Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    The wings are alive and well. Hillary ignored the progressive wing of the party, so she lost. Trump successfully united the social conservatives with the corporate wing of his party, so he won.
    I think you missed my point. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton lost because she attempted to maintain what her husband fashioned, the centrist position (not the more conservative wing that existed years ago like the gentleman in the article represents) in the Democratic party, while fully expecting the support of the liberal wing of her own party, as represented by Mr. Sanders.

    Mr. Bush is a centrist, not a liberal Republican

    But there is no viable liberal wing of the Republican Party (essentially fiscally conservative, socially liberal) just like there is no viable conservative wing of the Democratic Party (essentially fiscally liberal, especially on defense, socially conservative).

    Like GGGGG-Men said.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    THe point might be that the wings aren't what they used to be. Now its degrees of liberalism in the Dem party and degrees of conservatism in the republican party. There used to be a liberal and conservative presence in each party.
    And yes, Civil Rights was one thing that ended this setup as LBJ (a southern democrat) pushed through the Civil Rights Bill in 1964, thus sending the other southern (read: conservative) Democrats right into the Republican Party. Vietnam was another.
    Last edited by Crovash; 01-12-2018 at 10:03 PM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    I think you missed my point. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton lost because she attempted to maintain what her husband fashioned, the centrist position (not the more conservative wing that existed years ago like the gentleman in the article represents) in the Democratic party, while fully expecting the support of the liberal wing of her own party, as represented by Mr. Sanders.

    Mr. Bush is a centrist, not a liberal Republican

    But there is no viable liberal wing of the Republican Party (essentially fiscally conservative, socially liberal) just like there is no viable conservative wing of the Democratic Party (essentially fiscally liberal, especially on defense, socially conservative).

    Like GGGGG-Men said.



    And yes, Civil Rights was one thing that ended this setup as LBJ (a southern democrat) pushed through the Civil Rights Bill in 1964, thus sending the other southern (read: conservative) Democrats right into the Republican Party. Vietnam was another.
    Yeah, I misunderstood. I got it this time around.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    I think you missed my point. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton lost because she attempted to maintain what her husband fashioned, the centrist position (not the more conservative wing that existed years ago like the gentleman in the article represents) in the Democratic party, while fully expecting the support of the liberal wing of her own party, as represented by Mr. Sanders.

    Mr. Bush is a centrist, not a liberal Republican

    But there is no viable liberal wing of the Republican Party (essentially fiscally conservative, socially liberal) just like there is no viable conservative wing of the Democratic Party (essentially fiscally liberal, especially on defense, socially conservative).

    Like GGGGG-Men said.



    And yes, Civil Rights was one thing that ended this setup as LBJ (a southern democrat) pushed through the Civil Rights Bill in 1964, thus sending the other southern (read: conservative) Democrats right into the Republican Party. Vietnam was another.
    I think Reagan’s “moral majority” following who ended up owning Christianity for republicans finished it off.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    I think Reagan’s “moral majority” following who ended up owning Christianity for republicans finished it off.
    Yes, that was pretty much it until the Tea Party came on the scene. Up until then, centrist in each party (Bush I, Clinton) were able to function. But the Tea Party shifted the true elections into the primaries, forcing centrist on the Republican side further right as they grew fearful of the attack from the right in the primaries. This did not occur so much on the Democratic side, so they could hold their centrality (Obama) while still maintaining support from the left. Sanders put an end to that.

    The result: almost total bifurcation, and so the leaders we have now are total party hacks like Schumer and McConnell.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,164
    Last edited by kevin13697; 01-13-2018 at 09:48 AM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    69,800
    I think the article is OK. I have a lengthy list of qualms with the party and mostly am dissatisfied with everyone in it. I think broadly the problem is this:

    We have a party called the Republican Party which is a far-right party. We also have a party called the Democratic Party which essentially is what the Republican Party used to be. There is no major party out there that is what the major Democratic Party used to be...or one that represents even just European liberalism. There's a reason you have guys like Jim Messina -- campaign chief of staff and campaign manager to Obama -- running elections for the Tories. Because our liberals are their conservatives.

    There are no "New Deal Democrats" any more. There's no one who's standing up to corporate interests any more saying "I'm fighting for working people and if you're in my way, watch out". The party needs to get back to that.

    There's one party that works shamelessly for corporate interests and one party that works for a compromise. There is none that works shamelessly for the working people. I'm incredibly fearful that unless we see a major and clear change in direction the party will either keep losing or keep going through this cycle. We have Trump now which helps, but without Trump...yikes. And we must never pretend that Trump is an anomaly that sprung out of nowhere. There were a lot of failures within the party that got us here. A LOT.
    this my sig

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Yes, that was pretty much it until the Tea Party came on the scene. Up until then, centrist in each party (Bush I, Clinton) were able to function. But the Tea Party shifted the true elections into the primaries, forcing centrist on the Republican side further right as they grew fearful of the attack from the right in the primaries. This did not occur so much on the Democratic side, so they could hold their centrality (Obama) while still maintaining support from the left. Sanders put an end to that.

    The result: almost total bifurcation, and so the leaders we have now are total party hacks like Schumer and McConnell.
    Seems that a lot of it is because (as any historical POTUS election map can show) politics became less about politics and more about culture. It's a huge country with a lot of different cultures and the electoral maps for 2000 through 2012 basically follow that. It used to be about policy, which I think deals a lot with how informed we were (a few standard streams of reliable info v. now having virtually anyone with a domain as a source). Now it's just tribal.

    What I liked about the 2016 election, be it for good or bad overall, is how it shook up the way politicians need to view the public. A GOP candidate owning the rust belt isn't a large deviation that we've seen since Clinton won Montana or HW Bush won California. Bernie and Trump showed an angle that people want an outsider that speaks for them (genuinely or not).

