General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul. [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I did not intend to sound patronizing, nor act like I was a professional speaking to a novice. My intent was to go through the various issues and the attraction to many groups who were not dedicated Democrats. I've never said that the dedicated Democrats would vote Paul, I said that the wafflers, the moderates that make up about thirty to forty percent of the voting population would be tempted. I apologize if my choice of words created the unintended image that you saw. I hope you believe this apology is sincere, because it is.
Each election we have to win those votes. You know that. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx
Thirty four percent of the people identify themselves as Moderates. We have to win those votes. The way to do so is to take the populist side on several issues, this is not dangerous at all towards the base, which is people like you and me, who are going to vote Democratic anyway.
This is especially good when the populist side is also the moral side. What I tried to do and apparently failed, was highlight the differences in the two candidates. Twenty years ago, Liberals would have led the Democratic Party on these very issues. The ACLU has long been arguing for the amendments being trampled now. So you would think that in the upcoming election Democrats who have a long history on these issues would be leading. Instead, they are at best following for the vast majority of elected officials.
I've quoted the numbers above. From true majorities, to the highest percentage of those sampled. The issues I highlighted are populist issues. The people want the changes that are being proposed by Rand Paul.
I have posted quite a few long replies and idealistic OP's. In just about every one my point of view is this. I want a return to the Democratic Party of old, the one guided by principle and not by party purity. Arguing that we can't do anything until we have solid filibuster proof majorities is asinine given the current political climate. We can pick an issue, say legalization of marijuana, and run with it. A better one would be the economy, proposing programs or incentives to help economically disadvantaged areas. But we don't do that. We toss a sop in the form of a Minimum wage hike and don't really fight for it all that hard. We got our asses kicked.
Many here are accusing me of being a paulbot, or of being a troll trying to get Paul elected. My desire is to drag the party back to the principled governing of the people. Where principles guided our actions. When we fought to do the right things, because they were right. Much earlier this year, I started warning that the Senate was in Jeopardy. Many of those who suspect me of being a troll for Rand Paul were accusing me of spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the Senate. If we hold the Senate this year, it will be by the thinnest of margins. We'll be lottery winner lucky to hold 51 seats. We'll be pretty lucky to hold 50 seats and have Joe Biden as the tie breaker. It is far more likely that we'll lose the Senate at this point. The NY Times gives it a good chance. RCP has it at 52 seats for the Rethugs.
I complained bitterly that our campaign strategy was to pray that the Rethugs screwed up. We should have been out there on these issues, we should have been out there campaigning on them already. That was the moral choice, and the right one. Then people would see the clear difference that the Democratic Party could offer. Instead, we're left being Rethug lite. Now, worst of all, we're ceeding the issues to the Rethugs in the personage of Rand Paul. We are surrendering the issues of Civil Rights to Rand Paul. Do you have any idea how much that frustrates me? Issues we've led on for generations, we're too cowardly to pick up and run with now because we might be perceived as weak on crime, weak on defense, or weak on drugs.
I'm sorry if you interpreted my writings to be patronizing or insulting. I can honestly tell you that these posts stem from the deep dissatisfaction with the direction of the Party. I can say that my intent is to wake up a number of the people here to the dangers we face. Because we face a number of dangers. The first is the election this november where we stand a far too slim chance of holding the Senate. The second is how we approach the 2016 Presidential. I hoped that by starting the discussion, we could get it spreading, and out there, where it will do some good guiding the party to embrace the populist and moral positions, and take back what we led on. In short, I want to win elections and most importantly govern wisely according to those principles.
But to put it bluntly. I don't think that the Republicans expect much of the Black Vote. They'll take any they get, but they aren't worried about it yet. They would love a win on populist issues, and we're liable to give it to them. African-Americans make up 13% of the voting public. Six percent of those voted for Romney. In order to win, a majority of Blacks would have had to vote for Romney by a much wider margin that is probable.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Read the stats my friend. A majority of College Grads voted Rethug. A majority of Moderates voted Democratic. If we lose those moderates, we lose the election. It's that simple. It's really no more complex than that, and it never has been.