Nap
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2016
- Messages
- 8,362
- Reaction score
- 3,187
- Location
- Jackson, MS
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
But we disagree - I said it's not much of a victory, but is still is SOME victory, and should be done - that second worst person should be elected over the worst, of those are the only two options who can practically win. To your second point, IF the only options were trump or a horrible Democrat who is still better, I'd have to support the latter, but those are NOT the only options and it would be a disaster for us to nominate that bad Democrat needlessly.
But at what risk are you willing to take?
Let's say:
A "bad" Democrat (say Manchin or someone like him closer to the center) gives you 80-90% chance of victory against Trump
Biden or other moderate Democrat gives you a 70-80% chance to win
Progressive candidate gives you a 50% coin flip to beat Trump
If we assume those were accurate percentages, which nominee would you prefer to see against Trump in this hypothetical?
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.
Thing is, that's a false premise. If that WAS the choice, it'd be a real discussion.
But it's just as easy to ask what risk YOU are willing to take if you are an anti-trump conservative Democrat whose first choice is Mansion - if the choices are, Bernie, 90% chance; Biden, 70% chance; or Mansion 20% chance, which do you pick?
That 'risk' is a perception, and NO ONE KNOWS in many cases, who would be the 'best' chance. How would Jeb have done against Hillary compared to trump? No one knows. But trump was viewed as that 'worst chance' candidate against her, so her campaign TRIED to get him nominated.
There are cases where it's clearer someone is very like to be a 'worst chance'. For example, if Republicans nominated Devin Nunes or Sarah Huckabee, or if Democrats nominated Hillary again or Donna Brazille, those would likely be 'worse candidates'. But the idea that the more conservative the Democrat the more electable, I think is at best unknowable speculation, and worst the opposite of the case.
What I do think is that, given that progressives are at least electable if not the most electable, we need to be looking at the disastrous issues for the country that only progressives can solve, and fighting for a progressive.
Basically the logic behind my hypothetical is this:
Democrats are already energized to vote whomever the nominee is against Trump
There is a number of centrist and even right leaning people who would be willing to vote a moderate or centrist Democrat if Trump is the opponent.
The further you move away from the center the more likely you are to lose those that would switch and encourage them to either not vote or worse case scenario vote Trump energizing Republican voters against the Democrat. For those that do not like Trump but not necessarily a Democrat they would be more likely to vote for someone closer to the center.
The polls seem to bear this out as well with Biden the only one really having an advantage with the rest of the candidates being nearly a coin flip against Trump.
I'm just the oddball that Tulsi is the only candidate out of the Democrats that is likely to get my vote thus far and depending on the nominee outside of her may lead me to vote Trump. So as of right now my preference is Tulsi>not voting>Trump depending on DNC nominee.
Yes, that's the standard, incorrect argument for conservative Democrats. Biden's advantage comes from name recognition - just as Hillary started with a huge advantage over Bernie, just as Jeb started out as the front-runner.
The fact the only Democrat you'd vote for over trump is Tulsi says we have almost nothing in common interest in politics.
You are likely correct that name recognition is likely the largest factor in his advantage but that doesn't take away from the fact that there are a considerable number of Republicans that would either not vote or vote Democrat if given a nominee they could stomach and that the more radical the candidate the more likely you are to energize the Republican base against you. Why give Trump any extra momentum?
What do you have against Tulsi?
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.
I don't disagree there are some conservative Democrats/less far-right Republicans who would vote for a conservative Democrat, but not a progressive Democrat. Here's the thing. I give a lot of weight to the importance of a progressive over a conservative Democrat, whether you do or not.
The price of those votes is losing the better policies of the progressive, and losing the votes of the people who would vote for a progressive, but not a conservative Democrat. You might be HURTING our chances, and our chances aren't the only issue. I need to learn more about Tulsi to discuss her, but she might be the only Democrat I've seen who might be TOO isolationist; I see her dismiss basically ANY intervention without more justification than 'all intervention is bad'.
It is a sad that not being a warmonger has become a negative for a political candidate in the US.
Which US intervention have you supported?
So, on a spectrum of 1 to 100 on support for intervention, you rank a #2 the same as #100, and call them a "warmonger". You might want to recognize how warped your view is.
What intervention have I supported? I'd have to think, there are many I haven't. It's more her blanket absolutism against the idea seemingly of almost any intervention in principle that goes too far for me. If Russia invaded England tomorrow, I'd support helping England.
Our intent is in the right place the problem is that intention doesn't automatically result in positive outcomes and in my lifetime all we have done is spread death and destruction.
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.
Honest question, who would you vote for? Are there any in the current pool that you are looking at? If not, who outside the bubble would you consider?
I have to disagree our intent is so much in the right place. There's a difference between what the intent is of the policymakers, and the yarns they spin for the public about their reasons. You might read "Confessions of an economic hit man" sometime for more about the intent.
I'm just giving them the benefit of doubt that they are doing out of good intentions, otherwise it is just too depressing to think about.
Yet, rather important to understand the lies. A little like Vietnam - how important was it to understand that the war was wrong, not really saving world freedom? It was hard for people to do, but pretty important. Many never did, and just stuck with things like 'politicians tying the hands of the military is why we lost'.
It really shouldn't have been hard to understand that we had no reason to be involved in that conflict. Situations like Vietnam are precisely why the founders of this country warned against entangling alliances. If we had minded our own business from the very start we wouldn't have ever needed to worry about being lied into a war. It still amazes me how gullible the American public is when it comes to going to war (or in some cases completely oblivious to the fact that we have been in a constant state of war for nearly 2 decades with up to 7 countries).
I don't disagree there are some conservative Democrats/less far-right Republicans who would vote for a conservative Democrat, but not a progressive Democrat. Here's the thing. I give a lot of weight to the importance of a progressive over a conservative Democrat, whether you do or not.
The price of those votes is losing the better policies of the progressive, and losing the votes of the people who would vote for a progressive, but not a conservative Democrat. You might be HURTING our chances, and our chances aren't the only issue...
It looks like it's six of one, or a half dozen of the other. Moderates won't vote for a progressive and vice versa. But history shows that only one group can be counted on through thick and thin, to get to the polls and vote. Many of the other group will have plans that day, be nursing a hangover, or for whatever reason won't show up in the same numbers.
I agree with the majority of Democrats that beating Don is job one. I'd like to see as, or more progressive policies than what the candidates are proposing now, but they should be introduced after America has been seeing and benefiting from four years of a Democrat in office. Overreaching and proposing too much, too soon is a sure loser. We need idealists, but their sometimes their idealism doesn't help with practical politics.
I thought our chances were/are the main issue, if it's not the only one, what other issues are you referring to?
Let's nominate a centrist, well-known, experienced Democrat - Hillary 2020! No way trump can beat her.
Let's start with America moving for 50 years away from a democracy into a more and more permanent plutocracy, with centrist Democrats barely pressing the brakes to go a little slower, when we need to change course while we can (there's an analogy between plutocracy and the climate, both needing big changes).
You have a point, but it's extremely rare that pundits and polling get it so wrong. Don't expect it to happen again anytime soon. I also believe that where she fell on the political spectrum had little to do with the reasons why people voted for her or not. We need the radical changes, but this isn't the time to propose them...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?