I don’t think anyone here would disagree with any of that, but it doesn’t answer why you feel a leftist candidate can’t also do those things.

10/19/2018 1:48:14 PM

I would.

He only wants the executive branch to go back to secretly expanding and abusing its powers rather than explicitly doing so.

If he wants that, he can just turn off the news. He's just upset that our imperial presidency is no longer filling out the bureaucratic paperwork of maintaining institutional legitimacy. He didn't/doesn't seem to be fundamentally upset about the actions as long as they "appear" above board. Our collective decision to overlook (and even redeem) the behavior of George W Bush as "normal" and acceptable behavior of the executive branch is the reason why we got Trump to begin with. Bush is a war criminal who also oversaw the largest upward transfer of wealth in our lifetime. Whitewashing his behavior as "normal" while lambasting Trump for eschewing institutional norms completely misses the fundamental breakdown of democratic oversight over the presidency.

10/19/2018 1:55:38 PM

1) I don't think a leftist candidate will win.
2) If they do win, I think there's only so much any president can do in one term.
3) If they did manage to enact significant portions of a leftist agenda, the rage on the right and among many in the center would be such that the consequences could range from the merely terrible (another Trumplike administration that comes in with a sole mandate to undo everything) to the game-ending (civil war or fascism).

JesusHChrist is, true to form, a frothing lunatic who can't read and has nothing to add, but I suppose his rant reminds me that any "bold return to normality" would have to involve a President who is within normal tolerances for bullshit.

[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2018 2:01:13 PM

Quote :

"3) If they did manage to enact significant portions of a leftist agenda, the rage on the right and among many in the center would be such that the consequences could range from the merely terrible (another Trumplike administration that comes in with a sole mandate to undo everything) to the game-ending (civil war or fascism)."

Funny how the threat of a right-wing backlash is always the reason why we can't expand democratic power to the working poor. And yet, even without having a significant leftward shift, we still managed to find ourselves fearing that same right-wing reaction.

So maybe our strategy of appeasing the fascist-right isn't really working? Maybe they need to be soundly defeated and not placated?

10/19/2018 2:05:59 PM

You do not, at present, have the votes to ignore the existence of a right wing in this country through democratic means. And if you're suggesting that other-than-democratic means be used to soundly defeat the right, then I'm going to get right the hell out of this conversation.

10/19/2018 2:09:05 PM

Quote :

"would have to involve a President who is within normal tolerances for bullshit."

Ah yes. Over 30,000 dead Iraqi's, the longest war in US history, and the worst economic recession in our lifetimes that launched millions of Americans into poverty.

All within an "acceptable tolerance of bullshit" for the Presidency.


Pretty high bar you've got there.

10/19/2018 2:10:23 PM

Quote :

"I would. He only wants the executive branch to go back to secretly expanding and abusing its powers rather than explicitly doing so."

Yeah yeah I was just hoping he would elaborate on what normalcy is to him. Bc our “normalcy” and “foundations” are built on slavery and nepotism.

[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2018 2:11:31 PM

I figured as much but it's still annoying when nominally liberal voters like Grumpy focus more on the eradication of norms and decorum without digging underneath to expose what those processes reveal.

I agree with him that Trump is a deviation from the past, and that's why Trump has broken so many liberal minds, because he forces them to confront the reality of what the US (and especially the executive branch) represents. They can no longer tell themselves that their completely fabricated understanding of our imperialist project is a force for good. But they want to retreat back to that mythical daydream of a living in a altruistic nation rather than confront the competing forces that are bludgeoning the working poor the world over for the extreme profit of a few. He doesn't want to fix anything, he just wants to go back to thinking the system was a benevolent force working for everybody when it clearly wasn't.


[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2018 2:22:51 PM

Sigh...I suppose this was predictable.

If it must be said, no, I don't think that slavery or invasions of countries under dubious circumstances are things we should go back to. But the parts where we actually thought that democracy and a free press were real and desirable... That is a part of normality that I think are necessary to move forward.



[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:27 PM. Reason : JesusHChrist is so delusional he won't acknowledge existence of conservatives]

10/19/2018 2:25:12 PM

Quote :

" But the parts where we actually thought that democracy and a free press were real and desirable... That is a part of normality that I think are necessary to move forward."

And that's the part I was agreeing with. I just don't think we need a centrist to accomplish this. In fact, I think a leftist is necessary to separate the press from moneyed interests and fight voter suppression.

[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2018 2:27:20 PM

Lol. This thread is a miniature version of why Trump is going to win in 2020.

IBT you guys turn Grumpy back to Trump for berating him for not being left enough.

