Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 175 of 470

Thread: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Between Here and There
    Posts
    27,098

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    You put up a good argument though!
    Yesterday I read that Phil Bredesen, the Dem senatorial candidate in Tennessee and on whose campaign we worked, said that he would have voted to confirm Kavanaugh if he’d had the opportunity. I really hope he didn’t mean that and was making a claim he was prepared to go back on if elected. If he was serious about that, it makes it hard to be a Democrat in Tennessee. I don’t mind if he was playing cagey to snag some votes. But if he was serious, I’m out. As an old man, I am willing to accept a fair degree of compromise in the word game. Young people have a harder time with that. We need someone inspirational.

    Good post, Brian W. Clearly stated regarding your desires. My question would be regarding semantics. For a variety of reasons, mostly based in historical precedent, I have a very difficult time accepting the idea that any movement labeled America First is worthy of my support.

    Edit: See Osborne’s comment above. I suspect he and I are thinking along the same lines and are cognoscent of the history surrounding the term as well.
    Last edited by Lew Barrett; 10-08-2018 at 11:36 PM.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    7,245

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    The real problem is the way we run elections. We should have a run-off system so people get a fair chance to vote their ideal candidate, and THEN (if they lose), still choose the lesser of two evils.
    While I don't like how we elect people, every election method has flaws. So what you want is not possible.

    There seems to be a lot of complaints about how those at the bottom are treated by the government and the economy. Probably a majority of the individuals in the country. How do you propose getting a candidate to represent them?

    We are victims of our history. It is very difficult to form a party and have influence in government.
    Life is complex.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,315

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    He had massive appeal to young voters. That, in my estimation, greatly elevates his strategic importance.

    Democrats are rightly critical of Republicans for trying to fight the inevitable demographic changes that will make their positions unsustainable. Yet the establishment and the DNC does the same thing.

    Tom
    In particular, young white male voters.

    Say what you like about the DNC, Bernie didn't get the delegates because he didn't get the votes. And no one has yet explained to me why the voters or the DNC are to blame for Bernie not getting the votes in the primaries, but Hillary is to blame for not getting the votes in the general election. It seems like there's a double standard there.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    While I don't like how we elect people, every election method has flaws. So what you want is not possible.
    Bogus. Of course it's possible. Many other systems are at work around the world, including run-off elections and ranked choice voting. Maine is doing it already. I'd be interested to hear from any Main forumites about what they think of their new approach to voting with ranked choice ballots. Anyone from Maine here?

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Say what you like about the DNC, Bernie didn't get the delegates because he didn't get the votes. And no one has yet explained to me why the voters or the DNC are to blame
    Apparently you weren't paying attention during the campaign:

    The emails appear to bolster Mr. Sanders’s claims that the committee, and in particular Ms. Wasserman Schultz, did not treat him fairly. His campaign accused the committee of scheduling debates on weekends so fewer people would see them. And in May, Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, said on CNN that “we could have a long conversation just about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and how she’s been throwing shade at the Sanders campaign since the very beginning.”

    In an email exchange that month, another committee official wrote to both Mr. Paustenbach and Amy Dacey, the committee’s chief executive, to suggest finding a way to bring attention to the religious beliefs of an unnamed person, apparently Mr. Sanders.
    New York Times

    I don't really care about "blame," though. Fix the problem, not the blame--and fixing the problem means recognizing that a progressive candidate who will inspire young voters is the smart strategic choice for Democrats.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,315

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Apparently you weren't paying attention during the campaign:



    New York Times

    I don't really care about "blame," though. Fix the problem, not the blame--and fixing the problem means recognizing that a progressive candidate who will inspire young voters is the smart strategic choice for Democrats.

    Tom
    I was paying enough attention to know that Bernie had problems appealing to people of color and especially women of color.

    https://www.theroot.com/bernie-sande...lem-1796995081

    Blame who you like, Bernie never overcame this problem. Yes, he would have had more appeal to young white men, but he would not have had as much appeal to other groups in the Democratic coalition.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,031

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    The solution is in the hands of the voters, but the existing parties may never offer that option. Same applies here, and too much of the political establishments are compromised for them to be able to change. Democracy is a flawed system too, we just struggle along as best we can.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Blame who you like, Bernie never overcame this problem. Yes, he would have had more appeal to young white men, but he would not have had as much appeal to other groups in the Democratic coalition.
    But he would have had more appeal than Trump, which was good enough for most Democrats to vote for Hilary. And from your own source:

    43 percent of black voters under age 30 backed Sanders during the primaries as of March 1
    That same source you cited argues that Sanders failed to win black votes because of poor campaign tactics, and NOT because his platform had no appeal.

