. It's a classical hostile propaganda lie being directed straight to you from both the far left and the Repub/Russia right.

This warped view can be sold because there are always some prone to extremism who have to believe they're "the people," not self-exiled fringe minorities in reality. Thus, propagandists hoping to splinter off wellmeaning people sell radical factions to others as they imagine themselves: far more principled than others, much more numerous than they are, and the true voice of "the people." Instead of what they are. Most people eventually sort it out over a few elections, decide what they believe, and stay or move on.

But these aren't normal times. Our intelligence services say Russia is plotting to take down our democracy by allying LW and RW dissidents, extremists and populists, with the rest of the conservatives to defeat the Democratic Party -- permanently. That's the usual way democracies are destroyed: By putting together majorities that will vote them out of existence. That's what Putin's plotting to make happen here and he must have the help of everyone he can splinter off from the left.

That means people who've been influenced into believing the Democratic Party is the enemy, not the protector, of their freedoms and wellbeing don't have the luxury of not smartening up fast. Because what Republicans are doing now, which you obviously really don't like, is nothing to what their new ruling hierarchy will do if we don't take control.

[The Valley Below]

29. Failed experiment of the 90s?

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2019, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

You mean when Bill Clinton won back the White House for 8 years and broke the back of Reaganism?

Hardly a failure. Bill Clinton was (and is) a liberal Democrat in the fine tradition of our party.

[Hortensis]

38. :) I'm not talking about our victories (and Clinton et al did

frequently mop the floor with them), but of what didn't work that we now regret. None of us are proud of our part of the federal three strikes law or excessive deregulation, for instance, or not blocking Clarence Thomas.

But I was there and at least know why. I remember voters, including millions of Democrats, who wanted "change" after 50 years of "excessive" liberalism, but in that era turned to conservatism, electing more Republicans election after election to have 'change." I remember magazine covers declaring liberalism obsolete and the Democratic Party dying. I remember that I accepted as necessary to retain any power at all that we fall back, but then we failed to hold and crossed lines I felt we should not have. And it's those especially 25 years later that are being claimed as our identity by dishonest manipulators.

Btw, we now know reaganism wasn't broken, it just took some knocks while, under its faux traditional conservative disguise, it continued to develop into the corrupt faux-libertarian/fascistic extremism that has since infected most of the right.

[The Valley Below]

47. I don't agree with the characterization of the era.

Nor that we had 50 years of excessive liberalism prior to the 90s. Nor that a reaction against "excessive liberalism' is what motivated people to vote for Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton was very much in the mainstream of liberal tradition of Democratic Party. He still is.

[LanternWaste]

19. They may have driven you to the right...

but not me, or my demographic.

How about narrowing that mighty broad-brush unless/until you have objective data to support it, chief.

[beastie boy]

21. I am sick of hearing it too. But like it or not, I must listen, or else

we will keep moving to the right.

The first and only order of business is to get most Americans on your side. Only then can you move to the left, and only slowly. This is a fact of life that can only be ignored to one's peril and disappointment.

[Alhena]

22. The left in Britain was sick of hearing it as well. They didn't have much fun on election night.

[Cha]

26. too bad.. I want to WIN. Moderates WON in 2018 and

THAT's WHY WE IMPEACHED TTMF YESTERDAY.

[Aquaria]

28. Then demonstrate from the historical record

Where going more than moderate left has won the White House.

No, FDR and Carter do not count. They never ran more than moderate left. Ever.

I'll wait for the record of victories for leftist candidates.

[Gothmog]

30. If we go too far left, trump will win 45+ states

The only thing that matters is defeating trump and if we go too far left, then trump will win. I reject the concept that trump is so weak that we can nominate any candidate and still beat trump. According to Larry Sabato, the 2020 race is a toss up https://politicalwire.com/2019/12/19/presidential-race-remains-a-toss-up/

“Our initial ratings had 248 electoral votes at least leaning to the Republican nominee (Trump, almost certainly), 244 electoral votes at least leaning to the Democratic nominee, and 46 Toss-ups. Since then, we’ve made only one significant change, pushing Hillary Clinton’s most narrow 2016 victory, New Hampshire, from Toss-up to Leans Democratic, leaving a 248-248 split with just 42 electoral votes’ worth of Toss Ups (Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nebraska’s Second Congressional District).”

