Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-11-2018, 04:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,442
Are Democrats a big tent party? Should they be?

I read this article from Politico ("Heartland Democrats to Washington: You’re Killing Us") about rural Democrats. In part, it said:

Quote:
In a nutshell, this is the advice of Bustos’ report: Widen the definition of Democrat.

“This is the face of what the party is going to have to accept if you want to be in the majority,” Johnson told me.

“If we call ourselves a big tent party,” Bustos said, “then we should act like it.”
Do you think this is good advice?
  #2  
Old 01-11-2018, 04:51 PM
PastTense PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,123
Both the Democrats and Republicans are big tent parties; you have to be in order to get a majority of the vote. For example the big money Republicans aren't really interested in the Evangelical aspects of the Republican party--the prolife, anti-gay policies...

But if you go too far you start losing people. For example Hilary's $250,000 speeches to banksters left many concluding the Democrats as well as the Republicans are both tools of the rich and powerful--so why bother to vote?
  #3  
Old 01-11-2018, 04:57 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,415
Name a single thing that is a red line, no way in hell, absolutely NOT going to happen obstacle to being a Democratic representative. Shit, you can't even get away with guns or abortion. Except, maybe, being a racist asshole like Mr. Burns from your cite.

I'd argue that if Goodin ran for the first time in 2016, despite his views, he would most likely lose handily. You have an economically-disadvantaged and addiction-ravaged district that, like most of rural America, probably watches a lot of Fox "News", where Democrats are constantly blamed for everything from dead babies to water being wet. They'll vote for the guy with an (R) behind his name, apparently missing that one party just gave out a glorified handy to the corporations that left them behind. That they still focus on the "deplorables" comment says all that needs said on the issue.

That said, what's your position?
  #4  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:03 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I read this article from Politico ("Heartland Democrats to Washington: You’re Killing Us") about rural Democrats. In part, it said:



Do you think this is good advice?
The tent is already fairly wide. I will agree that the democrats have not done as good a job at the local level as they should be doing, and I would hope that that would change, but I don't know what needs to happen ideologically to widen the tent.

I look at this person, a liberal form Indiana, and I see no reason why they should not be a part of the party. It is not like I would look at her with suspicion because she was from a red state or anything like that.

So, yeah, as to the complaint that the national party has neglected some of the small rural areas is true enough, and should be fixed, but I am not seeing what your "suggestion" here is.
  #5  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:55 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I look at this person, a liberal form Indiana, and I see no reason why they should not be a part of the party.
How would you feel if Terry Goodin with his rural Indiana anti-abortion and pro-gun values were your party's 2020 nominee?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It is not like I would look at her with suspicion because she was from a red state or anything like that.
NICE dig! See folks, this is how it's done! If you want to get jabs in outside of the Pit, you've got to be subtle. None of that low-class overt stuff. It requires a certain finesse. Take notes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, yeah, as to the complaint that the national party has neglected some of the small rural areas is true enough, and should be fixed, but I am not seeing what your "suggestion" here is.
It wasn't my suggestion, it was from Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL).
  #6  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
... That said, what's your position?
I think Dems would probably win more races if they were willing to accept some watering down of the liberal purity. I hope they don't.
  #7  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:25 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How would you feel if Terry Goodin with his rural Indiana anti-abortion and pro-gun values were your party's 2020 nominee?
Won't happen. Next hypothetical?


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
NICE dig! See folks, this is how it's done! If you want to get jabs in outside of the Pit, you've got to be subtle. None of that low-class overt stuff. It requires a certain finesse. Take notes!
Newsflash: it wasn't a dig.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Dems would probably win more races if they were willing to accept some watering down of the liberal purity.
Talk to the Bernie wing.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 01-11-2018 at 06:27 PM.
  #8  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:31 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Won't happen. Next hypothetical?
That's not an answer, that's avoidance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Newsflash: it wasn't a dig.
Sure it was. It just went over your head.
  #9  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:44 PM
RickG RickG is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Boulder CO USA
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Dems would probably win more races if they were willing to accept some watering down of the liberal purity. I hope they don't.
What do you see as the purity tests the Democrats are applying?