10/19/2018 2:30:17 PM

GrumpGOP seems to think Democrats appeasing conservatives will suddenly cause them to start winning and moving their agenda forward

[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:31 PM. Reason : GrumpyGOP = Shrike, inverse horseshoe theory confirmed]

10/19/2018 2:30:35 PM

And here we depart, since I am certain that anything that costs money will always be beholden to whatever interest pays for it, and don't see any preferable sugar daddies for the media compared to what we had. Certainly not the government; we have that now with Fox News, and it's terrifying.

10/19/2018 2:30:44 PM

bye!

10/19/2018 2:32:02 PM

Not being left to the point of lunacy is not appeasing conservatives. It is being pragmatic in what will be a difficult election.

And to make things even worse:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/802785/former-hillary-clinton-adviser-says-theres-chance-run-2020

10/19/2018 2:36:27 PM

Quote :

"And here we depart, since I am certain that anything that costs money will always be beholden to whatever interest pays for it"

Therefore, since the rich control the airwaves, we don't actually have a free press. It's only free if you have vast amounts of money and are able to control the message. ~~Normalcy~~

10/19/2018 2:39:05 PM

^^The left policies will actually appeal to some on the right, but the point is to have an energetic progressive platform that will energize left leaning people instead of the same tired right of center platform that causes left leaning people to stay home and have lost over a thousand democratic seats.

[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2018 2:40:20 PM

GrumpyGOP is intelligent and posts thoughtful replies from time to time, but that was a whole bunch of nonsense.

10/19/2018 2:49:11 PM

Quote :

" If they did manage to enact significant portions of a leftist agenda, the rage on the right and among many in the center would be such that the consequences could range from the merely terrible (another Trumplike administration that comes in with a sole mandate to undo everything) to the game-ending (civil war or fascism)."

I understand your point. I've, at times, been unsure of whether I necessarily want a far-left candidate to be stuck with the wreckage that Donald Trump will leave behind (for example, an economic downturn).

That being said, a far-left candidate might be the best prescription for a scenario such as that.

Also, given the most recent IPCC report on climate change, there are going to be some drastic changes that will need to be enacted that won't necessarily allow us to placate the sensibilities of the right.

10/19/2018 4:17:30 PM

ITT, acknowledging the existence of a conservative electorate is the same as wanting to appease them.

Republican/Conservative/Trumpist voters exist. They may not represent a majority, but they're clearly numerous enough that they can't be ignored. They will act as a brake on any progressive agenda, again.

And the situation could change. The economy could make a timely crash. Any urgent crisis (well, any recognized urgent crisis - sorry, climate change) could open the door to more radical change. The depression made the New deal possible. Or you could get a once-in-a-lifetime powerhouse candidate. Teddy Roosevelt made some pretty wild changes. You show me a TR and we'll talk.

Until then, we've got weak candidates facing what appears to be a strong economy. Now is not the time you get to go hog wild. It's not me stopping you, it's reality.

[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 4:40 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2018 4:36:37 PM

The right wing has never been ignored in an election. The left wing has. Let's try something else for a change.

10/19/2018 4:38:40 PM

Quote :

"They may not represent a majority"

Then they literally wouldn't matter if we expanded voting power to the disenfranchised.

An argument that revolves around satisfying the needs of a minority of voters is an argument against democracy.

10/19/2018 4:50:09 PM

You claim that you want a return to functional democratic rule, but your entire premise relies on satisfying the will of a minority of people, which is inherently undemocratic in nature. The entire health of a nation should not be held hostage to the whims of a few powerful people and their mouth-breathing lackeys who represent a minority of the population.

10/19/2018 4:54:45 PM

I'm not sure that mitigating the effects of climate change will allow for us to appease those who think that Barack Obama is a socialist.

10/19/2018 4:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Then they literally wouldn't matter if we expanded voting power to the disenfranchised. "

I'm a DC resident, so I actually am disenfranchised as far as Congress goes. But you could give us the vote, and Puerto Rico, and all the felons, too (and I would support any and all of those right now), it's still not enough that you can ignore conservatives.

10/19/2018 5:01:34 PM

All of those things can and should happen immediately. Total agreement there. You can even make the argument that we should expand voting rights to incarcerated citizens, especially when we view mass-incarceration and policing as a tool of disenfranchisement.

But none of that matters if you don't also offer those newly enfranchised people something in exchange for their vote. And that's why Democrats continue to trip over their own dicks. You have to actually offer them something. Expanding voting rights just for the sake of expanding voting rights is not a strategy to gain and maintain power. It has to be accompanied with leftward action such as expanding worker protections and the reduction of industrial policing and surveillance, for example.

Because if we don't, the right will continue to consolidate voting power and dis-empower the left. You have to expand your ranks and pick off your political opponent. Republicans understand this. Democrats do not.

