Establishment Dems are getting themselves into era-defining trouble

[Professor Emeritus]

You listed senators and congressmen and women who have been serving for decades and comfortably winning elections.

Yes, because the system is massively tilted towards the incumbents. The combination of gerrymandering and party support favors incumbents very heavily. In fact, that issue is exactly what I was talking about in the OP - the party's desire to play dirty in order to artificially inflate the prospects of incumbents even more.

You and I will always fundamentally disagree because I think candidates should run on what they believe and the chips fall where they may.

But your party doesn't believe that. Your party doesn't believe in letting the chips fall where they may, your party believes on stacking the chips in favor of the incumbents and screwing over challengers. That's the whole point of freezing out any vendor who doesn't agree to unilaterally support only incumbents and nothing but incumbents.

My fundamental disagreement is that I believe ideology and practice should trump all. While the Democratic party believes that the power of the party and the welfare of its establishment candidates is in itself an objective good.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine someone came to the establishment Dems in a secret closed-door meeting and told them, "I can guarantee the liberals 60% of both houses and the presidency in the next election. The only cost is that every single one of you incumbents will have to give up your seats. You will lose your seats, but the country will be better. Otherwise, you'll win your seats but you'll remain in the minority."

Would they take that deal? If you have paid the slightest attention to how both parties have moved in pretty much all of recorded history, you know there ain't no fukking way they'd do it. Not a chance.

 

[Pressure]

Moderates outperformed progressives in 2018. Outside of young voters the dem base hasn't proven to be progressive.

AOC won arguably the safest seat for an incumbent moderate.

You and people like you should run instead of looking for excuses. And you should encourage people like you to also canvass and vote early.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Moderates outperformed progressives in 2018.

You should know if you have the slightest scientific or mathematical knowledge that you just made a completely meaningless claim. Progressives for the most part only even had a chance to run in no-chance districts. Establishment dems have already nailed down the safe Democratic seats and moderates more often than not run in the borderline red rural seats that flipped last time around. It is a rare case where a progressive like AOC fights against overwhelming odds to steal a blue seat from a party doing what it can to stop her. Otherwise the progressives are usually only getting chances in bright red districts where the establishment isn't even trying to maintain control.

The distribution of opportunity ain't even close to random, and so pretending that it's a fair comparison is bullshyt. It's like saying that White men must make better candidates because they hold most of the seats too.

Outside of young voters the dem base hasn't proven to be progressive.

True, and your issue is that those young voters will be the majority of the Dem base by 2024.

You and people like you should run instead of looking for excuses. And you should encourage people like you to also canvass and vote early.

I think there are much better ways to improve the world than in spending huge amounts of my time fighting for a tiny piece of a rigged system that won't operate in my interests even if "my candidate" did win the election. I already learned that lesson multiple times, with Obama being the most in-our-face example. (And I worked my ASS off for him, there are still traces of my influence sprinkled across the internet on that one I was putting in so much work.) I'm going to stand up for what I believe and put a mirror up to the system to make sure its inadequacies are not hidden behind a curtain, but fukk if I'm going to waste a shytload of effort playing red-blue wars that could bring literally zero benefit in the end when my actual life's work brings benefit to real people's lives night and day.

 

[Pressure]

Yes, because the system is massively tilted towards the incumbents. The combination of gerrymandering and party support favors incumbents very heavily. In fact, that issue is exactly what I was talking about in the OP - the party's desire to play dirty in order to artificially inflate the prospects of incumbents even more

Largely driven by a lack of voter turnout. This is circular.

True, and your issue is that those young voters will be the majority of the Dem base by 2024.

It's not an issue for me. The issue is that they aren't voting AND they aren't running.

If young voters turned out for primaries they would have more candidates they agree with.

The math is there.

I think there are much better ways to improve the world than in spending huge amounts of my time fighting for a tiny piece of a rigged system that won't operate in my interests even if "my candidate" did win the election. I already learned that lesson multiple times, with Obama being the most in-our-face example. (And I worked my ASS off for him, there are still traces of my influence sprinkled across the internet on that one I was putting in so much work.) I'm going to stand up for what I believe and put a mirror up to the system to make sure its inadequacies are not hidden behind a curtain, but fukk if I'm going to waste a shytload of effort playing red-blue wars that could bring literally zero benefit in the end when my actual life's work brings benefit to real people's lives night and day.

Then let's look in the mirror.

For this set of problems the worst is New York, which in 2018 saw only 3 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in a federal primary. New York’s contested gubernatorial primary was on a different date. In the federal primary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand faced no opposition for the Democratic nomination, nor did her opponent on the Republican ticket, Chele Farley. In all 27 House of Representative districts in the state, there was an unopposed primary for one party or the other. In 14 of those districts there was no contest for either party’s nomination and therefore voters did not have a chance to cast a ballot at all.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Largely driven by a lack of voter turnout. This is circular.

It's not an issue for me. The issue is that they aren't voting AND they aren't running.

If young voters turned out for primaries they would have more candidates they agree with.

The math is there.


Then let's look in the mirror.

My OP already kills the entire thrust of your argument - if no one is running against incumbents and no one is voting for challengers, THEN WHY IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THREATENING VENDORS TO KEEP THEM FROM HELPING NON-INCUMBENTS and CHALLENGERS???????

PLEASE, answer that shyt. You keep on with all this juelzing bullshyt without answering the fundamental question regarding why the Democratic party is stacking the deck in favor of the old guard in the first place. Why do all your answers keep claiming there's no need to stack the deck...yet in reality they are OPENLY stacking the deck?