I think the pro-choice position on reproductive rights is about the only thing. I think forcing a woman, by law, to carry an unwanted child to term is as morally repugnant as anti-choice people consider ending the pregnancy. There are, I think, plenty of Democrats who would never choose abortion for themselves for religious reasons, and I think that is absolutely fine. That's the point of being pro-choice. It's already an inclusive position.

And there are pro-gun Dems (Sanders (D-sort of), Manchin, etc), though I don't think many are against *every* form of gun regulation. Come to that, I don't think many Republicans object to restrictions on civilian carry of military weapons ("arms" isn't just guns, is it?), so we're really talking about where the line is drawn on that issue.

Any other "liberal purity tests" the Democrats apply?
__________________
Rick
  #10  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:51 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,228
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
NICE dig! See folks, this is how it's done! If you want to get jabs in outside of the Pit, you've got to be subtle. None of that low-class overt stuff. It requires a certain finesse. Take notes!
There are no martyrs here. If you have an issue report the post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure it was. It just went over your head.
Dial it back. Trade pithy comments in the Pit.

[/moderating]
  #11  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:53 PM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: the western edge.
Posts: 2,489
I don't know of any white supremacists in the Democratic party. So there's a purity test for ya.
  #12  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:00 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 4,848
There's fragility in both parties, but the Republican position is more desperate, considering how they're now putting more and more of their chips on the table with a huge bet on policies that the majority of this country has no taste for. Democrats differ largely on the degree to which they should compromise with the few sane conservatives remaining.
  #13  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:44 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure it was. It just went over your head.
Grasshopper, I'm a master at the art. It's just your paranoia talking.
  #14  
Old 01-11-2018, 08:53 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,228
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Grasshopper, I'm a master at the art. It's just your paranoia talking.
Did you not notice the previous note to knock this shit off? This is rhetorical, don't answer. In case that's not clear, take the pithy back and forth to the Pit.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 01-11-2018 at 08:53 PM.
  #15  
Old 01-11-2018, 09:27 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
Yeah, the problem with this hell world is that Democrats aren't right-wing enough. They're a corporate party paid to lose, so they're mostly useless, but one of the few ways of differentiating themselves from Republicans is social issues, so if they gave those up what would they even talk about? I guess they could brag about which schools they went to and how qualified they are, which worked great for Hillary.

The plains states used to be hotbeds of progressivism, and it could happen again with proper organizing -- it's not like Republicans are attending to their grievances. The Dems won't have a populist economic message unless they're taken over from below. Watching them try to lose on purpose in the era of Trump would be hilarious, if it didn't result in so much suffering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I don't know of any white supremacists in the Democratic party. So there's a purity test for ya.
They support the war on drugs, gentrification, the security state, bombing foreigners, and they love financial institutions that nickel and dime the poor to death -- all actions which disproportionately hurt non-whites. Definitely not a party of racists, though.
  #16  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:20 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Dems would probably win more races if they were willing to accept some watering down of the liberal purity. I hope they don't.
And I'd respond that Democrats would win more races if Fox News was forced to rebrand as a comedy channel and someone gave Rush enough Oxy that he never needed to blast his blather across the airwaves. But sure, there's something wrong with the party that doesn't try to elect sexual assaulters and concentration camp wardens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post
Yeah, the problem with this hell world is that Democrats aren't right-wing enough. They're a corporate party paid to lose, so they're mostly useless, but one of the few ways of differentiating themselves from Republicans is social issues, so if they gave those up what would they even talk about? I guess they could brag about which schools they went to and how qualified they are, which worked great for Hillary.

The plains states used to be hotbeds of progressivism, and it could happen again with proper organizing -- it's not like Republicans are attending to their grievances. The Dems won't have a populist economic message unless they're taken over from below. Watching them try to lose on purpose in the era of Trump would be hilarious, if it didn't result in so much suffering.



