If the Democrats ever put a real progressive up for president could they win?

[winb83]

You should have supported Hillary.

Now you've lost those gains.

But, hey great job on shytting on the democrats.

#RealBrave

I voted for Hillary. I live in Michigan. It was a waste of time. The problem with you is you blame people for not supporting the establishment candidate that's there to do the establishment's bidding rather than work for the peoples benefit. It was Hillary's fault she lost not and no one else's. Maybe next time if the party puts up a candidate people actually want to support and get behind instead of putting up a piece of shyt and trying to fearmonger everyone into voting for them they'll win.

 

[acri1]

The working class voters he stole from Hillary in the Midwest pushed him over the edge. That's why he won. Because the Democrats have basically made those Midwestern working class voters feel abandoned and Trump took advantage. People are desperate for a government that actually works for them and not for corporations and the billionaires that own them. Cost of living continues to rise and wages are stagnate. There are a lot of people heavily in debt and barely able to keep their head above water. Over half the country makes $30,000 or less annually so year people are desperate.

So they voted for a billionnaire corporate exec because they were tired of corporations and billionnaires? And what about working class black/latino voters...how come they didn't go for Trump in that case since they're worse off?
Let's not be in denial here, it won't help. Trump didn't win because of economic policy, he won because he convinced white voters that they were in a race war and on the verge of losing "their" country.



I'm all for progressive policies (and was a Bernie voter in the primaries) but let's be reality, few Trump voters will be swayed. Only way for the Dems to win is for voters on our side to actually turn out in elections. And this Bernie vs. Hillary shyt is exactly what we don't need for that to happen. We have to dead this "I'm not going to vote if my guy doesn't win" mentality.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Let's not be in denial here, it won't help. Trump didn't win because of economic policy, he won because he convinced white voters that they were in a race war and on the verge of losing "their" country.

True. He also convinced people that politicians ain't shyt either. Which is how he beat 16 politicians in his own party handily.

 

[Shogun]

People go issue by issue which is a mistake because it doesn't tell you the weighting of those issues in a voters mind. I hear lots of progressives talking about labor and Midwest voters to the point of romanticizing them but forget that in places like Ohio some of those voters are actually socially conservative and may vote just as much on social issues like abortion or not care about global warming for instance.

The irony about Progressivism and Socialism is that their true intent is supposed to be to help the poor. The poor in America are just as many racist white trailer trash idiots as anything else. Are those the people "Real Progressives" should be helping?
And, if we're looking at it from a Progressive perspective, aren't those poor racist white idiots just a product of their poverty, and worthy of government support?
It's not easy being a "Real Progressive" or a "Real Socialist".

 

[winb83]

You got to be kidding right? Most people are indifferent about politics and only show up to vote after doing an hour or two of research on both sides of the party.

The two parties represent the vast majority of people that have any interest in gaining power and making changes to the government and the country from a political perspective. The progressive portion of the party is still a long way from becoming the "establishment" simply because they don't have enough power. By the time they have enough power and the things they are advocating for have a possibility of coming to fruition there will be a new progressive wing of the party complaining that the establishment is a bunch of sell outs happy with the status quo.

There's a difference between most people being indifferent about politics and many people disengaging from the political theater we have going on now where the rich elite chose amongst themselves who will represent both parties and anyone that says anything other than the message the kingmakers choose is shut out.

Trump in fact was proof that is someone speaks to the populace and tells a fair sized portion of the country what they want to hear they can beat that system though because he was not the kingsmaker's choice in his party. Trump was preaching about everyone getting health care and saving all these jobs and making the common man's life better and the smarter among us knew better but the portions of the different coalitions he stitched together was enough to get him that electoral college victory.

Trump had the foundation of his base the racists in his corner and after they passionately pushed him to the Republican nomination most of the rest of the party fell in line but that wouldn't have been enough to get him to victory. He pulled in just enough of the blue collar voters in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. All states that historically over the last close to 30 years go blue in presidential elections most often. You have to go back to 1988 to find an election where even one of those 3 states didn't go blue and in 2016 all three of them were red.