“The 2020 race still looks like a 50-50 proposition to us.”

The consensus Electoral Vote Map is a bit more fluid with Democrats at 238 electoral votes, Republicans at 198 and Toss Ups at 108.

[empedocles]

53. Seems so obvious, doesn't it?

[guillaumeb]

33. And I am tired of hgearing that what works in many other countries magically cannot

work here. Things like single payer, which works better, and is cheaper than the US system.

But we regularly hear that it cannot work here, And what we are hearing is industry propaganda in action.

[empedocles]

52. Single payer makes great sense. Single payer in 2020 makes no sense.

[guillaumeb]

57. Which begs the question.

Given industry propagandizing against it, when would it make sense?
2030?

[empedocles]

60. When the Dems put up strong candidate, with long coattails, so it could be

something done in a year or two, - instead of just aspired to.

[Recursion]

61. Very few countries have single payer

Nearly every developed country has a mixed public-private system, something like what Klobuchar or Buttigieg are proposing.

I don't know who convinced activists that one and only one model of financing, used by a small fraction of countries with universal healthcare, was the only acceptable answer, but it's incredibly unhelpful.

[guillaumeb]

67. Those that are mixed generally prohibit for profit insurers.

And they regulate prescription costs, as well as costs for medical procedures.

[Recursion]

70. That's also not true, and I have no idea where that claim comes from

France, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy... all of them have for-profit insurers. The US also has not-for-profit insurers, which aren't particularly cheaper or better than for-profit ones. The profit motive just isn't the villain here.

[guillaumeb]

72. All of those countries require that insurance cover far more than in the US.

And they require that these comprehensive health plans be provided by non-profit companies. For profit companies are general restricted to supplemental coverage.

[emmaverybo]

76. Doesn't the ACA require that insurance be comprehensive? Sure, premiums are too high. But

we could being those down.

[Recursion]

78. No on both counts

Actually most of those countries have insurance plans that are less comprehensive than what the ACA requires.

You may be thinking of a requirement many of those countries have that the comprehensive plans be actuarially neutral, but the ACA requires that also.

The problem is that American health care is too expensive. That's not caused by insurers.

[CTyankee]

91. It's how you present it. If people think they will lose something with MFA they won't support it.

I think it can work here but cannot be a net minus to people in their coverage. That doesn't work anywhere no matter how you phrase it. But we can get some things changed for the better and like Warren said "work on the coverage issue" later.

[guillaumeb]

93. Agreed. And this presentation that attempts to frame MFA as a loss

is part of the industry effort.

[CTyankee]

94. Of course it is! But is it true? That is the question.

[guillaumeb]

95. Given that Canada spends 1/2 what the US does for health care,

with better results, I feel the answer is clear.

[CTyankee]

96. My guess is that the people who defend US health care believe the socialism lie.

That is: single payer equals socialism and socialism is bad. They simply don't believe Canadians get better health care and a lower cost. They seize on the drug costs in Canada (which might change).

[guillaumeb]

98. Agreed.

And many might not know that public utilities in Canada are publicly owned as well.

[treestar]

99. They have parliamentary

Systems which are more likely to lead to the will of the majority being enacted. We have the electoral college, the Senate and the filibuster. I think that’s why we don’t have those things. We need supermajorities for any major change.

[guillaumeb]

104. The CRA was passed over GOP opposition.

As was the NLRA, and Social Security.


And the ACA was passed without a super majority, but it was not a major change, even if the GOP pretends that it was.

[treestar]

107. The reason the ACA wasn't all that many people wanted

was the filibuster.

And it did require a supermajority. The public option did not pass due to lack of a supermajority.

Still, all the things I mentioned hamper progress. The parliamentary system can have these things with a majority only.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html

The SSA had supermajority numbers and even Republicans who voted for it. The dire nature of the times helped that.

It was 1935 for the NLRA too.

Both houses had D supermajorities.

[guillaumeb]

108. I would argue that the ACA was the product

of a perceived need for GOP support, and the result as well of insurance company influence on both major Parties. Money does talk loudly.

[betsuni]

39. Wrong: The Republicans have driven us so far to the right"

The 2016 Democratic Party platform was the most progressive in history. No Democrat voted for Trump's tax cuts. That whole "Ehhhh, both sides" thing is ridiculous.

