I’m sure why.
Here’s the funny thing. I am a proud middle of the roader who is sick and tired of ideological purity. I hate it.
But you and I? Not in the same group. Our views likely do not even inhabit the same room.
The Democratic tent is actually most filled with people of my sort of middle of the road, and while it also contains some loud folk who think they speak for the room, and can be quite obnoxious, they do not. OTOH the GOP tent is now very intolerant of anything that is not Trumpism. Not only does my middle of the road not fit there but many who are the conservative side but not Trumpists are out of place there.
Reality of course is the the middle of the road is filled with people with pretty diverging views, some on differing more extreme sides depending on the exact subject. But putting you and me as the same label? I don’t think so.
What purity police? Police arrest you and throw you in jail. When you say, “Purity police”, are you talking about people who disagree with you and say so out loud? Who exactly are these “purity police,” and what have they done that’s outside of democratic debate?
The whole mood of this post is weird. You describe yourself as left of me on most issues, but I don’t consider myself centrist at all. I am solidly in the moderate camp of the Democratic Party tent.
I think you’re confused about what the mainstream democratic (or even leftist) platform really represents. You seem to have let the extremists on the right define the leftist position for you and then in rebellion against that straw man, declared yourself centrist although if you stop listening to those nuts and listen to the adults in the room, you’re smack in the middle of the Democratic platform.
Also I too, get frustrated with the “purity police” and I think they do way more harm than good. Know who else just spoke out against the purity police? Barack Obama. Not exactly a centrist.
I believe in immigration reform, no open borders, gun reform, no gun confiscations, quality of life issues.
I think we can agree.
I voted for Hillary.
Few people consider themselves anything other than “middle of the road,” including extremists on either side. You’re not Middle of the Road if you agree with liberals on some issues and conservatives on others. You’re just someone who veers from one side to the other. The only reason to be proud is if you research objectively, eschew racism, and question stereotypes.
Most Americans have a mix of conservative and liberal views, so you are wrong on that.
Most Americans are not extremist partisans.
Someone can be pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, pro-union, but conservative on defense and national security issues.
I will be heading to bed soon because I have a busy schedule tomorrow, but some crazy leftist elements of the Democratic Party is anti-white male. You have some saying “we don’t need white men”, “white men can go away”, etc.
Yet, Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg and not recently, Beto was the favorites of the changing Democratic Party electorate.
Some people think that John Kerry/John Edwards and Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine will be the last white Democratic presidential tickets fielded; Bill Clinton/Al Gore the last winning all-white ticket.
A white Democrat cannot pick another white person, they must diversify.
Some feel this is virtue-signaling and white voters, yes, are shrinking, are still the majority of America’s electorate.
Just because Barack Obama won in 2008 and 2012, doesn’t mean you will replicate that type of victory.
How is that working for Harris, Castro, etc.?
“I just think that’s traditional, pre-Obama coalition thinking. I don’t think there should be two white people on the ticket. That’s not the way we win the nomination.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-ticket-222652
The GOP has a black-Latino problem; the Democrats have a white problem.
You equate advocating for some ethnic diversity in a Presidential ticket with “having a white problem”? What white people have a “problem” with a politely stated opinion that a Presidential ticket should preferably not be all-white?
Okay, sure, I know that racist white people have a problem with such statements, but besides them?
Also, in 2016 88% of Republican voters were white, while 60% of Democratic voters were white. That doesn’t look to me like a “white problem” for Democrats: it looks like about where Democrats would expect and want to be in an increasingly multi-racial nation.
Yeah? Who? Please show me at the state level or above. I’m all ready to be offended and consider myself attacked by the Democrats, but I can’t seem to find these anti-white crusaders in the party. And, please, no out-of-context cites.
Right now, the top three Democratic front runners are white, then you have Kamala Harris who is far behind in fourth, then another white guy in the form of Mayor Pete. So, I’m not sure what your problem is and I’m not sure why someone would vote based on the race of the person running anyway. I don’t vote based on their handedness either, even though as a proud southpaw, I’ve had lots of representation in the Oval Office.
Here’s the thing though; the GOP at least tries to present a coherent message. From the lowliest city councilman in some podunk Texas panhandle town, to the President, they’re all goose-stepping in coordination. It’s unlikely you’re going to get a lot of difference among them in terms of the big issues How many pro-choice Republicans do you know of? How many are for UHC? I’m sure there are a FEW, but they’re pretty much pointed out as RINOs or heretics, or absolute oddities- look at Susan Collins for an example of someone who the GOP makes pretty large efforts to distance themselves from.
Meanwhile, the Democratic party seems to perform no such ideological alignment efforts. You have AOC over here saying one thing about her green new deal, you have Biden saying something different, and you have Omar talking about open borders. What exactly IS the party line on immigration for the Democratic party? Right now, if you’re out in the howling wilderness and not part of the party, it sure seems like whoever yells the loudest is setting the party path.
It shouldn’t be incumbent on the individual voter to try and divine what the Democratic party stands for, much less what each individual candidate stands for. That’s part of the attraction of the GOP for many; it’s ordered, consistent and coherent in an ideological sense. If you’re voting GOP, you know what you’re voting for (which makes it worse in many ways, but that’s a subject for another thread). But with Democrats, it’s far more of a crap shoot, especially at more local levels.
So, what you’re saying is that the purity police way more present on the Republican side? You should let Yankee know. Also, you’re saying that a moderate can be quite comfortable with the Democrats, but not the Republicans? If so, then, I’m not sure what this thread is about.
What are these “pretty large efforts to distance themselves from” Susan Collins that the GOP is making? Lots of us probably don’t agree with her on every issue, but I don’t see any “pretty large efforts” to “distance” ourselves from her.
The Democratic party is a rather disorganized, heterogenous group, but that’s a feature, not a bug. On immigration, the common thread is humane treatment; avoiding separation of families; avoiding the Trump policy of deliberately harming children for deterrent purposes; a path to citizenship/legal residency for long-time non-violent undocumented migrants; and legalization of DACA/Dreamers. Some Democrats go a lot further than this, but almost all of them are for all these policies.
Plenty of white people vote for Democrats, ones who want what’s best for the country and don’t nurse racial grievances. The Democrats don’t have a white problem. You have a white problem, and the problem is you.
I disagree with calling the Republican position on defense or national security ‘conservative’, or the clear implication that ‘defense and national security’ is a Republican priority. Republicans under Trump are happy to attack individual soldiers that they don’t like, even when it hinders military readiness (notably transgender troops), to damage long-standing defensive alliances (notably NATO), to drive talented military leaders out for not rubber-stamping decisions (Clinton-Bush had 2-4 secretaries of defense over 8 years, Trump has had 4 this year alone) and to allow foreign powers to interfere with our elections as long as it favors them (Russian election interference). If you are conservative on defense and national security issues in any sense of conservative that means ‘traditional’ or ‘not radical’ rather than ‘whatever the Republican party says’, then the Democrats are a way better choice.
“Conservative on national security” can also be stated “Russia, if you’re listening…”