Democrats, you have one real job...and you are screwing it up

[smallvoice]

You should at least wait for some DNC primary results but the MSM will likely call it before that.

They didn't need no steenkin' primary results when they picked Hilarity. Why do you think they will do better this time?

 

[Phys251]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

You raise a lot of points here. Some are valid. Others I call into question.

Right now it seems that a major criterion among the Democratic base is that their candidate be as far to the left on the economic spectrum as possible. To that I reply with one of the very, very few times that Donald Trump absolutely got it right: "America will never be a socialist country." I do want the dial cranked back away from our current system that feels like a real-live game of Monopoly, but that does not mean that we should flip from one end of the spectrum to the other end, at least not without a crystal clear plan of how we'd get there.

However, you made your disdain for the Green New Deal very clear. I wish that we had half a century to make a gradual transition to cleaner, greener energy. But that clock started back in the 1980s when the dangers becoming clear. What were oil companies doing at the time? Burying the evidence and stirring up politicians with the false environment-vs.-economy choice. We do not have the luxury of continuing to twiddle our thumbs while the Earth continues to show a measurable warming trend year after year. The green economy cannot wait any longer.

I think that the issue that progressives need to be wary about pursuing is not the green economy but single-payer healthcare. Progressives like to tout polls that suggest that a lot of Americans want single payer, but the truth is that most of them shriek away when faced with the sticker shock. Consider, for instance, the 2016 single-payer referendum in Colorado, which failed by a 21-79 margin. That was an overwhelming defeat for single-payer. And Colorado went for Hillary 48-43 in the very same election, meaning that there was a 63% drop from supporting a widely-derided Democratic candidate to a healthcare reform that is supposedly so popular!

But progressives are not listening to facts such as these. They are single-mindedly pursuing a democratic socialist platform, regardless of how effective it would be in a presidential election. This situation is made even more dire by the electoral college, which means that California, New York, and Vermont will not decide the 2020 election. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and a couple other states will. That's where our candidate needs to turn. That's where our candidate needs to win. And no, hyperfocusing on the WWC isn't going to work, either, so the democratic socialists should spare that one as well.

 

[noonereal]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I so totally agree with this.

I too had been a life long republican.

And yes, I finally like Pelosi too.

If the Starbucks guy had come out as a Democrat I'd be very interested. Running as an independent, I am outraged.

 

[Hari Seldon]

It's a little early to go for the end game.

Your suggestion is one obviously from a right wing American and not a liberal, so we will start there.

The right is going to do EVERYTHING it can to get the Democrats to commit early, just as you have posted. Why? So Trump can have free reign at them for two full years.

Nope. That's for a dope.

Right now President Liar has a wide field of enemies from within and without and some waiting in the wings for him to show the lightest weakness so to bring him down. These are Republicans we are talking about. And time is on their side. The longer Trump resists congress, the more likely he will lose it again and say something really, really stupid like "I will be proud to shut down the government."

So, waiting is the better option while the sharks circle the meat, maybe the Republicans will do their work for them...it's not like they haven't eaten their young before.

Across the aisle, he has one woman. Not a nice, house wifey Republican woman, but a seasoned pro at the inner workings of government who is dismantling Trump's entire charade piece by ****ing piece. He's losing to her as he comes across as the angry white guy she poses as a responsible mother, admonishing a child. They would be fools to relent now and lay off. Look, the Republicans harassed that political whore Hilary for four ****ing years...you can't possibly think Democrats have forgotten that. You can't possibly think they won't even the score.

It is to the Democrats advantage to maintain course and speed and proceed with authority in its oversight capacity remaining within the confines of the constitution.

Not only is he in decline now, now we are seeing how much Trump benefited from illegal labor. He saved millions by paying Guatemalans less than a third the going wage rate. Thousands of Guatemalans.

Oops. So much for his "rapists and thieves" sermon, he employed them for decades!

I could have sworn they were all murderers, rapists and drug dealers. Classic do as I say not as I do. He sure has fooled quite a few people. Morons.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Please supply such.