They support the war on drugs, gentrification, the security state, bombing foreigners, and they love financial institutions that nickel and dime the poor to death -- all actions which disproportionately hurt non-whites. Definitely not a party of racists, though.
Well, in response...what?
  #17  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:21 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 12,737
Actually, the Democratic Party has pretty much ALWAYS been "big tent", because for most of its existence, it has been the "anti-those-guys" party. Early on, it was the anti-Federalists Party. Then anti-Whig. Then Anti-Republican, which it has stayed for a good long while. That's why the party continued to be accepting of racist "whites" from the South, even after the party had decided to try and push for "black" civil rights; as long as they were opposed to the Republican Party, they were welcome in the tent still.

The real question is, do the Republicans want to be a party with a bigger tent again? The current President works both for and against that idea...
  #18  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:50 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,623
I'll take half a democrat over a full blooded republican anyday. I never got why some democrats were so mad at the blue dogs. They aren't perfect, but geography tends to determine which areas are liberal vs conservative. In conservative geographic areas your choices are extremely conservative republicans or kindof conservative democrats. Blue dog democrats are better than freedom caucus republicans.

Having said that, about half the democratic coalition is liberals now. Liberals are among the most educated, motivated, involved people there are in America. They have the highest education rates, high voter turnout rates, they are more likely to donate money, volunteer, call politicians, etc. than other groups. Alienating half the democratic party, who make up the majority of volunteers isn't a good idea.

The base of the democratic party is white liberals and black people. Combined these two groups make up about 33% of voters and about 2/3 of democratic voters.

Since they are the base, what policy ideas can democrats support that will appeal to rural whites, but will not alienate liberals and black voters?

Higher minimum wage
Pro labor unions
Universal health care (maybe)

Can economic issues alone appeal to rural whites? Honestly, part of the issue is that what rural whites want is not the same as what blacks and liberals want. I don't know the answer. Equal rights for out groups and minority groups are a big part of what blacks and liberals want, but rural whites tend to be hostile to these things.

For the record, democrats don't need to 'win' rural whites to win elections. They just have to lose them by smaller margins. Hillary lost whites w/o a college degree by about 39 points. If she had only lost them by 25-30 points, she'd be president.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-11-2018 at 10:52 PM.
  #19  
Old 01-11-2018, 11:15 PM
glowacks glowacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,600
In a two party system, you're either a big tent party or you aren't a major party.
  #20  
Old 01-11-2018, 11:19 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 42,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowacks View Post
In a two party system, you're either a big tent party or you aren't a major party.
Pretty much. I have no idea what kind of Democrats the OP hangs around with but, around here, there are plenty that are both anti-abortion and pro-gun. But, ya know, Chicago is a weird case.
  #21  
Old 01-12-2018, 12:01 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,501
The Democrats are the big tent party and have been for decades now. Anyone is welcome to be an equal member of the Democratic Party.

But equality isn't enough for some people. They insist that they should be recognized as being better than other people. Those people are going to be happier in the Republican Party.

If you believe men are better than women, join the Republican Party.
If you believe white people are better than non-white people, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who were born in America are better than people who are naturalized citizens, join the Republican Party.
If you believe religious people are better than atheists, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people whose ancestors came from Europe are better than people whose ancestors came from somewhere else, join the Republican Party.
If you believe rich people are better than non-rich people, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who live in the country are better than people who live in a city, join the Republican Party.
If you believe Christians are better than people from other religions, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who speak English are better than people who speak another language, join the Republican Party.
If you believe straight people are better than gay people, join the Republican Party.

If you believe all Americans are equal, join the Democratic Party.
  #22  
Old 01-12-2018, 03:13 AM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I never got why some democrats were so mad at the blue dogs.
I thought it was cool when they stopped the public option out of fear of being seen as too liberal and then got blown the hell out in 2010 anyway. Sweet legacy.

Quote:
Since they are the base, what policy ideas can democrats support that will appeal to rural whites, but will not alienate liberals and black voters?

