Democratic liberals, moderates feud over public option
- Thread starter No1
- Start date
this was the content of my post that you initially decided to quote "either you want mealy-mouthed red state democrats who have to watch their back or you don't. you can't have a democratic majority at any point in this country without them."You're just playing dumb or being a Democratic apologist. Democrats win when they run as economic progressives. That same state of Ohio also has Sherrod Brown. They have been losing since 2010 playing moderate without the boogeyman of George Bush to complain about. I never said Wisconsin is a red state. You're being obtuse. Most people running for state-wide office have name recognition. Strickland is running against a "moderate" instead of running to the left he's being a slightly to the left version of him. Voters think,.
Democrats have suffered historic losses in state legislatures and are in a position in which they will get crushed in the 2018 midterms and then in 2020 they'll have a lukewarm Clinton up at a time where redistricting happens. The current formula is not working and it does not motivate young people who are your future. Old people are more socially conservative, all that shyt turns them off. You cannot be a party that is socially liberal and economically conservative and compete in every race. The second you decide to be fiscally conservative you have disincentivized a large percentage of your "base".
so red state status is entirely relevant to this discussion. you can't create points to something i'm not even arguing about. wisconsin isn't a red-state so why bring them up? ohio isn't red either. it's purple at worse.
my initial point was simply you either want someone moderate like heitkamp who can help the dems get a majority in the senate or you don't. it's as simple as that, but there is no fantasy world where some progressive lefty is going to get elected senator in north dakota.
Man, you literally have trouble following an argument. You create a false choice and I said you don't have to chose between the them. I said that you don't have to. LOL@ "you can't create point to something I'm not arguing about." nikka, my entire argument was saying your argument is wrong. You were talking about it and you just did it again. In what world do you think arguments are limited to the premises you put forth? The entire basing of argument is about battling over the legitimacy of a premise. So either show demonstrable proof that economic progressives cannot win or
. Economic progressives don't win because they don't have the money behind them. Sestak damn near won in 2010 in an awful year for Dems when the establishment was upset with him. If they put money behind him this year he would've been up by ten. Instead, they got the entire machine behind McGinty. You cannot sit here and say it's either or without any evidence that the ideas that economic progressives put forward are unpopular. To the contrary, their ideas are popular. It's this type of limited thinking that ultimately cost Democrats government seats. They are on defense instead of offense. They cannot win the social issue battle with Republicans because old white people will be old white people. But they can straight up say THIS is what we will do economically and you can choose between US and THEM. But they bytch among themselves to the point where they let Republicans define them.
ExodusNirvana
Change is inevitable...
Problem is...if someone on FOXNews calls them a Socialist, unless they have that love like Bernie Sanders had, it will probably ruin them in the eyes of a lot of people.Democrats
They could get so much more done if half of them weren't scared to death that somebody on FOX News will call them a socialist.
On the issues, a lot of folks support progressive shyt. They just want to come across as "reasonable" and call themselves moderate.
Obama was called a socialist for 8 years and won two terms. Anyone who that rings true with already thought they were socialists.
it is limited to my actual statements. if you want to reply to my comment about red-state democrats and turn that into something about national party strategy, then that's on you. if you want to argue that massachusetts, maryland, california, new york, etc need more actual progressive representation then you're not getting any argument from me and i never put forth an argument to the contrary. the bluest states should have the bluest representation just like the reddest do.Man, you literally have trouble following an argument. You create a false choice and I said you don't have to chose between the them. I said that you don't have to. LOL@ "you can't create point to something I'm not arguing about." nikka, my entire argument was saying your argument is wrong. You were talking about it and you just did it again. In what world do you think arguments are limited to the premises you put forth? The entire basing of argument is about battling over the legitimacy of a premise. So either show demonstrable proof that economic progressives cannot win or
Economic progressives don't win because they don't have the money behind them. Sestak damn near won in 2010 in an awful year for Dems when the establishment was upset with him. If they put money behind him this year he would've been up by ten. Instead, they got the entire machine behind McGinty. You cannot sit here and say it's either or without any evidence that the ideas that economic progressives put forward are unpopular. To the contrary, their ideas are popular. It's this type of limited thinking that ultimately cost Democrats government seats. They are on defense instead of offense. They cannot win the social issue battle with Republicans because old white people will be old white people. But they can straight up say THIS is what we will do economically and you can choose between US and THEM. But they bytch among themselves to the point where they let Republicans define them.
but if you want to think some bernie lite is going to win in montana then that's nonsense. people in red states elect conservative people. you might actually know better about the political climate in montana and north dakota than the people there for all i know. maybe someone more to the left of tester and heitkamp could win if the party just tried harder. to you it's some false choice, but it's all in your head that someone to the left of them can win in red states. there is nothing to support it, just feelings.
Last edited:
I have seen some Strickland ads and he has talked about everything from TPP, NAFTA to China and trade deals but he is still losing by a lot. Kasich is not exactly a Governor who ran from trade deals but he is popular and he would probably wipe the floor with any Democrat challenger in Ohio. I hear the talking point about running Progressives especially from TYT types who completely ignore local issues and how states have changed over time. They look at Ohio and think manufacturing and NAFTA but forget other industries like healthcare in Cleveland that brought people from different regions to the city. North Carolina is a good example of the transition and how the electorate changed and also cities like Pittsburgh that went from steel to robotics etc. Progressives actually need an Obama or Blair type figure who can transcend not just policy arguments but can actually build coalitions that appeal nationally.
BINGO!
The "silent majority" concept is something liberals just do not understand...and socially, i'm probably more liberal than 90% of this forum.
Its the economics that liberals don't understand strategy on.
This is the important part, I doubt ordinary people view candidates within the corporatists/centrists prism. There is also the attribution problem where people assume that if a centrist loses an election it is because of centrist policies. People hold a variety of views, someone can agree with one progressive policy but still hold vastly different opinions on others. Progressives bet on Canova who ran a national campaign against DWS in a local race, he failed some of the basic stuff politicians do like knowing some local issues because he went with the national outrage from the left about DWS.
Not really.
Anybody that easily swayed by FOX News is probably already a Republican. It'd only ruin them in the eyes of people that weren't going to vote for them anyway.