 

[brick james]

There's a difference between most people being indifferent about politics and many people disengaging from the political theater we have going on now where the rich elite chose amongst themselves who will represent both parties and anyone that says anything other than the message the kingmakers choose is shut out.

Trump in fact was proof that is someone speaks to the populace and tells a fair sized portion of the country what they want to hear they can beat that system though because he was not the kingsmaker's choice in his party. Trump was preaching about everyone getting health care and saving all these jobs and making the common man's life better and the smarter among us knew better but the portions of the different coalitions he stitched together was enough to get him that electoral college victory.

Trump had the foundation of his base the racists in his corner and after they passionately pushed him to the Republican nomination most of the rest of the party fell in line but that wouldn't have been enough to get him to victory. He pulled in just enough of the blue collar voters in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. All states that historically over the last close to 30 years go blue in presidential elections most often. You have to go back to 1988 to find an election where even one of those 3 states didn't go blue and in 2016 all three of them were red.

Breh, you are all over the place. Let's start by saying that Hillary won the vast majority of open primaries and that 3 million more people voted for her. *Insert excuse about how they were just black people who were going off name recognition* 2nd, there was a time when the rich elites actually chose who will represent both parties, and democratic engagement and voter participation was higher then. How does this fit in with your made up narrative that people are disengaged from the political theater because of the "rich elite"?

So did Hillary. Hillary had an extensive job training and placement program that was far more thorough than Trumps. She also had substantive plans for the improvement of healthcare and education. She was just less charismatic, and she was a woman, and she had to include minorities into her platform to win.

 

[storyteller]

The irony about Progressivism and Socialism is that their true intent is supposed to be to help the poor. The poor in America are just as many racist white trailer trash idiots as anything else. Are those the people "Real Progressives" should be helping?
And, if we're looking at it from a Progressive perspective, aren't those poor racist white idiots just a product of their poverty, and worthy of government support?
It's not easy being a "Real Progressive" or a "Real Socialist".

The Progressive agendas of healthcare and education as rights + raising minimum wage to a living wage = would positively impact those people yes. Chasing a level playing field is virtually impossible but making it so everyone has a chance feels like a cornerstone...even though it means some people we really don't like will also have access to this ish.

 

[Shogun]

I'm pretty sure we're better off riding the zeitgeist than outdated definitions though. If someone says they're progressive, I can guess which policies they'll be most open to per issue in general although as with any individual; they'll fall more on a spectrum than some one-size-fits-all definition. This Progressive movement feels like a big brother to the Occupy movement before it imo in a way similar to current Neolib principles tend to trace their way back to Third Way.

I guess I dont agree that the definitions are outdated. The definitions deal with the underlying philosophy, whereas the zeitgeist is schizophrenic and devoid of philosophical underpinnings. If you understand that philosophy it's easier to swallow policies that might not agree with the moral high ground. So called "Real Progressives" criticizing Hillary for being a Capitalist is a good example of the disconnect here. Progressive Liberalism is still founded in Free Market theory. It just is. If you are anti-Capitalist you aren't a Progressive, regardless of what the zeitgeist says. Even the Nordic Model is still Capitalist, just on the more extreme spectrum of Progressivism. They're not Socialist.

The Progressive agendas of healthcare and education as rights + raising minimum wage to a living wage = would positively impact those people yes.

Agreed, and the Progressives should put effort into trying to campaign to those people rather than marching Beyonce and LeBron across the stage. My biggest critique of Clinton's campaign is that she ignored those people because they were morally deplorable. As difficult as it is to swallow, if you don't see those people as redeemable then you aren't a Progressive. If you see them as an enemy to be defeated then you aren't a Liberal, either.

 

[Shogun]

Most of the main issues that are non-negotiable are all economic;
Single Payer Healthcare
Free State College
An immediate $15/hour minimum wage

And a candidate reinforces they are with this platform by how they run and feel about the election process;
No PAC money
Are for Publically Funded elections in the future/wants $ out of politics.

Everything after this is up to the individual candidate but if you are not down with this simple platform you're not on the team.