And again it's cynical as hell to complain that there isn't someone coming up to challenge in every race. You're saying that more young people should waste a year of their life running for office, knowing that they will lose a ton of money in the process, knowing that the Democratic establishment will outspend them 10 to 1 to ensure they don't have a shot, knowing that the Democrats are actively threatening any quality advisers and consultants to keep them from helping you.

If you really want better candidates, then fight for an even playing field. That's the whole point. You're talking this bullshyt about "may the best man win" when the party is actively working against that, and then saying that if young people don't make themselves martyrs to the party's whims that they should have no complaints when the party proceeds to screw them over in favor of its older, wealthier, more powerful constituents who orchestrated the deck-stacking in the first place.

 

[Pressure]

Because the simple most effective remedy to the issue is candidates should run and voters should vote.

We're talking 3%turnout for the primary. There's no need to stack a deck when people aren't contesting primaries (both sides) nor turning out to vote when they do.

There is no Juelz. These are the facts.

 

[Pressure]

Step one contest every seat every elections
Step 1a vote in every primary for every election.

 

[Pressure]

If you really want better candidates, then fight for an even playing field. That's the whole point.

This is like complaining about the refs but not showing up to the game

 

[King Static X]

Moderates outperformed progressives in 2018. Outside of young voters the dem base hasn't proven to be progressive.

AOC won arguably the safest seat for an incumbent moderate.

You and people like you should run instead of looking for excuses. And you should encourage people like you to also canvass and vote early.

Not true. In 2018, for first time in history, the majority of Democrats identify as being "liberal".

SOURCE: Most Democrats Now Identify As ‘Liberal’

 

[Pressure]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This is like complaining about the refs but not showing up to the game

More like demanding someone show up to a game when you've already announced ahead of time that you've bribed the refs.


Don't you realize how stupid your analogy looks in that light?


call me james: "You want to play a game of basketball? I'd rather you didn't actually, but just in case you do I've already bribed the refs to ensure I win."

rhakim: "I'm not gonna play and I think it's bullshyt that you bribed the refs to give you the win."

call me james: "You should play. Why won't you play?"

rhakim: "Because you straight up told me that you already bribed the refs. You've made every effort to ensure that I won't want to play and that it will be hard as possible for me to win if I do play. Why would I play a rigged game just to lose?"

call me james: "Too bad, doesn't matter if I rigged the game or not, you can't complain about a rigged game unless you are dumb enough to play it. That's my arbitrary rule of grievances."

 

[Serious]

you're just correct though i dont know what the fukk hes talking about

since when is the younger generation not more liberal? and why is that always the trend?....because you get more conservative

Heck I've seen you get more conservative since you graduated.

 

[Pressure]

Not true. In 2018, for first time in history, the majority of Democrats identify as being "liberal".

SOURCE: Most Democrats Now Identify As ‘Liberal’

Tldr:
Only 26% of the country considers itself liberal.
That's 51 percent of democrats with the majority of independents viewing themselves as moderates and an even split between liberal and conservative.

Democrats can't win without independents looking at the raw numbers which is why you see a lot of moderate candidates.

And the more liberal leaning democrats make up the younger grouping that are also less active voters.

nation's ideological makeup, following a long-term increase in Americans' identification as liberal, and a corresponding decline in their identification as politically moderate. However, given the generational patterns, with young adults tilting liberal and senior citizens skewing conservative, this is more likely to represent a brief pause in the ideological shift underway rather than a steadying. That, of course, assumes today's young adults are still relatively liberal by the time they are seniors, which remains to be seen.

Although there was also little change in 2018 within the Republican and Democratic Parties, the percentage of Democrats identifying as liberal ticked up one point to cross the symbolic 50% line, marking the first time that party has been majority liberal. Republicans have long been majority conservative, and that, too, expanded slightly. Both of these trends may be related to the decline in Americans identifying with the Republican and Democratic Parties over the past decade, and a corresponding increase in those identifying as political independents. As the size of political parties shrinks, the two major parties may be increasingly comprised of the more hard-core adherents of each side's philosophy.

Whatever the reason for its occurrence, the increased polarization of the parties presents a challenge for governing. With a newly divided Congress, the lack of ideological overlap between Republicans and Democrats sets the stage for political impasses and zero-sum gamesmanship, rather than compromises and "win-win" solutions.

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

How is this disingenuous? These older/establishment democrats are running on what they feel is important and they're winning elections.

They are winning elections off old voters, people who are anti-Republican and people who've submitted to the 2 party system.
The problem is, younger independent voters don't have much reason (outside of their being no alternative) to become Democrats. Young voter turnout would for sure go up if Democrats did a better job.
They are only winning because young people feel disenfranchised. I'd personally love to see a viable third party.

If young voters turned out for primaries they would have more candidates they agree with.

This requires those young voters to go to democratic primaries, which often registers you as a democrat. What motivation does a young voter, who isn't registered as a democrat have to go vote in their primaries (if the party isn't emphasizing a platform values what young people care about)? Especially when the democrats have a track record of pushing old establishment candidates?

 

[Pressure]

More like demanding someone show up to a game when you've already announced ahead of time that you've bribed the refs.


Don't you realize how stupid your analogy looks in that light?


rhakim: "I think it's bullshyt that you bribed the refs to give you the win."

call me james: "You should have played. Why didn't you play?"

rhakim: "Because you straight up told me ahead of time that you already bribed the refs. Why would I play a rigged game just to lose?"

call me james: "Too bad, doesn't matter if I rigged the game or not, you can't complain about a rigged game unless you are dumb enough to play it. That's my arbitrary rule of grievances."

No one has bribed the voters.