Elizabeth Warren fires back at Centrist Democrats

[FAH1223]

Seems you all are trying to move back from the far left. Progress.

It also seems you all are attempting to do the very thing you say democrats shouldn't do.

You're basically trying to court conservative voters, but maintain your "progressive" side by asking for Universal Healthcare.

Some Republicans could be swayed by how big progressive ideas or even just old ideas from the past can help them

I don't agree with courting Republicans by being Reagan lite or invoking him and trickle down dichotomy of the last 40 years

 

[Pressure]

Obamacare is a Republican plan, and you know that. Which is why it's so difficult for them to replace it. I mean they might as well get Susan Collins to switch over by your logic.

It's difficult for them to replace it because the people who don't want Obamacare for the most part just don't want government subsidizing insurance and really don't care if people have it.

When that became clear they lost the votes of vulnerable republicans. It really had little to do with Obamacare being based around a Heritage initiative. Especially considering the republicans were also against it when it was proposed.

Repeating the same platform as republicans doesn't seem to be a winning strategy because democratic voters usually expect you to get things done and not just spread hate.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Warren cited, and then mocked, a column by former Hillary Clinton adviser Mark Penn.

It was all about how we have to stop caring about, quote, “identity politics” and stop waging, quote, “class warfare.” .

Hypocrite!!!

 

[StatUS]

It's difficult for them to replace it because the people who don't want Obamacare for the most part just don't want government subsidizing insurance and really don't care if people have it.

When that became clear they lost the votes of vulnerable republicans. It really had little to do with Obamacare being based around a Heritage initiative. Especially considering the republicans were also against it when it was proposed.

Repeating the same platform as republicans doesn't seem to be a winning strategy because democratic voters usually expect you to get things done and not just spread hate.

This current form of the Republican party is more of an extremist group than a political party. But Obama knew when he put it together that there would be conflict in any destruction of it because it has principles that appeal to the moderates of the party. Yall talk about how hard politics are all the time but then ignore how hard Obama and his administration went to get all sides on Obamacare. And this is coming from a Medicare for all or bust guy.

 

[Pressure]

This current form of the Republican party is more of an extremist group than a political party. But Obama knew when he put it together that there would be conflict in any destruction of it because it has principles that appeal to the moderates of the party. Yall talk about how hard politics are all the time but then ignore how hard Obama and his administration went to get all sides on Obamacare. And this is coming from a Medicare for all or bust guy.

No, I think you think your strategy will work everywhere and your proposed area of interest is against ousting a current democrat.

That's an odd approach if your goal is to pass more liberal legislation and put a stop to Republican interests. If your goal is to fight all democrats then expect the ones who have been winning and have the ear of their constituents to give you push back. shyt ain't that hard.

 

[the next guy]

Liz

 

[intra vires]

I tried to be concise but I'm a wordy motherfukker. Apologies in advance.

Try to take back congress how? By doing the same things that got the whole party wiped out since 2012? I mean eventually you're gonna have to try something different or make some tweaks. If the DNC goes into next year just thinking they got it because people hate Trump they're gonna lose again.

The party wasn't utilizing a 50 state strategy in 2012.

The problem the Democrats have had is being too centralized. Generally speaking, the Democrats have more affinity for the federal government than the Republicans and they tend to legislate in that manner. Obama's, and even Clinton's, relative success in doing so resulted in the DNC neglecting the state and local parties. This trend reached a fevered pitch in 2012 when the Democrats were decimated (note: president's party has lost seats in the midterms in all but 2 elections since the turn of the 20th century).

It's not a coincidence that the GOP has been able to take Congressional seats, governor's mansions, and state legislatures -- these are primary state and /or local party elections. It's also no coincidence that there are a larger number of young(er) Republicans sitting in on the bench waiting for their turn, while Democrats wrestle over which 70 year old (Biden, Warren, Sanders) they think should run in 2020. Again, state parties groom these people for national positions. Neglect them while also seeing an uptick in gerrymandering and you've created the situation we're presently in.

I'm not willing to gamble on ineptitude just as much as you aren't willing to on not running rethugs as Dems.

The top down centralized strategy is what created this mess, hopefully you're not advocating for that. If West Virginia wants to vote for Manchin over all other candidates, that's West Virginia's choice. I don't live there so I don't care to dictate who they elect and it likely wouldn't help anyway.

 

[StatUS]

No, I think you think your strategy will work everywhere and your proposed area of interest is against ousting a current democrat.

That's an odd approach if your goal is to pass more liberal legislation and put a stop to Republican interests. If your goal is to fight all democrats then expect the ones who have been winning and have the ear of their constituents to give you push back. shyt ain't that hard.

It's not a strategy, alot of these Dems are gonna get primaried in 18. The question then will be who are the citizens gonna choose. It's not automatic that a progressive will be the victor. Look at Teachout in New York. She was looking good until she got stiffed in debates. But there's absolutely no reason to just hand nominations to these people just because they can't coalesce enough without having everything in their favor.

 

[Pressure]

It's not a strategy, alot of these Dems are gonna get primaried in 18. The question then will be who are the citizens gonna choose. It's not automatic that a progressive will be the victor. Look at Teachout in New York. She was looking good until she got stiffed in debates. But there's absolutely no reason to just hand nominations to these people just because they can't coalesce enough without having everything in their favor.

I follow my local politics pretty close. I think I posted in another thread a while back about how high turnouts for local elections are somewhere around 15%. The last midterm election did around 32%.

However when you look at primaries to turnout is much lower. Looking at the primaries in MI last week there was something like 10.6 percent voter turnout.

My point? The perception that candidates are being handed nominations by their party just isn't true. It's actually a result of people not actively engaging in the political process and don't even take a look until sometime in November or even the day of for many voters.

If you want to handle this, then candidates should engage voters earlier and voters should also be on the lookout for candidates that fit their views or run themselves. There are plenty of opportunities. One of my neighbors did that and he's polling pretty well heading into next months elections in charlotte.

 

[Shogun]

Maybe it's time for the Democrats to embrace their more progressive side, as most independents will (hopefully) be so thoroughly disgusted with the Republicans next time around that the DNC can avoid compromising their own party unity in winning them over.

 

[Pressure]

A couple old articles regarding progressives...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9140

What It Means To Be A Progressive: A Manifesto

 

[tru_m.a.c]

What is the common ground with someone who doesn't believe in global warming @Call Me James

 

[JoogJoint]

She takes her toe out the water alot when it comes time to actually do something radical imo. She does talk a good game though.

This is why I don't like her. She talks a good game because she's full of hot air. She's not even well liked in her own state I've heard.

 

[hayesc0]

This is why I don't like her. She talks a good game because she's full of hot air. She's not even well liked in her own state I've heard.

Yep I want a real progressive party so bad

 

[Pressure]

What is the common ground with someone who doesn't believe in global warming @Call Me James

I ran through a few quick thoughts in my head but they just led to me hitting the same stumbling block.

Anyone who is that intellectually dishonest is probably just selfish, but certainly only self interested.

So really any common ground is just me conceding to their own self interest and I doubt there would ever really be any meaningful compromise -- just finding areas where we Judy happen to agree. At first thought that sounds good, but i don't see that as viable.

For me that's where I fault purity politics or progressives who say it's UHC or bust. I fond it to be prohibitive to progress overall.