If I ask ten "Real Progressives" what their non-negotiables are do you think they would give me that exact list?
Nothing additional? Nothing less?
You speak for "Real Progressives"?
Is there a manifesto somewhere I've missed?
Or is that just your list?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

If I ask ten "Real Progressives" what their non-negotiables are do you think they would give me that exact list?
Nothing additional? Nothing less?
You speak for "Real Progressives"?
Is there a manifesto somewhere I've missed?
Or is that just your list?

Definitely nothing less. But yes good point about it not being a monolithic thing.

 

[rapbeats]

Without congress it’s not only unlikely but kinda pointless imo.

without congress isnt it pointless to elect a dem? kinda.. but not really. if you have an all red congress(in theory..not technically all red but as is today or during obama's time). You will at best be able to keep things as they currently are with a few baby tweaks in the right direction. But at least everything wont get worse.

Put it this way, what if trump came in instead of obama? Fresh after young bush. Imagine how bad off we would be right now. the economy would be in shambles. Not just for us regulars but also for the corporations as well. right now only us regulars are taking L's. the corps are rolling in the doe right now.


So with that said, you already know what would happen with say..bernie as prez with this same congress. but there's something else. with a bernie type as president. he would expose every congress person for holding up regular people's livelihood. Something obama didnt want to do early on because he wanted to play nice and reach across the Aisle. Not that a bernie type wouldnt reach across. But when you reach across you have to say ok, i'm making an honest good faith effort to compromise only if you're doing the same in regards to your constituents that are not zillionaires. if they are not returning that favor and you see yet another proposal for yet another big tax break for billionaires and we already have more than enough data that shows that kind of trickle down nonsense does not work. Then you stop reaching across the aisle and you expose these people in front of WE THE PEOPLE.

This, along with a bernie type's simplistic reasoning to why these things need to change in this manner...would create a much better/receptive congress come the next congressional elections. This would also change down tickets at the state/local levels. because WE THE PEOPLE would start to see what types of people that would actually work for US and not people that already have tons of money.

 

[rapbeats]

If I ask ten "Real Progressives" what their non-negotiables are do you think they would give me that exact list?
Nothing additional? Nothing less?
You speak for "Real Progressives"?
Is there a manifesto somewhere I've missed?
Or is that just your list?

it would depend on the subject matter. some subjects would be all over the place. and others would be in lockstep.

a lockstep subject would be the economy. no more huge tax breaks for the super rich. thats one thing we can all agree on. because progressiveness do not believe in trickle down economics since they have the data that proves it doesnt work.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So they voted for a billionnaire corporate exec because they were tired of corporations and billionnaires? And what about working class black/latino voters...how come they didn't go for Trump in that case since they're worse off?
Let's not be in denial here, it won't help. Trump didn't win because of economic policy, he won because he convinced white voters that they were in a race war and on the verge of losing "their" country.



I'm all for progressive policies (and was a Bernie voter in the primaries) but let's be reality, few Trump voters will be swayed. Only way for the Dems to win is for voters on our side to actually turn out in elections. And this Bernie vs. Hillary shyt is exactly what we don't need for that to happen. We have to dead this "I'm not going to vote if my guy doesn't win" mentality.

Mind you a lot of white progressives REALLY hate identity politics

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

There's a difference between most people being indifferent about politics and many people disengaging from the political theater we have going on now where the rich elite chose amongst themselves who will represent both parties and anyone that says anything other than the message the kingmakers choose is shut out.

Trump in fact was proof that is someone speaks to the populace and tells a fair sized portion of the country what they want to hear they can beat that system though because he was not the kingsmaker's choice in his party. Trump was preaching about everyone getting health care and saving all these jobs and making the common man's life better and the smarter among us knew better but the portions of the different coalitions he stitched together was enough to get him that electoral college victory.

Trump had the foundation of his base the racists in his corner and after they passionately pushed him to the Republican nomination most of the rest of the party fell in line but that wouldn't have been enough to get him to victory. He pulled in just enough of the blue collar voters in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. All states that historically over the last close to 30 years go blue in presidential elections most often. You have to go back to 1988 to find an election where even one of those 3 states didn't go blue and in 2016 all three of them were red.

:TrollTrump:

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

...with progressives like these...