Google He's consistenly in the top 4

 

[ttwtt78640]

They didn't need no steenkin' primary results when they picked Hilarity. Why do you think they will do better this time?

I doubt that Hillary will be running and it is hard to do worse. The problem with party primaries is that "the base" is going to vote for whoever gets the nod in the general electiopn while the independents may not do so. The more "far left" candidates there are then the more likely they are to split that part of "the base" during the primaries leaving those (few?) candidates closer to the center to do better.

 

[noonereal]

Right now it seems that a major criterion among the Democratic base is that their candidate be as far to the left on the economic spectrum as possible.

I don't think so at all. It's the radicals on both sides that get the attention and makes them seem bigger than they are.

 

[armycowboy]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

With all do respect, you're asking democrats to tailor a candidate who you, someone who isn't a democrat, can support. That's really not how things work.

I'm not a democrat, while I can also never support Trump. There are some democrats I could vote for, like Booker and Brown. There are others like Warren that I couldn't vote for. At the end of the day, I'll patiently wait to see who they nominate and then I'll decide if I can support them. I suggest you do the same.

 

[noonereal]

I could have sworn they were all murderers, rapists and drug dealers. Classic do as I say not as I do. He sure has fooled quite a few people. Morons.

He sure has. He a real fraud. Flimflam man. Punk street hustler.

Don't misunderstand, he's good. He puts on quit a show.

 

[Perotista]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Looking back, the 2016 election was the Democrats to lose. Lose it they did. Ignored by Democrats was a poll in February of 2016 that showed 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone other than Clinton. That included 60% of independents. This poll showed Hillary would have a lot of problems with independent voters. Then in July of 2016, Gallup, another showed Hillary with a favorable rating of 60% among Democrats, but only 30% among independents. Trump had a 61% favorable among Republicans and 33% favorable among independents in the same poll. Amazingly, 54% of all independents disliked both candidates.

Then to top off this poor showing was another factor, from 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 Hillary let Trump both out work and out campaign by the huge margin of 116 campaign visits/stops, appearances/rallies to Hillary’s 71. That in my opinion was pure laziness on Hillary’s part. On election day, independents gave Trump a 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable to Hillary’s 27% favorable, 70% unfavorable. Both candidates still very much disliked which showed up in Trump winning the independent vote 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Independents put Trump into the white house because they disliked Hillary more than they did Trump.

Will this happen again in 2020? The Democrats nominating someone as disliked as Trump? Someone who can’t win the independent vote like Hillary couldn’t? I must admit, it seems the Democrats are off to a good start.

There were two candidates I couldn’t vote for in 2016 among all of those who ran for the nomination and the presidency. Trump and Hillary Clinton. I voted third party against both Trump and Hillary as did 9 million other Americans. In 2020, I already know I will never vote for Trump. What I don’t know is if I will vote for the democratic candidate or vote third party once again. I think those 9 million Americans who voted third party, against both Hillary and Trump in 2016, are in the same boat as I.

2020 is an election that should be won easily by the democrats as much as Trump is disliked. Like 2016, 2020 is an election for the Democrats to lose, Trump can’t win it, but the democrats sure could lose it with the wrong candidate, ala 2016. Probably the only question left is if the Democrats will once again ignore America as a whole and in particular independent voters when they nominate their candidate for 2020? It is beginning to look like they will do exactly that. If so, a repeat of 2016 is a real possibility.

 

[noonereal]

With all do respect, you're asking democrats to tailor a candidate who you, someone who isn't a democrat, can support. That's really not how things work.

I'm not a democrat, while I can also never support Trump. There are some democrats I could vote for, like Booker and Brown. There are others like Warren that I couldn't vote for. At the end of the day, I'll patiently wait to see who they nominate and then I'll decide if I can support them. I suggest you do the same.

I respect your persepctive, it's generally the correct one to have.

This is something different. I am voting against Trump if Putin himself is the opposition.

 

[Phys251]

I don't think so at all. It's the radicals on both sides that get the attention and makes them seem bigger than they are.

You underestimate them. Without that desire and without their ability to coordinate via the internet, Bernie Sanders's campaign would have gone nowhere. Same with Donald Trump's.

