If you’re a White Man the Democratic Party of America doesn’t want you

[Heathen Hammer]

Funny when republicans blame democrats for slavery and the confederacy but then get mad when democrats try to take down confederate statues.

Weren't you just saying these guys' ideals completely belong to the democrats? Now you're super invested in keeping monuments to their greatness up?

There are no double standards in blaming Democrats for causing civil war and criticizing them for demolishing statues.

[conon394]

What party in 1857 profited the most from it? or 1847, or 1837? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "D"

And which party followed LBJ into repudiating that history. Which party under Nixon created the southern strategy to benefit form that. Are you claiming blood attainder here the party is damned for the choices of men long dead. Also 1837 is rather too early to claim some liner connection with the current party.

[Heathen Hammer]

LBJ was drowning South-East Asia in blood at the time. He was just as honest about it as Obama cared about gay people while bowing to Saudi "king", under whom gay people are beheaded for being gay.

[Aexodus]

https://nypost.com/2019/02/22/the-id...ernie-sanders/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/17/white-male-democrats-2020-225101

The unbearable whiteness of... Bernie Sanders

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2020-cand...110647393.html

Great article about the Democrats shifting more left and how it could completely back-fire.

[sumskilz]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2020-cand...110647393.html

Great article about the Democrats shifting more left and how it could completely back-fire.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was commenting on in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread:

That's kind of my point. I was referring to the reason why she's getting so much attention from right wing pundits. I don't think it's fear, I think it's a potentially effective strategy to paint her as representative of the mainstream of the Democratic party. More centrist Dems in the legislature won't get behind her ideas, because they want to get reelected, but they won't publicly criticize her, because they want to get reelected. Hence they don't have a very good defense against being associated with her, as the "future of the democratic party".

As far as her particular future, who knows. Politicians who "energize the base" aren't necessarily those that appeal to swing voters. Trump appealed to a segment of swing voters while alienating a lot of the Republican base. I suspect the base mostly just voted for Trump anyway as a vote against Hillary. Ocasio-Cortez won in a district that is entirely comprised of the eastern part of the Bronx and a piece of north-central Queens, two boroughs in New York city, where Republican candidates typically receive less than 15% of the vote, if they bother to run at all.

The new faces that are energizing the party won in districts where Republicans are irrelevant. Their victories were primary victories against more centrist Democrats.

But there's something in that article that I think is particularly worth pointing out in the context of this thread:

This is the first election in the modern era, Lanza said, in which progressives “are sucking up all the oxygen and energy.”

Democrats as a whole, however, have been moving in a more leftward direction for years... That shift has largely been among white, highly educated Democrats. African-American and Hispanic voters remain more moderate — which could present a challenge as the party tries to mobilize those groups to vote in greater numbers.

[Vanoi]

Yep that paragraph is why I posted it here. The Democrats want to keep appealing to minorities yet the progressive voices of the Democrats lean far too left to actually grab the attention of minorities and get them to vote their way.

This reminds me of 2008. The Republicans lost so they decided to go even more conservative and right-wing than they already were. Then of course around this time you have the birth of the Tea Party Movement. How'd it work out in the 2012 elections?

Same thing happening to the Democrats. It's gonna backfire hard.

[Love Mountain]

Yep that paragraph is why I posted it here. The Democrats want to keep appealing to minorities yet the progressive voices of the Democrats lean far too left to actually grab the attention of minorities and get them to vote their way.

This reminds me of 2008. The Republicans lost so they decided to go even more conservative and right-wing than they already were. Then of course around this time you have the birth of the Tea Party Movement. How'd it work out in the 2012 elections?

Same thing happening to the Democrats. It's gonna backfire hard.

As opposed to the 2016 election. Democrats went with a centrist and it backfired. Hard.

[Vanoi]

Being a centrist is not why Hillary lost though and even you know that Suki. Doubling down on ideology didn't help the Republicans in 2012. It's not going to help Democrats.

Those Dems better hope the minorities they're counting on start leaning a lot more left than they are now.

I guess the Dems have given up on the moderates and centrists in their party. Good luck with that.

[Love Mountain]

Being a centrist is not why Hillary lost though and even you know that Suki. Doubling down on ideology didn't help the Republicans in 2012. It's not going to help Democrats.

My point is that being radical has appeal. There are a number of factors that led to Hillary's defeat. Besides, we have to actually ask what's "far left" here. Far left for America? Sure. Far left in general? No, not even close. Candidates like Bernie aren't going to be toppling capitalism here.

Those Dems better hope the minorities they're counting on start leaning a lot more left than they are now.

I guess the Dems have given up on the moderates and centrists in their party. Good luck with that.

I don't think that particualrly matters. The bigger question should be whether "moderates" will support a far left candidate for the sake of party unity or not. I think that'll depend on a case-by-case basis. Many Southern Democrats will be exposed if a far-left candidate wins the primary. On the other hand, a centrist candidate may not draw the votes we need to get a landslide victory.

Though the fact that Donald Trump is the incumbent obviously changes the turnout dynamics here. I'd vote for Terry Macauliffe if it guaranteed a victory against Trump.