[Skidmore]

40. Sick of hearing

of ever revised purity standards myself. And we aren't so far to the right. We are a liberal party with an excellent platform which reflects that.

Decades of the Republicans trotting out that trope that America is a center right didn't make it so. It was a way to divide people and get Democrats to be afraid to acknowledge themselves as liberals. Worked for some. I am a liberal. Have always been one. Never have and never will not be one.

Perhaps less focus on labels and more time learning how to arrive at common cause over small things nay teach the nation to work together on the larger issues.

[still_one]

49. +++

[Gothmog]

56. I agree with you

[George II]

59. We need to be where we need to be to win, and "left" just isn't it.

[brer cat]

66. +++ nt

[CTyankee]

44. If I hear that Dems are getting out "over our skis" I'm going to scream...

[myohmy2]

45. I couldn't...

...agree with you more...

...playing by yesterday's rules will yield 2016 results...

...we can't go too far Left when we're this far Right...the Left doesn't have wrong unsellable ideas, we have too many half-hearted politicians that want to fight with one arm tied behind their backs...too many half-hearted politicians that couldn't sell gold at dollar a pound...

...look for Bernie tonight to start pulling away and upping the ante...look for Bernie to go after trump and weak half-hearted Dems...look for Bernie to set the course for us and our nation...look for Bernie to shine

...now's the time to get serious...

...we can do it...

[ehrnst]

46. Who is the "us" you say "has been driven so far to the right?"

[Dem4Life1102]

48. 3 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump

So the country did reasonable and moderate.

[Cetacea]

51. "Change we can believe in"

Every democratic candidate who has won, starting with JFK, ran on promises of dynamic, bold change. But they were also considered very young.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

54. Yep. No one seems to be telling the Republicans they can't go too far right.

They keep on going more and more to the right so that now, middle-of-the-road seems to be too far left.

[Recursion]

64. I mean, other than the voters

Trump had negative coattails in Congress even when he was elected, and had one of the larger midterm losses in history. And the GOP wound up too scared of voter reaction to actually do the one thing they had all campaigned on and repeal the ACA.

Remember, Trump ran on preserving Social Security and Medicare and ending illegal immigration. That was Mondale's platform.

[treestar]

100. Our system favors them

Because it favors the status quo and makes change hard. Look at the number of things requiring more than a majority to make a change. Impeachment, amendments to the constitution, the filibuster all create a need for supermajorities to make a change.

[OldRed2450]

55. It's not that we can't go far left...

It's that the majority of the nation doesn't want to. Sometimes we live in our own bubble, our peers and the people around us think like we do. It makes us believe that there are a lot of people with our same ideas, in reality there is not.

I hear this argument about Hillary losing to Trump so we need to go more left..For one thing, Hillary was fighting a lot of opposition. It was a really contentious primary that never really recovered, Russian meddling, voter suppression. Also, Bernie lost to Hillary so the argument that he would have one fails on that fact alone. How could Bernie have beaten Trump if he didn't even beat Hillary? You know.. People do vote for candidates who inspire and excite but some people want honesty.

[booley]

68. A republican from the 1950s would be "too far left"

This is why I am probably not the "Centers" biggest fan.

Going to the center has historically only helped the right become ever more extreme. The center shifts to accept that extreme as the center. Rinse , repeat...

[Recursion]

79. No, the GOP opposed Truman's healthcare reform attempt

They've been against the idea since it's been around.

[nini]

71. The drift to the right didn't happen over night

It’s started under reagan and took years.

Whether you like it or not the turn back won’t happen in one election. That middle of the road voter must be part of the plan as frustrating as it is.

AND Hillary won or have you forgotten that clusterfuck?

[Karma13612]

73. Two words

Overton window

[Jake Stern]

81. Believe me I'm sick of it too

That being said the right has advantages that we really don't:

1. A lap dog media. Despite the brutal attacks Trump and Company have launched against the media they still seem to find a way to push the right wing narrative. Count the number of time you hear some variation on "This is bad for Democrats" in the news.

2. The support of a vast network of ultra wealthy donors. Sure we have a few billionaires in our corner but the overwhelming majority of wealthy support the GOP.

3. The support of a powerful foreign entity. We don't have an equivalent to Russia backing our party and if one did offer we'd probably turn it down.

