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

[The spartan]

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

You apparently don't get it: he is purposely misrepresenting what the 'Democrat' and 'Republican' parties of the mid 19th century were. Namely, he knows their constituency and platforms were completely different than the modern parties that share the names, but he thinks that since they technically have the same name, he can use it as a smear against modern Democrats. That is pretty shameless.

[swabian]

You apparently don't get it: he is purposely misrepresenting what the 'Democrat' and 'Republican' parties of the mid 19th century were. Namely, he knows their constituency and platforms were completely different than the modern parties that share the names, but he thinks that since they technically have the same name, he can use it as a smear against modern Democrats. That is pretty shameless.

I don't care. You will have to leave it to my mind how i process data.

But there we are: Do you think that the historical Democratic party is much distant from the present one?

[The spartan]

I don't care. You will have to leave it to my mind how i process data.

So then why comment on something that you don't care about? All I was saying is he isn't dumb, he is aware of the misrepresentation and doing it on purpose.

But there we are: Do you think that the historical Democratic party is much distant from the present one?

Of course, do you know much about the politics of the 1850s? Free soilers, bleeding Kansas and all that? The constituency (you know, the heart of the party) was basically the opposite of modern day Democrats: the Democratic strongholds were in the relatively rural South while the Republicans were popular in much of the coastal trade cities (New York, Boston and such) up North. Think of a modern "red and blue" political map of the US today in reverse. Their party platforms are rather different with many different concerns of the day, but what platforms do you think were similar to modern Democrats?

[swabian]

Of course, do you know much about the politics of the 1850s? Free soilers, bleeding Kansas and all that? The constituency (you know, the heart of the party) was basically the opposite of modern day Democrats: the Democratic strongholds were in the relatively rural South while the Republicans were popular in much of the coastal trade cities (New York, Boston and such) up North.

Of course i care about that, why else would i ask. May i ask something ffs.

Think of a modern "red and blue" political map of the US today in reverse. Their party platforms are rather different with many different concerns of the day,

That doesn't make much sense to me. I thought that the south was always more conservative and now you're saying there was some kind of reverse of the roles?

but what platforms do you think were similar to modern Democrats?

I have no clue, but i realize that this must be quite important. Which is why i'm asking.

[Love Mountain]

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?


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.

I'm not sure about just how "radical" these candidates are. If we are talking specifically about Bernie, I can only go by the results of the primaries. Here's NYT reporting.

Florida was 141-73 in favor of Clinton, Georgia 73-29 Clinton, Alabama 44-9 Clinton. However, Missouri 36-35 Clinton, New Mexico 18-16 Clinton, Arizona 42-33 Clinton, Kansas 10-23 Sanders, Oklahoma 17-21 Sanders, Indiana 39-44 Sanders. I'm not saying Sanders won a lot, but I wouldn't right off radicals completely.

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

Is it though? Right now people are spamming Internationalist, Globalist, and Neoliberal around. Not Socialist.

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.

The question is, will they vote as long as it's a D. I'm pretty sure many people will vote D just to prevent Trump from getting re-elected.

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.

GND is better than the massive Trump tax cut. I'm pretty sure it'll never get past it. The good thing about GND is that even if some sections are passed, that's already a good thing. Well, depending on which sections. Some GND policies are simply pipe dreams with no grounding in reality. Cutting out fossil fuels is impossible for starters.

[The spartan]

Of course i care about that, why else would i ask. May i ask something ffs.

Ok, I don't think I am doing anything to prevent you from asking question. I don't think I am able to.

That doesn't make much sense to me. I thought that the south was always more conservative and now you're saying there was some kind of reverse of the roles?

Well no, Democrats of the 1850s were conservative, at least socially. Modern Democrats are not typically considered conservative. There was a big shift in party allegiances during the 1940s to the 1960s, but before then the Democratic party was the party of the South, and they were more commonly traditional/conservative.

I have no clue, but i realize that this must be quite important. Which is why i'm asking.

That's fine.

[Heathen Hammer]

One of the Democrat leaders said that black people were "superepredators" or that she would never allow her daughter date a non-white man. I always thought racism was a social conservative thing. Maybe Democrats didn't change their views and just pretended to change their views to "buy" votes from minorities or delusional leftists.

[The spartan]

Maybe you should read a history book rather than spout political propaganda?

[Vanoi]

I'm not sure about just how "radical" these candidates are. If we are talking specifically about Bernie, I can only go by the results of the primaries. Here's NYT reporting.