    All I'm saying is, there are good sound strategic reasons to favor a progressive platform. "Middle of the road" and "sensible" are not inspiring positions, especially for young voters (who will most likely remain young non-voters if that's the choice Democrats offer).

    And a progressive candidate will still appeal more to most Democratic voters than a Trump or Pence. So, big gains among the youth vote, little to no loss among the base.

    Fighting change is a Republican ideal. Establishment Democrats, sadly, seem all too eager to embrace it themselves.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,315

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    But he would have had more appeal than Trump, which was good enough for most Democrats to vote for Hilary. And from your own source:



    That same source you cited argues that Sanders failed to win black votes because of poor campaign tactics, and NOT because his platform had no appeal.

    All I'm saying is, there are good sound strategic reasons to favor a progressive platform. "Middle of the road" and "sensible" are not inspiring positions, especially for young voters (who will most likely remain young non-voters if that's the choice Democrats offer).

    And a progressive candidate will still appeal more to most Democratic voters than a Trump or Pence. So, big gains among the youth vote, little to no loss among the base.

    Fighting change is a Republican ideal. Establishment Democrats, sadly, seem all too eager to embrace it themselves.

    Tom
    I'm fine with a progressive candidate, and as already stated, I'd have been fine with Bernie as the candidate. However, as you have stated, he did not know how to campaign for the votes of a substantial part of the Democratic coalition. Not surprising, you don't need to be good at that to win in Vermont. As you point out, Bernie was an imperfect candidate. So was Hillary. Why is it necessary for the Democrats to abase themselves for selecting the imperfect candidate who got more votes? Sure, the DNC could have run the process better, but this wasn't Kefauver vs. Stevenson all over again. Hillary really did win more delegates, it wasn't the party taking the nomination away from the popular candidate.

    I understand why Sky Blue makes the 'Democrats unfair to Sanders' argument, he wants the Democrats divided. I don't understand why you and McMike keep harping on it.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Why is it necessary for the Democrats to abase themselves for selecting the imperfect candidate who got more votes?
    First, they didn't select the candidate who got more votes. They selected a candidate by voting. Saying it your way implies the claim that Clinton was the logical choice BECAUSE she got more votes. That's nonsense. People did not know that when they voted for her. She was not selected on the basis of getting more votes.

    Second, no one is asking for Democrats to abase themselves--that's pure hyperbolic spin on your part. For my part, I am being critical of choices Democratic voters and officials made, and setting forth an argument about why it probably wasn't the best choice strategically, and why doubling down on that choice would be a mistake. Whether you find that argument convincing or not, I hope you'll see that making it is an act of civic engagement, and that it deserves consideration. Particularly because the DNC already went a loong way toward alienating the progressive wing with their well-documented contempt for Sanders in 2016 (which no doubt had some influence on the primary results).

    Acknowledgment is not abasement. But it is essential for building and maintaining trust.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I understand why Sky Blue makes the 'Democrats unfair to Sanders' argument, he wants the Democrats divided. I don't understand why you and McMike keep harping on it.
    Because it's a problem when Democratic party officials choose to alienate and to some degree attempts to disenfranchise its own progressive wing, who might decide at some point to launch a third party which would split the Democratic vote. Is that likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Certainly.

    But beyond that risk, it's a poor strategic choice. It's reactionary. It indicates a defensive bunker mentality, rather than the more productive mindset of "Let's establish an identity on common ground that will appeal to the largest untapped block of voters available" (who also happen to be the future of the party if only we can get them involved)--the young.

    2016 is over. I'm not trying to argue the results--yes, Clinton got more votes from Democrats. But I don't see much awareness among establishment Democrats of just how poor their choice was at a strategic level, and why, and what a better choice would look like. Even in the face of developments like this:

    Some DSA victories this cycle include:

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    and Julia Salazar in New York
    • James Thompson in Kansas
    • Rashida Tlaib in Michigan
    • Sarah Smith in Washington
    • Four women in Pennsylvania, all backed by the Philly chapter of DSA, won their primaries for state House: Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato both unseated longtime Democratic incumbents, and Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale won their races.
    SOURCE
    That lack of awareness, that willingness to ignore opportunities for growth, worries me.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 10-08-2018 at 05:45 PM.
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Because it's a problem when Democratic party officials choose to alienate and to some degree attempts to disenfranchise its own progressive wing. It's a poor strategic choice. It's reactionary. It indicates a defensive bunker mentality, rather than the more productive mindset of "Let's establish an identity on common ground that will appeal to the largest untapped block of voters available" (who also happen to be the future of the party if only we can get them involved)--the young.