 

[What if...?]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I feel they're going a bit too far, but do we really need two neoliberal corporatist parties?

At this point its just competing teams of wealth fighting to see who gets to feed on us first and who has to take sloppy seconds.

 

[Keridan]

With all do respect, you're asking democrats to tailor a candidate who you, someone who isn't a democrat, can support. That's really not how things work.

I'm not a democrat, while I can also never support Trump. There are some democrats I could vote for, like Booker and Brown. There are others like Warren that I couldn't vote for. At the end of the day, I'll patiently wait to see who they nominate and then I'll decide if I can support them. I suggest you do the same.

Actually, that's exactly how it works. There are millions of independent votes up for grabs, while the dem vote is secure for anyone with a D by their name. Put a hardcore lefty up for vote and you lose lots of those. It's the moderates who decide the presidency.

 

[Phys251]

Looking back, the 2016 election was the Democrats to lose. Lose it they did. Ignored by Democrats was a poll in February of 2016 that showed 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone other than Clinton. That included 60% of independents. This poll showed Hillary would have a lot of problems with independent voters. Then in July of 2016, Gallup, another showed Hillary with a favorable rating of 60% among Democrats, but only 30% among independents. Trump had a 61% favorable among Republicans and 33% favorable among independents in the same poll. Amazingly, 54% of all independents disliked both candidates.

Then to top off this poor showing was another factor, from 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 Hillary let Trump both out work and out campaign by the huge margin of 116 campaign visits/stops, appearances/rallies to Hillary’s 71. That in my opinion was pure laziness on Hillary’s part. On election day, independents gave Trump a 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable to Hillary’s 27% favorable, 70% unfavorable. Both candidates still very much disliked which showed up in Trump winning the independent vote 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Independents put Trump into the white house because they disliked Hillary more than they did Trump.

Will this happen again in 2020? The Democrats nominating someone as disliked as Trump? Someone who can’t win the independent vote like Hillary couldn’t? I must admit, it seems the Democrats are off to a good start.

There were two candidates I couldn’t vote for in 2016 among all of those who ran for the nomination and the presidency. Trump and Hillary Clinton. I voted third party against both Trump and Hillary as did 9 million other Americans. In 2020, I already know I will never vote for Trump. What I don’t know is if I will vote for the democratic candidate or vote third party once again. I think those 9 million Americans who voted third party, against both Hillary and Trump in 2016, are in the same boat as I.

2020 is an election that should be won easily by the democrats as much as Trump is disliked. Like 2016, 2020 is an election for the Democrats to lose, Trump can’t win it, but the democrats sure could lose it with the wrong candidate, ala 2016. Probably the only question left is if the Democrats will once again ignore America as a whole and in particular independent voters when they nominate their candidate for 2020? It is beginning to look like they will do exactly that. If so, a repeat of 2016 is a real possibility.

Keep in mind that unlike in 2016, the 2020 primary field is going to be crowded. Already we have more Democratic candidates than in all of the 2016 cycle. And we're nearly a year away from the first caucus!

So it's going to be up to the base this time. There are some critical mistakes that the base must not make if we are to have a Democratic President in 2021. So far, as I outlined in Post #52, I see little evidence that the base is avoiding those mistakes. As a result, right now I'm giving the Democrats a 1-in-3 chance of winning back the presidency in 2020. And that might be pretty generous.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He's not? Could have fooled me.

Whatever he might be, he's too much of a friend to Big Pharma for a lot of people.
One of the very things most liberals are pissed off about, close ties with elite financial and corporate interests, like Big Pharma, appears to be haunting Cory Booker.

The New Jersey senator and 12 other Senate Democrats had joined the bulk of the Republican caucus to kill a proposal aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. What made Booker’s vote all the more anguishing for the left is that the proposal won the backing of 13 Republican senators, and had a real chance of passing.

The recriminations came quickly. “This is classic Booker — stand out front on feel-good social issues, regardless of his past positions, and align with big money everywhere else,” wrote Walter Bragman at Paste Magazine.

He looks and talks Deep Blue but underneath he's Deep Red.