    ....I think I just justified the Dems running Oprah in 2020.....****

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Seems that a lot of it is because (as any historical POTUS election map can show) politics became less about politics and more about culture. It's a huge country with a lot of different cultures and the electoral maps for 2000 through 2012 basically follow that. It used to be about policy, which I think deals a lot with how informed we were (a few standard streams of reliable info v. now having virtually anyone with a domain as a source). Now it's just tribal.

    What I liked about the 2016 election, be it for good or bad overall, is how it shook up the way politicians need to view the public. A GOP candidate owning the rust belt isn't a large deviation that we've seen since Clinton won Montana or HW Bush won California. Bernie and Trump showed an angle that people want an outsider that speaks for them (genuinely or not).

    ....I think I just justified the Dems running Oprah in 2020.....****
    You didn't justify is as much as you explained why it may well come to pass.

    By the way, Duverger's Law (in political science) posits that third parties cannot win under current electoral conditions in the US.

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...e-it-s-the-law

    To make matters worse, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which used to be run by the non-partisan League of Women Voters now runs entirely under the auspices of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Talk about collusion....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commis...ential_Debates

    So, be content with two parties (one conservative; the other centrist -- both in thrall to Wall Street). Sanders was summarily dismissed by the DNC, and his legacy will go the way of Ralph Nader.
    Last edited by Crovash; 01-16-2018 at 04:51 PM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    23,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Yes, that was pretty much it until the Tea Party came on the scene. Up until then, centrist in each party (Bush I, Clinton) were able to function. But the Tea Party shifted the true elections into the primaries, forcing centrist on the Republican side further right as they grew fearful of the attack from the right in the primaries. This did not occur so much on the Democratic side, so they could hold their centrality (Obama) while still maintaining support from the left. Sanders put an end to that.

    The result: almost total bifurcation, and so the leaders we have now are total party hacks like Schumer and McConnell.
    Read a piece awhile back that basically said the Tea Party and the Occupy Wallstreet movement were the same thing just on opposite sides of the coin.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    You didn't justify is as much as you explained why it may well come to pass.

    By the way, Duverger's Law (in political science) posits that third parties cannot win under current electoral conditions in the US.

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...e-it-s-the-law

    To make matters worse, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which used to be run by the non-partisan League of Women Voters now runs entirely under the auspices of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Talk about collusion....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commis...ential_Debates

    So, be content with two parties (one conservative; the other centrist -- both in thrall to Wall Street). Sanders was summarily dismissed by the DNC, and his legacy will go the way of Ralph Nader.
    Yeah I'm afraid you're right. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he did under an independent run.

    I'm a big third party supporter (generally speaking as a concept) and have been annoying by the debate situation for a long time. Perot truly rattled the RNC and the DNC knows its in trouble with the rise of progressive voices.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    The Democratic Party looks to be in big trouble.

    The Schumer/Pelosi crowd are staying the course as established by the Clintons and Obama. As the shutdown fiasco revealed, this course is bereft.

    Essentially, the party looks like it is simply not ready, willing, and/or able to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the current patchwork status of the Republican powerhold.
    Last edited by Crovash; 01-24-2018 at 08:50 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    The Democratic Party looks to be in big trouble.

    The Schumer/Pelosi crowd are staying the course as established by the Clintons and Obama. As the shutdown fiasco revealed, this course is bereft.

    Essentially, the party looks like it is simply not ready, willing, and/or able to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the current patchwork status of the Republican powerhold.
    There are progressives who voted for Trump because they either were cheated out of the Bernie primary win and/or they believed Trump as an "outsider". And the Dems continue to distance themselves from this huge progressive base who didn't show up in Green Bary, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philly, Miami, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

    They still think they can just play the middle game, wait this thing out and win later with their calm boring wishy-washy tactics. I happen to think they're ****ed.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    15,779
    I am not ashamed the following: The main reason I won't vote Democrat right now is because they do nothing but attack Trump. Give me a reason to possibly vote for.
    PSD's Muhammad Wilkerson!!!

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    I am not ashamed the following: The main reason I won't vote Democrat right now is because they do nothing but attack Trump. Give me a reason to possibly vote for.
    You hit it; this is exactly the problem we've identified. The mainstream Democrats are almost indistinguishable from the mainstream Republicans at this point.

    There is a progressive wing that has a clearly stated agenda (which many American voters will not like -- that's okay; that's democracy).

    My Congresswoman, a Democrat, is only slightly left of center -- kind of Pelosi wannabe. My democratic senators (Bumenthal and Murphy) are on the more liberal side.

    Here's a useful website for checking in on your reps/senators:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...th_esty/412524

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    You hit it; this is exactly the problem we've identified. The mainstream Democrats are almost indistinguishable from the mainstream Republicans at this point.

    There is a progressive wing that has a clearly stated agenda (which many American voters will not like -- that's okay; that's democracy).

    My Congresswoman, a Democrat, is only slightly left of center -- kind of Pelosi wannabe. My democratic senators (Bumenthal and Murphy) are on the more liberal side.

    Here's a useful website for checking in on your reps/senators:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...th_esty/412524
    I think that if the progressive had a candidate that could communicate their position they would do much better than people think.
    The issue with the Democratic Party is the fear to push and sell those ideas. They want to ride the fence and nothing gets accomplished there.
    The ACA is the perfect example. The push was single payer, but the Dems were too scared to push for it, too dumb to explain it, allowed the right to create the narrative, and settled for anything but. So you end up owning a republican bill that’s wholly ineffective in the end.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •