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?
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?
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 ® 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?
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.
How would you feel if Terry Goodin with his rural Indiana anti-abortion and pro-gun values were your party’s 2020 nominee?
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!
It wasn’t my suggestion, it was from Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL).
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.
Won’t happen. Next hypothetical?
Newsflash: it wasn’t a dig.
Talk to the Bernie wing.
That’s not an answer, that’s avoidance.
Sure it was. It just went over your head.
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?
There are no martyrs here. If you have an issue report the post.
Dial it back. Trade pithy comments in the Pit.
[/moderating]
I don’t know of any white supremacists in the Democratic party. So there’s a purity test for ya.
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.
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]
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.
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.
Well, in response…what?
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…
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.
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.