Feel the same way. Just a little dig I had to throw in there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Vox: Elizabeth Warren fires back at centrist Democrats
- Thread starter Joe T.
- Start date
Feel the same way. Just a little dig I had to throw in there.
Icanplaythat
Member
Serious question(s).
To get a liberal agenda through government, you would need a liberal president and at a minimum 50 liberals in the senate. Does anyone actually believe you can make that happen? And do you want to ram liberal legislation through government with only 50 senate votes? Wouldn't the response to that make the tea party/alt-right movement we are dealing with now look like a day at the beach? And how long do you expect to hold onto this liberal majority?
I say a move toward the center makes sense, we should seek to win and then argue about how to use that power. Running on a liberal or progressive platform, I believe, will be a loser. There are not enough liberals. There are Democrats in the middle of the country that do not want to be liberals.
We should focus on winning, because the cost of being stridently principled and losing is too high. When Democrats lose, minorities are oppressed and women of reproductive age have their reproductive rights attacked, if not eroded.
Democrats should focus on winning, because losing has too high of a penalty.
On top of that, we have a problem in leadership. Practically everyone in leadership in Congress is very old and very white, their seats are safe and never challenged. The lack of minorities in leadership and younger people, especially women of reproductive age, means the Democrats leading the party do not feel the pain of failure. This is not healthy for an organization/institution.
To get a liberal agenda through government, you would need a liberal president and at a minimum 50 liberals in the senate. Does anyone actually believe you can make that happen? And do you want to ram liberal legislation through government with only 50 senate votes? Wouldn't the response to that make the tea party/alt-right movement we are dealing with now look like a day at the beach? And how long do you expect to hold onto this liberal majority?
I say a move toward the center makes sense, we should seek to win and then argue about how to use that power. Running on a liberal or progressive platform, I believe, will be a loser. There are not enough liberals. There are Democrats in the middle of the country that do not want to be liberals.
We should focus on winning, because the cost of being stridently principled and losing is too high. When Democrats lose, minorities are oppressed and women of reproductive age have their reproductive rights attacked, if not eroded.
Democrats should focus on winning, because losing has too high of a penalty.
On top of that, we have a problem in leadership. Practically everyone in leadership in Congress is very old and very white, their seats are safe and never challenged. The lack of minorities in leadership and younger people, especially women of reproductive age, means the Democrats leading the party do not feel the pain of failure. This is not healthy for an organization/institution.
This is how every tragic hero in litrature falls from grace. They sell their soul in the hope of doing good only to become the evil they despise.
The cost of doing the right thing is always high. That hasn't changed throughout history and you won't win every battle. Yet ultimately doing good is contageous. Careing for people (even those who dislike you) creates allies and the more support you have the more change you can enact.
Yas Queen losing and 8 years of democratic terminal decline at the federal and state level under the ideological banner of centrism, and it's the left's fault and the only option is to go further right
checks out
Icanplaythat
Member
Im a minority, when republicans are in power my people suffer. So I would rather have centrist Democrats in power than Republicans.
Life gets harder for my friends and family when Democrats lose, if wanting centrist Democrats in power instead of losing leads to my being a tragic figure, so be it.
We will never have 60 liberal/progressive seats in the senate, not happening.
Look at Elizabeth Warrens state:
2008 electoral map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Massachusetts_presidential_election,_2008.png
2012 electoral map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...sachusetts_voting_results_by_municipality.svg
2016 electoral map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/2016_MA_President.png
Even in a liberal bastion like Massachusetts, the red counties are growing; do you think more aggressive liberalism will solve this?
We are losing, losing hurts me and mine, losing hurts minorities. I want to win.
Netherscourge
Banned
I want her to be President, but I also want her to be a Senator.
So, no 50 state strategy? That's what this feels like. Which Im fine with, but there needs to be a plan. Its weird how right after the election everyone on the left was screaming "We need to bring back the 50 state strategy and kill the purity tests". Then as soon as Dems started detailing what that actually fucking entails we had all these liberals going "Wait... that sounds terrible!"
Im fine with abandoning the 50SS, but what's the plan then.
I'd say the problem with the Democratic party is that a 50 state strategy eludes them as they aren't cohesive in the make or break tenets of the party.
Republicans all give consistent vocal support to smaller government, fiscal prudence, etc.. That isn't remotely how they legislate when in power but they've been shouting it long enough that the populous as a whole keeps voting them in on that notion.
The Democratic party needs to identify the progressive views that are universal in this country and focus hard on those.
Healthcare as a right absolutely has mainstream, 50 state appeal, they just need to find the right packaging within each political cycle. I'd suggest a hard sell on how employer provided healthcare 1. limits worker mobility and options while 2. putting an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on small and medium sized business.
Same would probably go for a more honest system of financial system regulation. The finance industry lays a giant fucking turd just about every decade at our doorstep too, so every time it starts to go out of style they'll make it popular all over again. The "Main Street, not Wall Street" mantra as dumb as it actually is should be as ingrained in the Democratic party identity as "Government small enough to drown in a bathtub" has become in the GOP.
Open, honest,and equal elections are likely places they can make up ground as long as it's couched in the "making it easier for everyone" mindset. In fact I think a platform of making election day a national holiday held on the first Monday in November with nationwide voting open Friday through Monday at all polling places would appeal to a lot of people.
I think given a little more time immigration could even be a 50 state populist agenda, if couched in the argument that "America is a land of opportunity/better life pursuit" and that the real problem is the employers hiring illegal immigrants into exploitative work conditions. Turn the focus just a little and it gets a lot more traction with the mainstream.
Could probably even do the same with education reform, but they'd need to craft a program that argues for more rural education support where private schools and the like aren't an option. That would begin to sway the economically depressed states that used to vote Dem but have shifted away culturally because neither side is delivering enough to buy loyalty through policy. West Virginia is a great example. Want Dems to win in West Virginia? Promise better, more affordable healthcare and better public schools while not spitting in the face of a generations ingrained coal industry because market forces are already doing enough damage there.
Digging heels in on things like abortion where even a lot of dems aren't in favor of 100% legalization isn't going to help win any seats. That is where you let candidates find nuance that fits their target audience. Same with things like gun rights to be honest, though as a national party they should pivot from the "gun control" terminology to "responsible gun ownership programs".
There is absolutely a path. I just doubt the DNC and most Democratic politicians are smart enough to see it.
Glad she said this. The Democratic party can't let the Republicans Force them to hurt their own base.
How long until the anti-abortion candidates start siding with the GOP on anti-abortion legislation? Abortion rights are already on their deathbed at the local and state level, do we really want that to happen at the federal level too?
And let's say that this tactic actually puts Dems in office, then what? Which minority group's rights should we try and take away next so we can win?
How long until the anti-abortion candidates start siding with the GOP on anti-abortion legislation? Abortion rights are already on their deathbed at the local and state level, do we really want that to happen at the federal level too?
And let's say that this tactic actually puts Dems in office, then what? Which minority group's rights should we try and take away next so we can win?
I think it is possible to win comfortably without too much compromise on the core values of responsible government and that human decency be extended to all individuals. Ultimately i think that a viable 50 state stratergy should be contingent not on catering to the whims of the populous but by effectively communicating how your core platform/identity helps all people in regards to your specific audience. IE how you communicate your platform in Massachusetts is probably different then in Texas and different again to what works in California, Nevada, Minnesota ect
Cow Mengde
Banned
B-b-but mah purity tests!!!