Higher minimum wage
Pro labor unions
Universal health care (maybe)
Those are good, also: massive infrastructure spending which can double as a jobs program (Trump ran on this and outflanked the Dems, embarrassing), end the wars, legalize weed, scale back the drug war, anything to help with insane college costs, break up monopolies, and put the boot on criminal financial institutions. Also find a way to stick it to ISPs, which everyone seems to hate. Note that this requires actual political outreach, not sticking it on a website somewhere with a million qualifiers and means testing public services to hell and back. This will be harder than it has to be since the Dem party has proven themselves to be complicit, but maybe if the leadership is cleaned out the public will take a new message seriously.

I swear whenever the party get too popular they start talking about gun control to tank their ratings on purpose. Maybe don't do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Well, in response...what?
Like I said, organize -- they haven't made that illegal, yet. If people can't spread progressive ideas and class consciousness in the middle of the second gilded age when the Republicans are 19th century capitalist caricatures running around with big sacks adorned with dollar signs then we may as well give up.
  #23  
Old 01-12-2018, 03:28 AM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
In addition to that, the Democrats have this maniacal obsession with courting moderate Republicans. The real prize is the great mass of people out there who don't vote, especially the ones who are disgusted with the system. Energize these people.
  #24  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:08 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,268
It's the GOP that applies unreasonable "purity tests." This was brought home at the GOP debates back in 2016. When asking candidates about healthcare the Moderator (from FoxNews) prefaced his question with words like "Of course you're all Republicans so you're all opposed to Obamacare."
  #25  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:15 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Dems would probably win more races if they were willing to accept some watering down of the liberal purity. I hope they don't.
As others have said, this liberal purity test idea is pure fiction. You should back it up with specific examples of what you think that this implies.

And if you want to talk about Americans who feel their party has left them, why are we talking about the speck in someone’s eye and the plank in one’s own? The Republicans are rife with voters who supported Reagan and the Bushes who walk around in a daze, looking at Trump and wondering, “What the fuck has happened to us?”
  #26  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:17 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,268
According to old Pew Research data, about 20%(*) of voters with liberal values voted for Romney, while only about 5% of conservatives voted for Obama. Viewed this way, perhaps Democrats need to "broaden their tent" to include more "liberals."

(* - These are approximate figures from memory.)
  #27  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:18 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,803
The democrats might act like a big tent party but at the top, the DNC decides.
  #28  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:31 AM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: the western edge.
Posts: 2,489
It should probably be mentioned that registered Independents make up almost 40% of the electorate. Of these, about half lean liberal. Maybe thinking about why those people aren't Democrats would be advisable.
  #29  
Old 01-12-2018, 09:34 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
The democrats might act like a big tent party but at the top, the DNC decides.
Decides who is a Democrat and who isn’t? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Back to the article, I did a quick read but I did not see any description of why the people interviewer consider themselves Democrats. Like the racist truck driver guy: what makes him identify as a Dem? Is he pro-union? Is he a Keynesian? Does we want a more modest military? Is it a family tradition? Or, in an extreme case, might he be one of those holdovers of “I will not be in the party of Lincoln, who invaded the South etc etc.”
  #30  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:11 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As others have said, this liberal purity test idea is pure fiction. You should back it up with specific examples of what you think that this implies.

And if you want to talk about Americans who feel their party has left them, why are we talking about the speck in someone’s eye and the plank in one’s own? The Republicans are rife with voters who supported Reagan and the Bushes who walk around in a daze, looking at Trump and wondering, “What the fuck has happened to us?”
Including Bush 41 himself who voted for Hillary in 2016.
  #31  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:13 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickG View Post
What do you see as the purity tests the Democrats are applying?

I think the pro-choice position on reproductive rights is about the only thing.
Gay marriage is one.
  #32  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:30 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How would you feel if Terry Goodin with his rural Indiana anti-abortion and pro-gun values were your party's 2020 nominee?
I know little of indiana politics. I can check out votesmart, and get some basics, but I don't really know the guy. I'd have to have more of an idea of his legislative record, what bills he has written, sponsored, or voted for in order to get a good gauge on where he stands politically as regards to those positions. For instance, Joe Biden is against abortion personally, but supports a woman's right to choose politically.

We aren't talking about the presidential nomination here, we are talking abut people in the party. There are plenty of people in the democratic party that have views that I consider to be too far to the left to be a viable candidate as well.

So, yeah, I don't think that he would be a viable presidential nominee for the democratic party, but, should he win the nomination, I would probably vote for him over most republicans, but I'd have to see who that was. There is a good chance I would vote for Kasich over him. If he ran for lower office over here in Ohio (well he wouldn't win as a democrat, anyway), I wouldn't have much of a problem with him. Most of our democrats from Ohio are pretty moderate, many supporting positions that are not stereotypically left wing ideologies.
Quote:

NICE dig! See folks, this is how it's done!
I apologize if you though I was going for a dig, and while I did reference any earlier comment that you made, the point was that I am articulating the exact things about the candidate that I do and do not like, not just dismissing them because they come from a state that leans in a different direction than I prefer.
Quote:

It wasn't my suggestion, it was from Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL).
As the OP, I figure you have an opinion on what it is that the dems should do. I see it a bit differently, being from a right leaning area of a moderate state. I get that you have your "west coast liberals" that are very set in their ideology, but that is not all democrats. As you yourself have pointed out in this thread, there are democrats in office who hold positions that are pretty far to the right of what one would stereotypically think of.

I don't see how the democratic tent can get any wider, without caving completely on all progressive values.

As to the points about getting out a better ground game, supporting more local offices, I absolutely agree, and I do think that the democrats have not done well at this in the recent past.
  #33  
Old 01-12-2018, 10:35 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 10,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Gay marriage is one.
I think everyone* is on board with gay marriage now. Even Trump didn't campaign against it. The fight now is over florists and cake bakers, but I don't hear anyone complain about gay people having the right to marry.



*I'm sure there are exceptions, but they're rare.
  #34  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:39 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't see how the democratic tent can get any wider, without caving completely on all progressive values.
What are the progressive values you see as essential to keep the party from caving completely?
  #35  
Old 01-12-2018, 11:57 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What are the progressive values you see as essential to keep the party from caving completely?
I don't really understand the question. If someone wants to vote for a Democratic candidate for office, I'm not sure why I should care all that much about their values. (I say this while recognizing that the voter could be a deplorable, but if they want to cast a vote for someone who isn't, then great!)

As far as Democratic candidates for office, well, the Democratic Party as an institution really doesn't have a strong role in policing who is allowed to run for office, do they? Look at Joe Manchin. He's a pretty conservative guy, all things considered. He would fit right in with the "old" Republican Party, with the exception of a handful of issues, like labor. He wins a primary and office in West Virginia, because he seems to also fit right in with West Virginia values, and Dems are going to fight to keep his seat in the upcoming elections.

One more time, so what is this liberal litmus test that you believe Democrats are applying, and how specifically does Joe Manchin pass it but some other unnamed people are not?
  #36  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:23 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post
I thought it was cool when they stopped the public option out of fear of being seen as too liberal and then got blown the hell out in 2010 anyway. Sweet legacy.
What would the republicans from those same districts have voted for? How is that better? How is having a republican who votes liberal 0% of the time be better than a blue dog who votes liberal 80% of the time?



Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmallow View Post
Those are good, also: massive infrastructure spending which can double as a jobs program (Trump ran on this and outflanked the Dems, embarrassing), end the wars, legalize weed, scale back the drug war, anything to help with insane college costs, break up monopolies, and put the boot on criminal financial institutions. Also find a way to stick it to ISPs, which everyone seems to hate. Note that this requires actual political outreach, not sticking it on a website somewhere with a million qualifiers and means testing public services to hell and back. This will be harder than it has to be since the Dem party has proven themselves to be complicit, but maybe if the leadership is cleaned out the public will take a new message seriously.
Hopefully economics alone can appeal to blue collar whites. But the democrats just give lip service to economics while not doing much actionwise.