Florida was 141-73 in favor of Clinton, Georgia 73-29 Clinton, Alabama 44-9 Clinton. However, Missouri 36-35 Clinton, New Mexico 18-16 Clinton, Arizona 42-33 Clinton, Kansas 10-23 Sanders, Oklahoma 17-21 Sanders, Indiana 39-44 Sanders. I'm not saying Sanders won a lot, but I wouldn't right off radicals completely.

Primaries that only show one side's support? I want to know if they can reach outside the base.

Is it though? Right now people are spamming Internationalist, Globalist, and Neoliberal around. Not Socialist.

I can link plenty of articles talking the "socialists" in the Democratic Party.

The question is, will they vote as long as it's a D. I'm pretty sure many people will vote D just to prevent Trump from getting re-elected.

Thats an assumption the Democrats made in 2016. That Trump was so bad people would vote Democrat than vote for him. All that happened was the Dems lost and states that haven't voted Republican since the 90s flipped for Trump.

Riding the Trump-hate train isn't going to lead to a Democratic victory. You gotta have more than that.

GND is better than the massive Trump tax cut. I'm pretty sure it'll never get past it. The good thing about GND is that even if some sections are passed, that's already a good thing. Well, depending on which sections. Some GND policies are simply pipe dreams with no grounding in reality. Cutting out fossil fuels is impossible for starters.

Both are horrible, the GND is just worse. I want real viable solutions that don't destroy the economy not someone trying to sell me snake oil.

[Gaidin]

Primaries that only show one side's support? I want to know if they can reach outside the base.

. You know what a primary is right?

[Vanoi]

. You know what a primary is right?

Yes Gaidin. Is this where you try point out something I don't know?

[Gaidin]

Yes Gaidin. Is this where you try point out something I don't know?

You just got an interesting way of telling them to hump the leg of the party base.

[Vanoi]

You just got an interesting way of telling them to hump the leg of the party base.

Yes it does help to actually represent your constituents. If you paid attention to the conversation it's not just the base the Democrats are alienating.

[Gaidin]

Yes it does help to actually represent your constituents. If paid attention to the conversation it's not just the base the Democrats are alienating.

See if he doesn’t grab the base someone else will and he loses.

[Aexodus]

I'm not sure about just how "radical" these candidates are. If we are talking specifically about Bernie, I can only go by the results of the primaries. Here's NYT reporting.

Florida was 141-73 in favor of Clinton, Georgia 73-29 Clinton, Alabama 44-9 Clinton. However, Missouri 36-35 Clinton, New Mexico 18-16 Clinton, Arizona 42-33 Clinton, Kansas 10-23 Sanders, Oklahoma 17-21 Sanders, Indiana 39-44 Sanders. I'm not saying Sanders won a lot, but I wouldn't right off radicals completely.

Is it though? Right now people are spamming Internationalist, Globalist, and Neoliberal around. Not Socialist.

The question is, will they vote as long as it's a D. I'm pretty sure many people will vote D just to prevent Trump from getting re-elected.

GND is better than the massive Trump tax cut. I'm pretty sure it'll never get past it. The good thing about GND is that even if some sections are passed, that's already a good thing. Well, depending on which sections. Some GND policies are simply pipe dreams with no grounding in reality. Cutting out fossil fuels is impossible for starters.

http://www.people-press.org/2019/01/...cal-directions




https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx


Right now most Democrats want their party to become more moderate, and most Republicans want their party to become more Conservative. Gallup and Pew both found similar results showing around 54% of Dems want more moderate candidates, while 58% of Republicans want more Conservative candidates. This tells me for over a decade, voters have wanted a rightward shift in politics. Why? My guess is because things have moved so left in the past decade, especially on social issues.

Far-left candidates did poorly in the Democratic primaries


The Democrats shift left can be seen here, this is what is motivating the desire for moderate policies. If you have radical leftists as candidates, a number of center left moderates will feel alienated, and will in fact likely feel that a Conservative is closer to them, such as Trump. The blue collar vote for Trump exemplifies this best.

The Democrats are undoubtedly moving further and further left and extreme, especially with regards to racial identitarianism. I am much more worried about left wingers (socialists mostly) imposing racist policies than I am about right wingers (fascists mostly). It’s going to backfire.

The backing of the GND for example, by high profile Democrats is a gift to the Right. In addition the recent abortion stances and Acts around abortion validate the worst far right conspiracies about the Dems and late term abortion. America doesn’t seem to want these policies and attitudes.