4. A gaggle of well funded "think tanks" (some even claim to be "nonpartisan" *wink*) that put out reams of policy statements. Many of which are obligingly quoted by the press.

5. A well funded, well organized social media juggernaut. They dominate Facebook and Twitter. They dominate comment sections far and wide. Take a gander at the comments section of many news sites, especially USA Today and Yahoo. You'd think you were in Freeperland.

6. A radio machine second to none. Three decades of Rush, Hannity, Michael Savage and so on has propagandized much of the nation.

When fighting against those things going hard left is a recipe for electoral disaster.

[emmaverybo]

82. You can go as far left as you want. But you could well lose the election for all of us. Still, all

progressives, wherever on the spectrum, have a vote. You can ignore advice. In the end, Dem votes will decide.

I personally like Biden’s plans and policies the best and feel he is by far the most qualified candidate. In my case, I am not persuaded by the left vs. moderates arguments about
the GE, but by the fact that I believe Biden has the most wide appeal, the larger support among AA voters, and the best chance to unify and heal the nation.

[crazytown]

85. The question I would ask you is this

when was the last time a Democratic Nominee lost because he or she was too far left? The example always given is McGovern. Before that? You have to go back to Al Smith. A reasonable case can be made that Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were offering little more than the status quo with tweaks. Gore in particular, paid the price for a morality drive that alienated younger voters.

[brooklynite]

86. And you're willing to take the risk?

We won with Center-Left candidates in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

[emmaverybo]

87. Personally, I think the election was stolen from both Kerry and Gore. Biden is no Mondale

or Dukakis.

I believe more consensus will mount for progressive legislation in time. But right now, even with a Democratic senate and house, I doubt most of our progressive candidates would get their policies enacted. So where they are on the political spectrum becomes a moot point.

And until we have fully funded our existing social programs and entitlements, removes them from risk of cuts, made strides to lower the deficit, I am against much of the new investments progressives suggest, which will result in much higher taxes, and in some cases provide free rides for people perfectly able to pay.

If a progressive candidate, however, had equal qualifications and experience to our more moderate frontrunner, I might lean towards one of them in the primary.

Finally, I do think AA support should not be taken as some given, treated as a political football, dismissed. Maybe progressives will earn greater AA support during the run-up to nomination. So far though, going by the polls, the more moderate lead is favored.

[Gothmog]

89. Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020

I have seen similar studies. It is not a given that trump is beatable in 2020. If the economy is in good shape, then there are models and studies that show that trump can win. Obama left trump with a great economy and trump may not screw up the Obama economy before 2020 and get re-elected.

Link to tweet

I am not counting on the Obama economy faltering and so I am worried. We have to defeat trump

Trump could prove these models wrong by being the biggest asshole in history. Again, historically presidents tend to be re-elected if the economy is in good shape at the time of the re-election and even trump may not e able to screw up the Obama recovery

We need to work even harder to defeat trump

[Gothmog]

97. Tony Evers says a pragmatic Democrat can carry Wisconsin in 2020

Link to tweet

[evertonfc]

101. Clinton

was very qualified but not a good candidate. She had 20 years of built on negatives.

[totodeinhere]

102. Of course we could go too far left. But I don't think that any of our candidates

are too far left and any of them should beat Trump in a fair election.

[LonePirate]

103. Anyone who says we can't go too far left has few, if any, solutions to today's problems.

If centrist solutions existed, we would have tried them already.

[Gothmog]

110. A far left nominee will kill down ballot races

I admit that I am biased in that I and a good number of real Democrats have been working hard to turn Texas blue. After the 2010 election, the GOP had 101 seats in the Texas House and the Democrats had 49. During the 2018 elections we flipped two congressional seats (Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred) and 12 state house seats. We are 9 seats away from taking control of the Texas House. The DCCC has targeted six congressional seats in Texas and we are hopeful that MJ Hegar can defeat Cornyn

I am working on two state house races and one congressional seat. I have contributed to four congressional candidates and three state house candidates. I will be training poll watchers for a state house special election that occurs at the end of January in a week or so and will be the voter protection head for that campaign. I want these candidates to win

If Texas is a battleground state, then the GOP will have to devote significant resources to Texas. No GOP candidate can win the electoral college if Texas is blue

If Warren or sanders is the nominee, Texas will not be a battleground state. MFA is unpopular and taking away private insurance coverage would kill down ballot candidates in Texas.