Because liberals and minorities are the base of the democratic party, giving up the democrats egalitarian social issues isn't really negotiable. However egalitarian social issues tends to alienate rural whites. I'm not sure how to fix that.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #37  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:40 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What are the progressive values you see as essential to keep the party from caving completely?
Guns are a non-issue, I don't really understand why that is partisan in the first place. For example, my mother is ultra conservative, but absolutely hates guns, so much so that she wouldn't even let my father keep his father's WWII rifle in the house. I also know many liberals who are fairly supportive of gun rights. It would be better if we could find a way to work together to decrease the damage that guns do in our society, but that is something both parties need to work together on. Terry Goodin answers b) Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns. on gun control, and did not commit to easing or removing restrictions. He is a supporter of CCW (which I am as well, for well trained and vetted individuals). The only difference I see between myself and him on this issue is that I would have selected g) Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows. And of course, The last prepositional phrase there is unnecessary, and only adds to the confusion. You want to make exceptions for family, I can see them being carved out, you should know if your family member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. If you want to consider a current valid CCW to be used in place of a background check, I can get behind that too. If you (a complete stranger) walk up to me, and say , "Hey, nice gun, can I buy it from you?", I should be required to do some level of due diligence before I transfer it to your possession.

Abortion is a bigger deal, but there isn't much support for elective abortions after 20 weeks on either side of the aisle, the liberal you pointed out isn't really an anti-abortion figure, as he did not say that abortion should always be illegal, or that it should only be in the first trimester. He affirmatively said that they should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I don't think that I would have filled out that section any differently, other than maybe a g) Other or expanded principles, and then describing my position with more nuance than a multiple choice can allow.

Those are what we tend to fight about, but that is only a small part of the platform.

What is really core to the progressive platform is progress. (It's in the name!) Are things getting better? Are people treated more fairly than they were in the past? Are people being treated equally by society and government? Are there those who need assistance that are not getting it? What other improvements can we do?

If you check out the rest of Goodin's "bio", you see that he is also very strong on increasing funding for education, healthcare and infrastructure. He is for decreasing funding on welfare, and so on that we would disagree. He supports limiting the campaign contributions that can go into not only his direct campaign, but also on PACs and from corporations.

He is against SSM, which is probably my only really big sticking point there, but that's still not really a core progressive value.

Anyway, I could go on, point by point through his positions and what we agree and disagree upon, but really, the fundamentals are similar, for the most part. Overall, his most of his positions are those that would benefit those who are the most marginalized in our society, as well as to benefit society as a whole.

My final analysis, I may not vote for him in a primary, but I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for him if he were nominated.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 01-12-2018 at 01:41 PM.
  #38  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:48 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,078
First off, of course, the Dems got to be nicer. No more of the vicious sarcasm and crude ridicule, Americans are genteel and easily offended. But they are ready for us....

Republicans can be like Louis "Goober" Gohmert, warm and generous, good natured and good hearted.

And humor! They could unleash Dennis Miller for a multi-state conservative comedy tour. He would totally fill the Banquet Room at the Holiday Inn out on Highway 9! Then, move into religion, Scientology first, then move on to rigid pickle-up-the-butt Calvinists. "You're poor because God hates you!" is an excellent start for an "outreach" effort!

Shit, got a million of them, great ideas for the Republicans. No need to thank me, least I could do, and the most I'm gonna.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #39  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:52 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 27,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I think everyone* is on board with gay marriage now. Even Trump didn't campaign against it. The fight now is over florists and cake bakers, but I don't hear anyone complain about gay people having the right to marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
He is against SSM, which is probably my only really big sticking point there, but that's still not really a core progressive value.
I'd say a core progressive value is a bare minimum of Civil Unions, which is what people were pushing for in the mid-2000s. It's agnostic on whether this should be full-blooded civil marriage. It's the conservatives who were against both gay marriage and civil unions (the latter for no other reason than homophobic spite), with the progressive mostly (but not entirely) for some form of either Civil Unions or SSM. Now that the courts have made SSM legal I find it hilarious that the conservatives are trying to rewrite history by saying "why couldn't they just have been satisfied with civil unions?"

