Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's politics as much as the money. If they can't break the ACA bank, they can't use reconciliation to cut taxes. If they can't use reconciliation, they have to get Democratic support starting... last week of May? And there's no way that any Democrat votes to gut Obamacare. That makes the Republicans look weak, which is going to put the fear of god into Republicans in blue and purple states. That'll encourage them to reach across the aisle to the Democrats so they can look good to their constituents which'll get the Republican establishment mad as hell, provoking Republican infighting, which actually weakens the Republican party and starting a vicious cycle.
tldr version: Interesting times for the Republicans in the Chinese curse sense. If they keep going after immigrants over the next two years then we really could see the country look more like California in 2018 and 2020.
edited 19th Apr '17 2:30:35 PM by Watashiwa
Xenophobia wasn't the sole reason for California's blueshift.
The collapse of the aerospace industry after the end of the Cold War also aided, as it drove white working class people - often "Reagan Democrats" which often voted for Republicans - from the state.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman"It helps immensely by having the Democratic Party associate themselves with him."
I think this is the wrong approach; it smacks of monarchism. Bernie should be part of the whole, the multitude shouldn't be seeking the blessing of one man. I want Bernie to say "I am a Democrat," rather than every Democrat to say "I'm with Bernie."
It's not just about Bernie.
edited 19th Apr '17 2:49:02 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Yeah. Because Stephen Colbert does not legally own the rights to the name or likeness of Stephen Colbert, he starts all of his Stephen Colbert skits by establishing that he is not playing Stephen Colbert, but is instead playing Stephen Colbert's identical twin cousin Stephen Colbert.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Well yeah but politicals parties often piggyback over who is popular.
Party of Lincoln, Party of Reagan, Party of Trump, Party of Roosevelt etc.
Also remember "I'm with her".
This is the problem with the people you're suggesting that the Democrats should court. They aren't interested in viable policy positions or pragmatic governance. They're interested in ideological purity and nothing else. The fact that ideological purity neither wins elections nor makes for good policy is irrelevant to them — in their mind, it's the system's fault, so they get to feel virtuous by wasting their vote on someone who will never make it into office, rather than sullying their hands by voting for a candidate that may actually win, but doesn't give them warm fuzzies about being a political Doomed Moral Victor.
Note that I'm not talking about everyone who prefered Sanders to Clinton, here — just the ones that won't support mainstream Democrats, but do support Sanders. ie, the exact people you're saying that the Democrats should be trying to attract.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.See, my impression is that Democrats need to attract people who voted for Obama and Trump. Because they do exist and according to some analysis swung the election in the critical states.
I am guessing that they are a segment of the "working class" - "white" or not - considering that minority turnout apparently wasn't an issue in 2016, at least in Arizona part of the non-white working class was won over by Trump with promises of jobs and that Obama's talk about employment and the like in 2012 in Ohio did carry the state for him.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIn my view, the biggest problem for Democrats on the national scale is turnout. More potential voters lean Democrat than Republican — but among likely voters, the gap is much narrower. This is in no small part due to deliberate disenfranchisement efforts by the Republican party, especially on state and local levels.
This is where I'd like to see the Democratic party focusing its efforts. Fight discriminatory voter ID laws. Make election day a federal holiday. Oppose gerrymandering. There is more support for Democrats out there than there are Republicans. They just can't get to the polls because of barriers systematically erected against them.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.In more Sanders' related news
, he decided to announce that he "didn't know" if Jon Ossof was a progressive. Way to help flip that seat, Bernie.
Then he declared his intention to campaign with a guy who is running for mayor of Omaha. Coincidentally, said guy, Heath Mello, voted in favour of legislation that forced women in Nebraska to have ultrasounds before they can get abortions. And continues to identify as entirely prolife. Yet according to Sanders, he's a genuine progressive Democrat and his election in Nebraska would be demonstrative of how popular progressive policies are in traditionally Republican districts.
Look, I am all in favour of getting a Blue Dog Democrat elected in Nebraska. Because it's freaking Nebraska and the placement of any Democrat in that Republican sea is an excellent thing. But Mello is no True Progressive (TM). He's a Blue Dog in the vein of Joe Manchin, whom the Sanders fans are reportedly desperate to primary out. What's the difference between Mello and Manchin? Near as I can tell, nothing, save the fact that the messiah has endorsed one and not the other.
@Jovian
I too would like to see them fight all those things, though I'm not sure how they can do it while being in the minority. At this point I think we've entered a vicious cycle, where Republican gerrymandering strangles Democratic chances, and the Democrats cannot undo the gerrymandering without winning some of those elections.
Got a strategy in mind? I'm all out of ideas.
edited 19th Apr '17 4:24:33 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Madskillz; yeah, but the people you listed were actual members of their parties. Associating with them makes them look good specifically because they were part of those groups. Associating with someone who refuses to call themselves a part of your club does not necessarily achieve the same effect. After all, if they don't claim the label themselves, there must be something they consider wrong with it.
Then there's what Native Jovian brought up: If he can't actually bring the voters themselves to the Democratic party to vote for Democrats, then what good is he as an ally? Results are actually pretty important as a factor.
Also it just seems like he's waffling more and more lately in his relationship with the Democrats. What good do his ideals and policies do the rest of us if he's not actually achieving anything that works towards those ideals and policies?
edited 19th Apr '17 4:38:59 PM by AceofSpades
Yeah, Sanders is great and all but it really bugs me that he isn't willing to be practical. If he just keeps attacking the DNC and offering only token gestures then he's just a liability.