 

[Phys251]

I feel they're going a bit too far, but do we really need two neoliberal corporatist parties?

It's these kinds of slurs that reinforce the point I just made in my last point.

At this point its just competing teams of wealth fighting to see who gets to feed on us first and who has to take sloppy seconds.

Both sides are the same, amirite?

 

[Idiometer]

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The first primaries are more than a year away. Isn't too early to make any assumptions?

Who would you like to see on the ballot?

 

[Airyaman]

With all do respect, you're asking democrats to tailor a candidate who you, someone who isn't a democrat, can support. That's really not how things work.

I'm not a democrat, while I can also never support Trump. There are some democrats I could vote for, like Booker and Brown. There are others like Warren that I couldn't vote for. At the end of the day, I'll patiently wait to see who they nominate and then I'll decide if I can support them. I suggest you do the same.

Oh, I understand that. I would not want the GOP to tailor a candidate for me either as ex-GOP. But I was hoping for some sensible choices, and I can't get on board with anyone who is willing to jump on board with AOC's GND.

We'll see who else they have to offer. If they decide the way to beat Trump is far left, I wish them good luck.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Google He's consistenly in the top 4

So far, so good - but it is very early.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Actually, that's exactly how it works. There are millions of independent votes up for grabs, while the dem vote is secure for anyone with a D by their name. Put a hardcore lefty up for vote and you lose lots of those. It's the moderates who decide the presidency.

But are they really MODERATES?
What does that even mean these days?
If you apply that tag to somebody like Booker, what do you get?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Oh, I understand that. I would not want the GOP to tailor a candidate for me either as ex-GOP. But I was hoping for some sensible choices, and I can't get on board with anyone who is willing to jump on board with AOC's GND.

We'll see who else they have to offer. If they decide the way to beat Trump is far left, I wish them good luck.

Give me some actual specifics on the GND that you find truly objectionable.
I am 100% serious, this is an honest question.

Point to one or two items that make you say "yecccch no way".

 

[Airyaman]

The first primaries are more than a year away. Isn't too early to make any assumptions?

Who would you like to see on the ballot?

I'm not looking for any certain person, I'm looking for someone moderate enough to hold my nose and vote for. Otherwise it's abstain or vote 3rd party. I've done both.

I also understand that winning the primary is about winning the base. Sometimes there needs to be some forethought beyond just the base.

There are alot of independents out there who matter for the general election. The Democrats need to consider them this time unless they want 4 more years of Trump.

 

[Idiometer]

Kamala has said she signs on with the New Green Deal. I will not vote for her because of it.

Cory Booker has said he signs on with the New Green Deal. I will not vote for him because of it.

The New Green Deal, whatever that is (I haven't yet felt compelled to do my homework on that) may be a wedge issue for you, but I don't think most voters give a damn about that. There are two main issues they care about: money, and abortion.

The pro-choice candidates will never receive Christan evangelical votes or the votes of any anti-choice groups or individuals. Most Americans are pro-choice, thankfully, but that is still a major wedge issue. None of the current Dem candidates are addressing it, and probably won't until it inevitably comes up during debates.

Job, wages, and the cost of healthcare are the things most voters want to hear about from candidates. Any candidate who fails to address these issues will die in the first primary.

 

[What if...?]

It's these kinds of slurs that reinforce the point I just made in my last point.



Both sides are the same, amirite?

Tycoon extra and tycoon light.

When the rubber hits the road, donors get what they want from congress over what the people who voted them in want. That's what $50+ million per congressperson in "lobbying" gets you.

I generally vote democrat. Because they have a better philosophy as to the care and feeding of the livestock. They both consider us livestock.

Hell, capitalism itself considers most of us disposable commodities. Officially.

Ideally I would like to see democratic socialism like all the grown up European countries.

But I'm not sure how we get there when three americans own as much wealth as the bottom half of our society put together.

Our donor class is in competition with that of the world. God knows how many people are sucking negative entropy out of this society any way they can trying to knock one of those guys out of the top three.

Its the underlying compulsive behavior that is the problem. Not any particular ideology.