Last edited by Ludovic; 01-12-2018 at 01:56 PM.
  #40  
Old 01-12-2018, 05:26 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,365
Here's a quote from the OP's article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbasses trying to explain how the Democratic Party has done them wrong

Talking to Burns, and others like him, is “a great learning experience,” Goodin told me. “You agree where you agree, and there’s some things you may not agree on.”

“Do you ever find yourself, as a Democrat, wanting to push back?” I asked.

“You’re looking at a Democrat right there,” Goodin said. “He’s a Democrat who voted for Donald Trump.”

“He’s also,” I said, “a Democrat who didn’t want to train a Muslim in his truck because he was afraid of getting blown up.”

“But you know,” Goodin said, “you let people live their lives, and you don’t question—I mean, what good would it have done?” He went on: “There’s no reason for confrontation—that’s the trouble with Congress now—because Delmis Burns and I, you wash away some of the odd things, what some people may consider odd that he would have said, what he said about the Muslim guy—the reason he said that is there’s no Muslims around our area. So he just don’t trust ’em. He don’t know who they are. … But Delmis Burns and I probably agree on 90 percent of everything we’d ever talk about. So why would I focus on the 10 percent that I don’t agree with him on?”

When he was talking to Johnson for Bustos’ report, Goodin told me, he thought about Burns. And the cost to the larger party of writing him off.

“Tell me how in the world Nancy Pelosi, or some of those folks in Congress,” Goodin said, “how would they even be able to sit there and talk with Delmis Burns? Do they even know that a guy like Delmis Burns exists? That’s why I say that the East Coast elitists have forgotten America. They’ve not been to America, they forgot America, they forgot about certain parts of America. Maybe they’ve done that intentionally. I hope they haven’t.”
Yeah. Fuck those guys. Like we should be super concerned about the poor, sad, Trump voters whining about how they're too dumb to have a conversation with Nancy Pelosi. The actual problem these guys have is that they are bigots and don't want to be called out on their bigotry or made to be nice to Muslims and gay people, plus a bunch of the usual Republican nonsense about guns and "Elites".

As a Liberal, a Progressive and a Democrat - I firmly believe that Democratic success will come from embracing the anger and energy of poor women, particularly women of color, and convincing them to vote and run for office. Chasing dead enders like the losers in this article is just a waste of time.

Turning the Democratic Party into a safe space for bigots is not the path to success for us.

Last edited by Merneith; 01-12-2018 at 05:27 PM.
  #41  
Old 01-12-2018, 05:26 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,175
Politico article about this topic in Alaska.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...cs-2018-216304
  #42  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:37 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Yeah. Fuck those guys....

Turning the Democratic Party into a safe space for bigots is not the path to success for us.
Do you also reject Goodin, the leader of Indiana's Democrats who agrees with 90% of Burns' ideas and doesn't focus on the other 10%?

Many people are bigots, enough to swing an election. I'm less prejudiced than most, but even I have been annoyed at certain ethnic groups.

I happen to believe that America would become a much better place with electoral success by the Democrats. Unfortunately many Dopers are so bigoted against ordinary D-voters like Burns, that they're willing to let the R's continue to win elections. Sad.
  #43  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:48 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I happen to believe that America would become a much better place with electoral success by the Democrats. Unfortunately many Dopers are so bigoted against ordinary D-voters like Burns, that they're willing to let the R's continue to win elections. Sad.
Name some. I, for one, would gladly have voted for Bernie if he were in place of Hillary, not just because he wasn't Trump but because I liked some of his ideas. My head wasn't in the clouds enough to think he'd be able to institute any of them, but at least he'd try and would have been (mostly) conscientious about maintaining the dignity of the office. I still thought Hillary would be the better President, but it wouldn't make me so upset that I wouldn't have done everything in my power to prevent the Orange Voicebox from getting there if someone else had been nominated in her place.

Some Bernie-ites, perhaps, but I don't think there are that many of them left around here. (I'm deliberately trying not to use that term for them that I know they also get all butthurt about.)

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 01-13-2018 at 12:50 AM.
  #44  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:30 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Name some.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that any Doper D's might have voted for Trump. I'm accusing some D's (including some at SDMB) of imposing "purity tests" that make it hard for some D's (like the anti-Muslim Burns at link) to vote D.

