how about compromising by moving more to the left for once?
and yet the crystal ball poll perusing strategy where you only put effort in where the computer model says it will count was a failing one. the whole Dem strategy was to only play to the base and ignore the "lost causes". lost them the election. pursuing a losing strategy after seeing in lose in real time is dumb.
So the answer to an extreme right is to move further right? Yeah ok. Moving further right got us shit like NAFTA by the way.
Is there any evidence that this untapped, solid left voting bloc (who is just waiting for candidates that check all the right boxes) even exists?
I'm starting to wonder (and worry) that this country really is just that conservative at its core and there's only so much we can ask or expect of it.
The United States is one of the most socially progressive places in the world. The American left is really good at influencing society through culture and media, as an example I'd present the extremely rapid progress on gay issues. They just really suck at politics.
The United States is one of the most socially progressive countries in the world. The American left is really good at influencing society through culture and media, as an example I'd present the rapid progress on gay issues. They just really suck at politics.
Countries that had quicker progress on the issue you chose to best represent the US's progressivity:
Netherlands
Belgium
Spain
Canada
South Africa
Norway
Sweden
Portugal
Iceland
Argentina
Denmark
Brazil
France
Uruguay
New Zealand
Luxembourg
[citation needed]
Especially given that we are far more heterogenous than most western countries, the amount of progress we've made is great and all, but I dunno how you can say we're one of the most socially progressive when socially progressive laws don't really get passed.
This is a list of mostly Western European countries. There's a lot more to the world than the developed world.
2017. Where free trade is evil. At least you agree with Trump on that?
If the point is "The US is an OECD country", then yes, it is. But I don't think that's controversial. Implicit in the statement being interesting is that you're comparing the US to its peers, not pointing out that the US is ahead of Bhutan and Liberia.
On cue I watched explain some issues Democrats have with 2020 and I absolutely agree with him. It was interesting seeing Michael Steele on because after the 2008 Obama election it was really doom and gloom for Republicans. He has since left the party, but I remember listening to talk radio when he was head of the RNC on Hannity and them essentially talking about "how can we save the Republican party" etc.
I remember hearing from the Right and Left on how it would be impossible for the Republicans to bridge differences between the religious arm of the party, the fiscally conservative arm of the party along with the Libertarian part of the party, yet here we are with President Donald Trump.
As of right now there is no candidate that the Democrats have that can beat Donald Trump in 2020. Despite being an atrocious President, the 50-55% of the country that voted for him isn't going anywhere and they seem only emboldened.
Like Bill Maher pointed out everyone seems to be waiting for Mueller to save the day and save for a Watergate style investigation (which I'm holding out hope for), Trump is beating them in every imaginable way and dictating the course of discussion. And again like Bill Maher pointed out, Trump hasn't even played his "war card" yet which is something that is very troubling.
I don't know what the answer is for the left and Democrats but we have to get our shit together. The fact that Nancy fucking Pelosi is one of the faces of the party in 2017 should tell you all you need to know about the state of the party.
At the end of the day despite the divide between religious and fiscal conservatives it was always going to be easier for Republicans to rally uneducated voters on racist fear-mongering like they have done with Breitbart, FoxNews, talk radio, Drudge, Alex Jones etc. It's pretty depressing but just remember the Republicans were on the ropes after 2008 and I'm holding out hope for the natural cyclical course of politics to take course with Democrats starting to turn the tide in 2018. *Sigh*
You're a fool if you think the right is united. In it's hatred of the left, sure, but only in that aspect.
I'm glad to see hating Penn unite everyone here.
A Mark Penn article, so I can basically sum it up as "Democrats need to move to the right because REAL Americans (white folks) like myself aren't a fan of not being the center of attention, oh and did I mention Obama isn't a REAL American?
Someone posted an image that showed a line scale showing "left" and "right" and the idea of compromise and it basically showed the left continuing to compromise and move right while the right never budged. I wish I had it.
The right is so united they can't even agree on appealing Obamacare.
You're a fool if you think the right is united. In it's hatred of the left, sure, but only in that aspect.
The White House may not be the only institution in Washington that Democrats lost on Tuesday despite getting more votes than Republicans.
It turns out that Democrats also got more votes for the U.S. Senate than Republicans, and yet Republicans maintained their majority on Capitol Hill.
In results that are still preliminary, 45.2 million Americans cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate, while 39.3 million Americans voted for a Republican. (In the White House race, as of Thursday afternoon, Clinton had 60.1 million votes and Trump had 59.8 million.)