![]()
![]()
That brings up something about Sanders and his fanbase that bugs me. Hillary got dragged through the mud for supposedly being too rightwing and making deals with corporate donors but here we have people like Sanders openly calling for us to ally with a pro-lifer and waffling on his support of Ossoff. If Hillary did this she'd have been raked over the coals. I know it's annoying to keep hearing that but it's true. Gabbard is another example. Bernie could denounce her for being an opportunistic ass with terrible civil rights views but he refuses to do that. I'm legitimately worried about what sort of concessions he'd be willing to accept if he thought he had a chance at getting medicare for all or free college tuition passed.
edited 19th Apr '17 4:52:00 PM by Kostya
![]()
and
Yeah. I don't think he "can't" bring voters toward the Democratic Party, it's more that he doesn't want to (with a few exceptions of candidates he specifically endorses). Now I guess someone wouldn't have a problem with this if they have a fairly negative view of the Democratic Party and/or feel that the Party sabotaged Sanders to a lesser or greater extent, but if you don't have those views, Sanders doesn't look like a friend or even an ally.
Also, RE
in terms of politicians endorsing and endorsed by standards, this is why I get the sense that in some cases Progressive is being used in solely economic terms or at the very least, the economic policy is the dealbreaker, not other policies. Because it's only by that measure that the Mayor of Omaha is considered a trustworthy Progressive and Ossoff wouldn't be (assuming that the former's economic views are more progressive than the latter, which I'm actually not sure of in either case).
edited 19th Apr '17 4:52:13 PM by Hodor2
![]()
I'd trust Ambar's summary of an article on Sanders about as much as I'd trust string of numbers for opposite reasons, and seeing as the article is paywalled and I can't find the primary source being discussed, one has to wonder what was actually said.
People who dislike the democratic party are in the majority
by a large and growing margin; it wasn't always the case in American politics that both parties were broadly disliked and independents were the single largest slice of the electorate, and I think what the democrats desperately need to be doing going forwards is ask themselves why that's the case.
edited 19th Apr '17 4:51:57 PM by CaptainCapsase
Wow, Caspase. You know, there's this little thing called "Google" out there. You could always punch "Bernie Sanders+Jon Ossof" into it and see what comes up. Or "Bernie Sanders+Heath Mello". Instead of, you know, trying to slander other tropers.
Then again, if this is the way you want to play it, I suppose I can start advising everyone to ignore what you (and certain other members of the thread) say.
@Kostya
I don't know that Sanders will ever denounce Gabbard. She was one of the few members of Congress to endorse him at a time when he had no other allies, and while he may not associate with her closely, he seems very reluctant to admit that she is what she is.
Of course, he's also proving more than willing to campaign with genuine Blue Dogs like Mello, or crazies like that guy he supported against Wasserman-Schultz, and to do so without ever claiming they are anything other than one hundred percent progressives. So heck, maybe he really does believe that Gabbard is the real deal.
edited 19th Apr '17 4:53:38 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
x7 Goddammit Sanders.
Also, seriously, can we fucking stop re-litigating the goddamn primary???? It's really getting tiresome.
![]()
Please don't be so rude to other tropers, I'll get the article for you.
Skipped some posts, may respond to them later.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
![]()
Which ties into a problem I've brought up before. His supporters seem to act like Bernie=Good therefore anything Bernie says nice things about is also good. This is fine when he's talking about UHC but what if he takes a stupid or incorrect position? Should the Dems follow him anyway to avoid pissing off his supporters?
On another note, would you mind posting the text of the article you linked? I'd like to read it for myself.
edited 19th Apr '17 4:54:15 PM by Kostya
![]()
As Mad Skillz, "True Progressive" par excellence once told me, "quit whining." And while we're at it—seriously man, you are free to disagree with me on everything, and argue with me until you're blue in the face, but trying to suggest I'm dishonest is cheap and you know it. I don't do it to you, kindly return the favour.
I'd gotten linked to the key part of the article through someone else, and had forgotten the rest was pay walled. I'll see if I can dig out the key parts.
edited 19th Apr '17 5:04:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
x14 Engage with them. Many of the people who voted for Obama and Trump, are swing voters. the reason that many people voted for Trump, (rightly or wrongly), is because they didn't like Hillary and/or did not think Obama did enough to help them, not because they liked Trump. Putting aside your personal feelings about this, how do you think we could swing their vote?
edited 19th Apr '17 5:02:32 PM by megaeliz
RE the Independents thing, as the name suggests, Independent means that someone doesn't feel that either of the two major parties represents them for some reason, and needless to say, there's going to be wide variation in what that reason is. In Sanders' case, it's basically in lieu of identifying himself as a Democratic Socialist (ditto Angus King IIRC).
But usually Independents (at least judging by the people who self identify online and on television- i.e. "undecided voters" like Ken Bone) seem to be "South Park Republicans", who don't share the Republican Party's religious/moral bent but are also skeptical to hostile toward the civil rights policies of Democrats. My impression was that they are usually economic conservatives as well, but I guess at this point maybe they've all come around to being working class socialists.
To this end, it certainly wouldn't hurt for the Democrats to be more economically progressive. I'd also add though that besides the above, I'd also gather that Independents take a mindset of both parties being equally bad, which is part of why it would really help (since they like Sanders) if he'd identify as a Democrat or at least say good things about the Party.
edited 19th Apr '17 5:04:30 PM by Hodor2

I wonder how the character of Stephen Colbert would react to his "Papa Bear" (O'Reilly) getting sacked. But I don't think that Colbert the person can play his character of Colbert on his late night show, so we may never get to see Colbert the character's reaction.
Do not obey in advance.