[Vanoi]

My point is that being radical has appeal.

Sumskillz pointed out that these radicals are winning in areas that don't vote Republican in the first place. How much appeal do these radicals really have.

There are a number of factors that led to Hillary's defeat. Besides, we have to actually ask what's "far left" here. Far left for America? Sure. Far left in general? No, not even close. Candidates like Bernie aren't going to be toppling capitalism here.

Unless the world is voting in this election that question is irrelevant.

I don't think that particualrly matters. The bigger question should be whether "moderates" will support a far left candidate for the sake of party unity or not. I think that'll depend on a case-by-case basis. Many Southern Democrats will be exposed if a far-left candidate wins the primary. On the other hand, a centrist candidate may not draw the votes we need to get a landslide victory.

It's not Southern Democrats. It's any centrist Democrat. Susan Collins of Maine is a great example. Progressives are already looking to oust her for voting for Brett.

The Cold War is over but screaming "socialist!" Still works. It'll be easy to paint the Dems as socialists if one of the Leftist candidates win.

Though the fact that Donald Trump is the incumbent obviously changes the turnout dynamics here. I'd vote for Terry Macauliffe if it guaranteed a victory against Trump.

I don't like Trump anymore than you do. Yet I'll vote for the evil I know than one I don't. It doesn't help in my case none of the current Democrats have any kind of good foreign policy.

[Love Mountain]

Sumskillz pointed out that these radicals are winning in areas that don't vote Republican in the first place. How much appeal do these radicals really have.

In areas where they are winning. Higher turnout vs attempting to win fringe voters. Cities and Blue states lean heavily blue.

Unless the world is voting in this election that question is irrelevant.

Sure, but this is the narrative that's also being pushed by the far left. How "Socialist" is medicare for all, if almost every other country has a version of universal health care?

It's not Southern Democrats. It's any centrist Democrat. Susan Collins of Maine is a great example. Progressives are already looking to oust her for voting for Brett.

Collins is a Republican though.

The Cold War is over but screaming "socialist!" Still works. It'll be easy to paint the Dems as socialists if one of the Leftist candidates win.

I don't think it'll matter if they do. Leftist has lost much of its stigma. Its only partisan shrieking that's making it "bad". But Trump has already dissappointed a lot of his base. How reliable is partisanship still?

I don't like Trump anymore than you do. Yet I'll vote for the evil I know than one I don't. It doesn't help in my case none of the current Democrats have any kind of good foreign policy.

Domestic Police > Foreign Policy. Foreign policy can be fixed. Domestic policy impacts my life today, right now.

[Vanoi]

In areas where they are winning. Higher turnout vs attempting to win fringe voters. Cities and Blue states lean heavily blue.

Cities and Blue states though don't determine the election. Not solely at least. They can win in their safe home areas. Can these radicals win outside of it?

Sure, but this is the narrative that's also being pushed by the far left. How "Socialist" is medicare for all, if almost every other country has a version of universal health care?

It just means all other countries have a some version of socialized medicine. Health care is a great topic though. The Democrats seem to think they can skirt by and win everyone over with "Medicare for all." Well that can be popular, thats not actually addressing the problems with healthcare in America.

Collins is a Republican though.

You are absolutely right. I think i got her mixed up with someone else. Don't know why Collins came to my mind. The Progressive Democrats who going after any centrist democrats in so called "safe states." This might drive those centrist Democrats to become Republicans instead. That would be real bad.

I don't think it'll matter if they do. Leftist has lost much of its stigma.

Where at? this is 2018. Leftist and Conservative are dirty words right now. Or at the very least very polarizing.

Its only partisan shrieking that's making it "bad". But Trump has already dissappointed a lot of his base. How reliable is partisanship still?

Well my article i posted shows this isn't just partisan shrieking. Centrist Democrats and moderates are just as turned off by them. Minorities in America also don't lean that left.

Domestic Police > Foreign Policy. Foreign policy can be fixed. Domestic policy impacts my life today, right now.

Domestic policy is more than just the President though. If i was going to vote solely on Domestic policy the progressives would lose bad. The Green New Deal is a pipe dream that would never work effectively.

[swabian]

You have to try. The only way out of your misery are at least 2 more parties. This two-party-crap is the most important organizational problem you need to overcome.

[Vanoi]

You have to try. The only way out of your misery are at least 2 more parties. This two-party-crap is the most important organizational problem you need to overcome.

Getting rid of the two party system would be great. Just need a competent third party to actually run. The Green Party or the Libertarians aren't going to be winning any elections and they are usually the only ones running.

[swabian]

Well i guess the Russians are not available anymore for pulling off +0.1% of your dream result.

What will you do if Trump gets elected for a second time? Would that be still Putin's meddlings?

[The spartan]

Obviously.

What party in 1857 profited the most from it? or 1847, or 1837? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "D"

The truly disgusting part of posts like this is that you clearly know what you are doing. Not a single shred of respect for history.

[swabian]

There is nothing disgusting about information.

[The spartan]

Sure, hucksters just offer information. Not a thing misrepresented, obviously.

[swabian]

Even a dire misrepresentation can be source. Just let him speak.