Appeasement is not a winning strategy.


[Edited on October 19, 2018 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2018 5:07:09 PM

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-taxes-middle-class-working-class-GOP-13321493.php

Did someone say democratic party strategy? But unfortunately its too late for mid terms but after 2019 tax season it might start getting interesting.

Let's see if they will attach it to the government spending bill and shut down the government over it.

[Edited on October 20, 2018 at 9:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2018 9:32:00 AM

Quote :

"Expanding voting rights just for the sake of expanding voting rights is not a strategy to gain and maintain power."

Expanding voting rights is not nothing. And it goes a long way to getting you the edge you need before you can start proposing far-left policies and candidates.

10/21/2018 1:05:00 PM

The amount of money and energy that’s going to get dumped into the 2020 election is going to be insane

10/21/2018 1:36:44 PM

Quote :

"Expanding voting rights is not nothing"

It is if you don't do something with those votes. You have to offer people an alternative vision for society, otherwise why would you even expect them to show up for you?

10/21/2018 5:06:19 PM

First of all, I think you overstate Americans' appetite for "alternative visions of society," still less the same alternative visions. I don't know why you'd expect currently disenfranchised populations to be more enthusiastic for them. Certainly nothing I've seen of DC leads me to believe that it would be a hotbed of far-left politics if given the vote.

Why would I expect them to show up for "me?" Well, the straightforward, cynical answer is that they're going to vote out of enthusiasm for finally being able to do so, and they're going to show up for "me" (ie, liberal but not far-left Democrats) because the populations of DC, Puerto Rico, and Convicted Felonland are hardly going to vote for a fucking Republican.

Of course, this whole discussion is extra pointless, because you can't give the votes to these groups without taking power by a healthy margin, which you can't do by putting forward a bunch of far-out pinko nerd candidates, because - much as you may wish it weren't so - Conservatives still exist.

10/22/2018 8:07:26 AM

conservatives still exist - and they won't ever vote for democrats that's why you need a progressive message that will grow the democratic base and energize otherwise apathetic people to get out and vote


trying to win by staying centrist to appease conservatives is how the democrats have been losing

10/22/2018 8:46:13 AM

I'm not interested in getting conservatives to vote for Democrats. There's not really much to be done with the conservative rank and file, except maybe create circumstances that demoralize them into staying home.

We want the middle, and we want an energized Democratic base. Either (ideally both) wins. You think both have an appetite for radical policies; I disagree. They haven't been convinced yet, and I don't see the candidate to convince them this cycle. Meanwhile, radical policies energise the Conservative base, thanks to a right wing messaging apparatus that is 9,000% more effective than ours. That same messaging unit will terrorize the middle into thinking you want death panels made up of MS-13 gangsters.

We want the middle and we want the base. I hate to break it to you, but young overeducated leftists don't dominate either. We didn't lose 2016 because the Young Turks of wolfweb socialism stayed home or voted Trump, we lost it because some old bastards in Ohio and Pennsylvania were scared of Mexicans and felt abandoned by a Democratic party that used to seem concerned with them but now spends all its time fighting for transgenders and Muslims and other exotic things unknown to the half-educated denizens of Hazelton, Pennsylvania. These people didn't want some wild new thing. They wanted just a little of their old, trusted thing.

It is possible to give them that without retreating from the others. I have not advocated for steering the Democratic party right. Progress should still be made. Most of the likely Democratic candidates seem to have realistically progressive-but-not-Leninist goals, so that reassures me. Then the question becomes finding the most thoroughly electable and/or toughest one.

10/22/2018 9:41:31 AM

So your argument then is that the democratic base wont vote for someone with "radical" policies?


Also, the democratic party wanting the middle is why they keep losing seats

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2018 9:58:04 AM

I thought appeasing conservatives is why the Democratic keep losing seats. Now it's trying to win the middle. Which is it?

You can't ignore the middle. You don't have to be slaves to them, but you have to be mindful of what might drive them to the opposition en masse.

But ok, according to you, the Democrats should ignore conservatives and ignore the middle, which just leaves the Left. Which makes me think I'm wasting my time talking to somebody whose whole position is built on the false premise that there are enough leftists to win control of the government all on their own.

10/22/2018 11:26:58 AM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, radical policies energise the Conservative base, thanks to a right wing messaging apparatus that is 9,000% more effective than ours. That same messaging unit will terrorize the middle into thinking you want death panels made up of MS-13 gangsters."

I think this is a key issue-- it's what's keeping Trump afloat. The right-wing media and Trump himself keep fueling a furnace of hate for immigrants/middle easterners/muslims/LGBT, based entirely in lies, but it keeps them all tightly wrapped up as voters.