The centre can hold

https://news.gallup.com/poll/247016/...ls-states.aspx


Take this gallup poll that showed there are far more Red states than blue ones. This is going to be of massive importance in 2020. With Dem candidates embracing far left rhetoric and identitarianism, many many moderates and others will feel better represented by Trump and Republicans. There are even Occupy Wall Street supporters who are now MAGA Trump supporters. Moving left is a huge mistake by the Democrats and they’re going to suffer for it.

Maybe you should read a history book rather than spout political propaganda?

There is no doubt that LBJ passed the 1964 Act as a political ploy, among other affirmative policies.

Son, when I appoint a n****r to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a n****r

[The spartan]

There is no doubt that LBJ passed the 1964 Act as a political ploy, among other affirmative policies.

A politician did a political thing for political reasons, you say? Shocker.

You are also under representing the peculiarity of LBJs actions in the early 60s. The fact that he met personally with MLK jr. on multiple occasions is noteworthy in and of itself.

[Love Mountain]

Primaries that only show one side's support? I want to know if they can reach outside the base.

That depends on which state we are talking about. I don't care how centrist any Democratic candidate is, hell will freeze over before they win Missouri or Georgia. But Pennsylvania? Oklahoma? Clinton lost key state Penn. and Iowa in 2016. Sanders was 50-50 in Iowa against Clinton, and 55-43 in Penn. He also won Indiana, which Clinton lost against Trump. So if we are going to talk about Far-Left vs Center and who is better for winning the election, I will argue we examine the polling data. A lot of the swing states are contentious and not solid Blue or Red. Trump's win in 2016 can be attributed to a high turnout in his demographic, and low turnout by Clinton's in states that Obama previously won. Midwest is the real battleground for the Presidency, and that's where I don't think a Centrist is more favored than a "Socialist".

I can link plenty of articles talking the "socialists" in the Democratic Party.

Sure, but this is in response against the appearance of the New Left in the DNC. Will it work? I have my doubts. This may rally some old-school Republicans and hardcore right-wingers, but the center base? Do they really care? Here's a poll. I don't think it supports any opinion on that, but here's what I think.

I think that Socialism will be used a slur regardless of who DNC picks in 2020. To that end, I think it's better to avoid the word "Socialism" but to still pick an energetic far-left progressive who has the appeal and charisma to mobilize voters. I don't think the Socialism slur will disappear even if Democrats run George W. Bush.

Thats an assumption the Democrats made in 2016. That Trump was so bad people would vote Democrat than vote for him. All that happened was the Dems lost and states that haven't voted Republican since the 90s flipped for Trump.

Riding the Trump-hate train isn't going to lead to a Democratic victory. You gotta have more than that.

Sure, but the stakes are higher now and Democrats have their own wave of populism to draw upon. How many people who voted for Trump in 2016 will vote for him again? I think it's more important to get further left, to drag Republicans back to the center.

Both are horrible, the GND is just worse. I want real viable solutions that don't destroy the economy not someone trying to sell me snake oil.

Let's leave that out of it. There's another thread for it.

[Gaidin]

That depends on which state we are talking about. I don't care how centrist any Democratic candidate is, hell will freeze over before they win Missouri or Georgia. But Pennsylvania? Oklahoma? Clinton lost key state Penn. and Iowa in 2016. Sanders was 50-50 in Iowa against Clinton, and 55-43 in Penn. He also won Indiana, which Clinton lost against Trump.

It's not exactly that we're talking about in the primaries. When you go to states like Missouri and Georgia you get a lot of Democratic turnout in the primaries because they know that is the big part of the election where they get a lot of voice. They know their state goes red. Primaries are not election day. Primaries are where you choose who runs for election day. So what they're going to do is put go out like a legion in the primaries and vote on who is running for them. Delegates missed in traditionally red states are delegates lost.

[Aexodus]

I think it's more important to get further left, to drag Republicans back to the center.

The Dems have been doing that since 2010 and it hasn’t worked.

Also I thought you were pro-capitalism and pro-neoliberalism Suki?

[Love Mountain]

The Dems have been doing that since 2010 and it hasn’t worked.

Also I thought you were pro-capitalism and pro-neoliberalism Suki?

The recent mid terms disagree with you. Being more radical works. Look at the GOP.

It’s more important for Democrats to win than anything else. They know how to run a country, the GOP does not.