I think the main issue is that on local levels, being closer to the center might be advantageous for Dems being the tons of disparate communities and their individual needs. On a national level, being further to the left is seen as advantageous, as the types of issues that the party platform addresses should be as progressive as possible to display a clear separation from the right and to "energize" those who wouldn't vote otherwise, because they see things as "more of the same".
I'm not sure how to reconcile these two approaches into a unified party approach. The fundamental "issue" of the Democratic Part is that, unlike Republicans, we're crazy diverse. That in itself means there will be a diverse range of issues and of what people feel should be prioritized. Republicans have appealed to the same narrow (demographically speaking) based for the last half a century and don't have to worry about that
The Democrats are centre right here in Europe
If there's anything the world needed, it's another "focusing on minorities cost us the election" hot take.
I think you do not motivate people to show up to vote by taking middle-road stances.
You lose as many voters as you gain.
There are plenty of good issues Democrats should be championing. They need to reject socialist ideas and adopt an agenda of renewed growth, greater protection for American workers and a return to fiscal responsibility
Clinton was the most liberal Democrat candidate we'd have had in decades. She is more liberal than Obama.
This is a list of mostly Western European countries. There's a lot more to the world than the developed world.
Who do you think the Homo Empire is?
I'm torn on this issue. We haven't had a true "left" candidate yet. Hillary and Obama, while certainly farther left than Republicans, are still center-to-right on economic issues and only swing left on social issues to the extent that they are "mainstream" safe.
The far left hasn't had an opportunity to prove that they can deliver elections (in American politics). Even Bernie's popularity, IMO had less to do with his politics than 2016 being a populist-driven election.
The centrist Democrats blundered away one of the most important elections in my lifetime and then proceeded to make excuses instead of taking a hard look at WHY they were stomped last year.
The current Democratic party has delivered nothing but hubris and failure so I'm all for changing up the status quo - if it can win elections. If we're pushing "far left" candidates that have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, why bother? Principles and moral high ground don't mean jack when you have zero power to prevent the enemy from destroying everything you've worked for.
As of right now there is no candidate that the Democrats have that can beat Donald Trump in 2020. Despite being an atrocious President, the 50-55% of the country that voted for him isn't going anywhere and they seem only emboldened.
Like Bill Maher pointed out everyone seems to be waiting for Mueller to save the day and save for a Watergate style investigation (which I'm holding out hope for), Trump is beating them in every imaginable way and dictating the course of discussion. And again like Bill Maher pointed out, Trump hasn't even played his "war card" yet which is something that is very troubling.
I don't know what the answer is for the left and Democrats but we have to get our shit together. The fact that Nancy fucking Pelosi is one of the faces of the party in 2017 should tell you all you need to know about the state of the party.
Arguably it didn't do Dems any favor in voter turnout.
Latino turnout held steady, overall minority percentage held steady, black voter turnout down 7% total, black Millennials only Millennial group to decrease (overall Millennial & Gen X turnout up).
I don't think a step back toward center for Democrats is a terrible idea. Calling that "Republican-lite" is laughable. Coming back toward the center doesn't have to mean abandoning gay rights, a path to citizenship, or no longer being critical of police racial policies. I would argue those are all centrist ideals these days.
Fucking hell with this bullshit.Moving the center would actually mean moving to the left for the Democrats.
I don't know what the answer is for the left and Democrats but we have to get our shit together. The fact that Nancy fucking Pelosi is one of the faces of the party in 2017 should tell you all you need to know about the state of the party.
I thought that's where they were? How can you go back to a place you that you haven't left?
Mark Penn is saying this.They're saying they need to be even more center-right than they already are. Ie: drop minorities. And copy right wing economics that doom the poor and middle class. Which they did for decades already. This is disgusting on all grounds. Despise centrism and how often they propose this nonsense. They're the weak link in the party. About time they faced it.
Sorry if double,on mobile.
Basically my thoughts on this.Imagine, if you will, being hired for a job where your sole position is to provide expert advice in how to win. Further, imagine that you take actions for your own self-interest that are diametrically opposed to the person you are working for that could be the most powerful person in the world. And imagine if, some six or so months into your job, it becomes clear that you have absolutely no idea how the score is kept and how you are supposed to gain an advantage.
This is the man who presumes to tell the Democratic Party how to win elections.
It should tell you the party believes in getting shit done and keeping the people who are goddamned good at their jobs at the top level?
Seriously, what's your beef with Nancy Pelosi. She pretty much wrangled cats and got the ACA accomplished.