One thing during the D Primary campaign brought this D stupidity home to me. Sanders was frequently nagged about his support for rural long guns. Hillary should have interrupted and said "I support Bernie's stance on legal rural long guns. Our worry -- and I hope the Senator joins me -- is about illegal urban handguns." Instead the whole issue was used by the "coastal elites" to alienate rural voters.

With stupidity and holier-than-thou-ness like that, it's no wonder the D's can lose to a disgusting creep like Trump.
  #45  
Old 01-13-2018, 08:40 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 12,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that any Doper D's might have voted for Trump. I'm accusing some D's (including some at SDMB) of imposing "purity tests" that make it hard for some D's (like the anti-Muslim Burns at link) to vote D.

One thing during the D Primary campaign brought this D stupidity home to me. Sanders was frequently nagged about his support for rural long guns. Hillary should have interrupted and said "I support Bernie's stance on legal rural long guns. Our worry -- and I hope the Senator joins me -- is about illegal urban handguns." Instead the whole issue was used by the "coastal elites" to alienate rural voters.

With stupidity and holier-than-thou-ness like that, it's no wonder the D's can lose to a disgusting creep like Trump.
I'm sorry, but stuff like that doesn't lose Presidential elections. There are innumerable equally stupid stances taken by Republicans on issues that alienate potential Republican voters. In the end, most of that stuff all comes out in the wash.

Nation-wide elections (and, in general, state-wide elections) are won by issues of supreme importance to people, which usually means the effect they have on the pocketbook. Mr. Trump won the Presidency not because Democrats weren't a big enough tent, but because he won the battle of proposed economic prosperity where it counted (the rust belt). The only part of that equation the Democrats didn't help themselves with was their insistence that immigration, especially immigration without permission, is not a problem. But I cannot imagine the tent being so large that it encompasses those who are xenophobic.
  #46  
Old 01-13-2018, 08:40 AM
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post

As a Liberal, a Progressive and a Democrat - I firmly believe that Democratic success will come from embracing the anger and energy of poor women, particularly women of color, and convincing them to vote and run for office. Chasing dead enders like the losers in this article is just a waste of time.
is it not already your problem in your electoral system that your reach is too concentrated in the urban areas? Since the poorer white women did not vote as I saw the data in a bloc with the 'women of color' - that is the minority, the idea of women solidarity seems to me like the workers solidarity of the communists...

This idea of success packs you in more geographically tightly and in your system as I understand it, it is not a path to success it is the path to the marginalization and the failure... like the failure which made you americans foist Trump on the world.

I do not personally have the sympathy for the anti muslim bigots, but in my own political system I woudl prefer to tolerate and educate for the larger win than to engage in the purity tests as septimus puts it.
  #47  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:50 AM
Translucent Daydream Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tualatin Valley
Posts: 1,579
Maybe there need to be more parties. I think that would pull people closer together and parties would have to compromise to get things passed. Maybe you could fracture the GOP into multiple groups, like religious fundamentalists, corporate types, gun stuff. Seems to me like these are the three big’uns for my Republican friends. Most of them that are hung on one couldn’t care less about the others. Maybe the democrats get divided into other groups as well.

Maybe that would divide the donor bases up a bit.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #48  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:56 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,973
In a winner-take-all system, you get 2 parties. It's almost impossible for any other situation to be stable.
  #49  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Mr. Trump won the Presidency not because Democrats weren't a big enough tent, but because he won the battle of proposed economic prosperity where it counted (the rust belt).
Trump won the presidency because our electoral system is rigged so some voters have disproportionate representation. Wyoming is the Old Sarum of American politics.
  #50  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:05 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 75,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
Maybe there need to be more parties. I think that would pull people closer together and parties would have to compromise to get things passed.
That assumes a party has a greater agenda it wants to enact. Suppose a party is just composed of politicians who want to stay in office? All they have to do is obstruct the functioning of the government and then blame other parties for the resulting dysfunction.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017