Support for the concept and support for the particular plan could turn out to be two very different things.
That’s true.
That sounds an awful lot like “lie about the things you think are important in order to get power, then pull a fast one on the people who put you in office.”
What you just did is pull one sentence out of my post and completely misrepresent what I said.
I’m hoping maybe you or others can help me understand something: Why do working class voters think that helping kids afford college isn’t helping their own kids? What do they envision their children’s economic lives will be like?
(OK, let’s assume there’s a chorus of “OK, boomer” about this part.) Back when I was in high school it was assumed that most kids would not go on to college. Some would get some post high school education (like beauty school or auto mechanic training), but most would go into the working world where in not too long a time later a boy would be making enough to support a family.
But those days are gone. Don’t working class adults realize that what worked for their parents is not working very well for their own generation and will work even less well for their kids? Don’t they see that their kids are going to need college (including associates degree programs) to make a decent living? Do they want their own children to be saddled with huge debt just to keep the kids of their college-educated peers in debt?
Not really at all. Your advice is for politicians to keep silent on the issues that matter to them so that people who are uninterested or turned off by those issues or positions will vote for them.
But, it’s ok, because once you’ve secured the votes and power you can then raise those issues, despite the fact that you actively chose to hide your interest in those issues in order to get elected.
Maybe to you “don’t abandon, just stop talking about it” doesn’t feel like a lie of omission, but to me, the politician whose chief interests are brought into focus only after being elected lied to get votes.
Republicans have already gone hard right. And it has worked for them. Do you think Trump isn’t, at heart, aligned with David Duke? That if Trump were a dictator he wouldn’t go full on David Duke policies? Trump, right now, is willfully, gleefully, putting children in cages. (I think Trump would be even worse than Duke if he could.)
The only thing holding them back is a dem controlled House and some constitutional protections.
So, your solution is to hire someone who will do nothing but maintain the status quo? Let the little shit run amok torching everyone’s stuff. Your candidate, and a few others, live far enough away to not be bothered. Everyone else…well, that’s just how it is. Tough luck, deal with it.
Hogwash. You can support protection for transgender individuals, for instance, without campaigning on that. Why do you think campaigns hire strategists? To find issues and messages that will resonate with the most people, in order to win the election. If you lead with issues that are important to you but not a majority of voters, good luck getting elected.
Not even close. The Trump hatred is strong in you and clouding your judgment on this issue. He is nowhere near “hard right.”
But anyways, not for this thread. If you think Trump is David Duke, yet in our hypo lost a squeaker to Hillary, would the takeaway for the GOP be that next time they should nominate Hermann Goering?
I have 4 college degrees. I worked 2 jobs for 75+ hours a week for more than a year to pay off my college debts. I have a union job so I guess I am a blue collar worker. I am cool with forgiving student debt, though maybe 100% isn’t the right approach and maybe affordability would be a better focus going forward. What category do I belong to?
I think there is too much stereotyping going on. “Blacks” and “blue collar workers” and what-have-you are, to me, mostly imaginary categories in the monolithic way they are presented. People don’t really fit into pigeonholes, and so that much gets an “OK, Boomer” from me.
But I was interested in Carville’s point that Biden in sucking the oxygen out of the mainstream lane. Yeah, Bennet never did get any traction, and maybe (?) that is why. Klobuchar is looking more like an also ran all the time, though she is actually a fantastic candidate with a bit more realistic position on issues like college tuition, such as “We don’t have a shortage of MBAs. We need to support people through trade school, not just college.” That is correct, Amy, and I will be happy to vote for you if you get the nom.
But I think people need to get over their Bernie panic. His extremes will be naturally tempered by Congress, even if the D’s win the Senate. Relax. Bernie is the real deal and I want everyone to dispense with the hysteria and recognize how Bernie offers real solutions to real problems, has a real functioning brain after decades in Congress himself and isn’t the black swan weirdo people try to portray him to be.
Bernie can beat Trump, and Bernie can make life better for a lot of people. Calm the eff down.
The previous two Republican nominees for president are now considered leftists/libs by the modern GOP.
…how do transgender individuals know which politician to support if politicians don’t campaign on support for protections of transgender individuals?
Oh for fuck’s sake. What modern politician at the federal level espouses policies to the right of Trump?
Yeah, Trump is hard right. He is caging little kids…right now. And he takes pride in it. He likes it. He is happy about it. He gloats about it.
The only reason Trump is not full tilt hard right is there are still some checks on his power. If Trump became a full-on dictator with no restriction to his whims do you really think he would be restrained by morality or ethics or…anything at all?
And the rest of the republican party has followed him down this path; unless you can point to me where the republican party has restrained Trump’s moves.
Y’all do realize that a lot of you can be right at the same time? My Twitter feed is hilarious. A lot of people who despise each other but have similar views on Bernie and Dem corruptions…
Carville is a disgusting centrist who is part of the problem but he’s also right. If part of my car lurchs so far left that it rolls down the highway in front of me…ITS NOT PART OF MY CAR ANYMORE. AOC and her 85 IQ ilk might as well not be Dems. Just like Bernie isn’t a Dem. Hey, thats not a slam on Bernie. If he can take over the Dem party…more power to him. There’s no way Pete or lying Liz can beat Trump. The voters they need are already turned off. Bernie Might beat Trump. But I fear the Dems have fractured too much. Bernie voters have heard “Bernie Bro” for too long to give their votes to another candidate…and I’m seeing a lot of “NeverBernies” too.
Wake me when the Dems get their shit together…
Is this a serious question?
They’ll probably vote for the Democrat because that’s the party that has included that in their platform.
Do y’all understand that a candidate can support something without actively campaigning on it? Without putting it front and center?
I may be nuts, but I thought winning an election was about attracting the broadest support without alienating too many of the voters you need. If eliminating private insurance doesn’t appeal to a majority of voters you need to win, that perhaps isn’t the best thing to run your campaign on, even if that’s your deepest and most bestest desire. If allowing prisoners to vote doesn’t appeal to a majority of voters you need to win, well, perhaps keep it in your pocket.
Good lord, I thought this was basic stuff.
I’m not arguing with you since you said a LOT of truth-to-power stuff earlier in the thread…but since those kids were caged for the last 10 years or so…wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “The USA cages kids?”
again not arguing.
This isn’t the “let’s keep bashing Trump” thread. Those are every other thread in GD and Politics & Elections. This is about Carville’s comments, so let’s try to keep focus.
Again, if a few votes change in PA, WI, and MI and Hillary wins, should be GOP’s takeaway been that they just hadn’t been far right enough? If not, then why do the Dems think that they lost because Hillary was too moderate and what the country wants is hard left socialism?
That’s the miscalculation that Carville is alleging that the Dems are making and he is absolutely correct.
Moving to the right will always be a winning move for the GOP.
The same logic doesn’t apply to the Dems.