It's easy to shout "build a wall" with energy and rage and the people behind this viewpoint know exactly what it means.

What's the most exciting Democratic thing people can shout about? A low-hanging fruit i think is wage growth. The data shows despite the billionaire tax cut, massive profits, massive federal deficits, and low unemployment, wages aren't growing. I could easily see people getting passionate about "wage growth", it's easy to understand, and something that's very politically feasible.

10/22/2018 11:45:03 AM

^^ if the middle won elections Democrats wouldn't have lost 1200 seats -- the middle is already their strategy and it doesnt work

They need to go left, it will energize new voters and keep the base

^ no, it's not a key issue, the right will always call democrats radical even when Democrats are passing deregulation and conservative policies. Thinking that Republicans will treat you fair if you're nice and reasonable is another failed strategy of Democrats.

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2018 11:56:55 AM

If your base isn't big enough to win by itself, energy doesn't matter.

And making Republicans "treat you nicely" isn't the goal here, but you can make it harder to come up with effective attacks by not promoting things that (a) you aren't gonna get anytime soon anyway, and (b) can be used to terrorize moderate voters

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2018 12:27:10 PM

Personally I don’t understand why Republicans keep shitting on immigrants from Mexico and Central America. It’s a massive, catholic group of voters who are very conservative. In a generation or two they will integrate with the rest of the poor republican voters.

10/22/2018 12:31:06 PM

Quote :

"If your base isn't big enough to win by itself, energy doesn't matter."

it is big enough when you energize voters, which centrist policies for the middle don't do. obama wasn't even progressive but had a pretend progressive message of change and had great turnout.

Quote :

" (a) you aren't gonna get anytime soon anyway, and (b) can be used to terrorize moderate voters"

a) if you never fight for them then not anytime soon becomes never and b) stop pretending like republicans live in a world were facts matter. republicans will still terrorize moderate voters no matter what the democrats position is, having wall-street friendly moderate policies has never stopped them in the past.

you're living in a fantasy world where recent history never happened, you're calling for democrats to keep using the same strategy that isn't working for them. it may be over your head, but democrats have already been doing what you're calling for -- it hasn't worked.

to put it another way - why do you think the democratic strategy that hasn't worked will suddenly start working?



[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 12:52 PM. Reason : sp whatever]

10/22/2018 12:42:02 PM

In the history I live in, Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential races, so I'd say what they're doing has worked reasonably well. A more leftist platform doesn't fix the electoral college or unappealing candidates.

Congress is another story, but I'm also not taking so much about Congress because states and districts vary so much.

Quote :

"Personally I don’t understand why Republicans keep shitting on immigrants from Mexico and Central America. It’s a massive, catholic group of voters who are very conservative. In a generation or two they will integrate with the rest of the poor republican voters"

Because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and a scared white voter today is more important to a candidate than five potential Republican Mexicans in 40 years.

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2018 1:01:26 PM

so all this time blabbering about your enlightened ideas for democrats but you only care about the popular vote for one single office

lol, what a joke

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 1:08 PM. Reason : dumber than the democrats]

10/22/2018 1:07:32 PM

Well

I mean

We're in a thread called "2020 Democrat Primaries"

In which all of the discussion has been about presidential candidates

10/22/2018 1:15:49 PM

maybe we'll have a constitutional amendment to disband the electoral college before 2020 :shrug:

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 1:43 PM. Reason : so dumb]

10/22/2018 1:43:34 PM

Quote :

"Personally I don’t understand why Republicans keep shitting on immigrants from Mexico and Central America."

Because they're brown.

Quote :

"It’s a massive, catholic group of voters who are very conservative. In a generation or two they will integrate with the rest of the poor republican voters."

But they'll still be brown.

10/22/2018 2:06:58 PM

Should be obvious that appealing to the center doesn't work. If it did, Democrats wouldn't have lost the entire country.

Grumpy is arguing out of perceived self-interest, not actual strategy. Lots of words, not much behind them.

[Edited on October 22, 2018 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2018 3:39:02 PM

He's also a former Republican which is basically what the Democratic Party has become..sooo.....yeah, let's all take the advice of someone who probably voted for dubya

10/22/2018 3:45:35 PM

Saying Democrats “lost the entire country” is ridiculous.

10/22/2018 4:16:15 PM

https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government

start at pre-2010 and cycle on up

10/22/2018 4:40:51 PM

Me: If your base isn't big enough, energy doesn't matter.
dtownral: It is big enough when you energize voters.

Explain what I'm missing. Explain how a hyped-up base is going to outnumber the right + the middle.

10/22/2018 5:29:06 PM