    2016 is over. I'm not trying to argue the results--yes, Clinton got more votes from Democrats. But I don't see much awareness among establishment Democrats of just how poor their choice was at a strategic level, and why, and what a better choice would look like. Even in the face of developments like this:

    [/LIST]
    SOURCE
    That lack of awareness, that willingness to ignore opportunities for growth, worries me.

    Tom
    Tom, even though I tried, I couldn't have said it better myself.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,498

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Northern California Mountains
    Posts
    12,370

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Bredesen is making it hard to be Democrat in Tennessee
    It's Tennessee. It may be hard to be a hardened progressive or a far left wackadoo in Tennessee. Ordinary Democrats, patriotic Americans that care about institutions, as I assume most Tennessee Democrats are, will likely have little trouble being a Democrat in Tennessee. They've had them there for an awful long time.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,031

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    "Because it's a problem when Democratic party officials choose to alienate and to some degree attempts to disenfranchise its own progressive wing. It's a poor strategic choice. It's reactionary. It indicates a defensive bunker mentality,…….."

    The old establishment of any organisation never want to relinquish their own private power. In fact getting a president elected would mean their small pond power is diluted and their own importance downgraded. Unions and political organisations are susceptible to such factional and power plays.

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    And THIS is what doubling down looks like. Exactly the message that establishment Democrats and entrenched officials want you to send.

    Edit to add: Do you realize how condescending this is to progressive voters? "You were childish last time because you wanted a candidate we didn't approve of, one who wasn't a reliable part of the political machine. Toe the line this time around."

    Seriously, this is NOT the way to win back the trust of progressive voters. How about this instead?

    We tried it our way last time. It didn't work.

    This time, we'll listen to you.

    After all, it'll gain us 20 million+ votes from young people, and our base isn't going to pick Trump over a progressive candidate anyway.

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 10-08-2018 at 05:59 PM.
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Dear DNC, don't try to ram a dud up our a55es, we already distrust you and dislike you, almost as much as Trump and the GOP. If you can't attract voters, that's not our problem, it's yours. I refuse to continue to play the game of sh177y or sh177ier.

    PS: You suck . . . almost as much as the GOP and that's not good enough.
    Last edited by McMike; 10-08-2018 at 06:00 PM.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Tom, even though I tried, I couldn't have said it better myself.
    I heard you, and (obviously) I agree with the point you've been making.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    n.c. tn
    Posts
    6,384

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    ^ thanks both of you for carrying this load.. not feeling like bashing android to contribute, but esp Tom, you're nailing it.

    And David G? Your meme shows the problem.. a lot like the 'their guy is worse' one did. Dems (& Reps) need indy votes.. they need to earn them. That's why they're indys.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    You made the point Tom, I just busted down the door on the lot.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    It is a two-way street. Bernie may have galvanized 20+ million young voters, but he wasn't the candidate in the general. My suspicion is that many of these young voters failed to show up in the general.

    So, yes, it is a problem for the DNC to attract the progressives.

    But, it is also a problem for the progressives to try to be good soldiers and not go AWOL when their ideal is not achievable in the short term.
    Soldiers . . . .pffft, that entire last line makes me sick. Earn it. You don't have to win me over, the one's you have to win over would flip you the bird so fast for that, your head would spin. Do try not to pi55 off the voters you need so very badly . . . again.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  21. #161
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,498

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Dear DNC, don't try to ram a dud up our a55es, we already distrust you and dislike you, almost as much as Trump and the GOP. If you can't attract voters, that's not our problem, it's yours. I refuse to continue to play the game of sh177y or sh177ier.

    PS: You suck . . . almost as much as the GOP and that's not good enough.
    I sympathize with your frustration.

    Or - to put it another way - neither party has been immune to Acton's Dictum. And it's getting worse, and will only continue to get worse, as the oligarchs consolidate their power. Until there is a correction.

    Of course we want the process to spit out the very best candidate possible. I don't think anyone is arguing against that notion. Are you going to organize a takeover of the DNC to help restructure things there so as to assure that? Even if you knew how... do you think there's time before 2020 to pull it off? What, precisely, would you propose to improve the process?

    The only point I'm making is that - after the primary process is done - and our personal preference for a candidate has won or lost... what then? I'd suggest then it is time to get behind the candidate (I don't care who it is, I'm willing to bet they won't be as bad at Trump) with everything we've got to make sure the reversal begins.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  22. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    I sympathize with your frustration.

    Or - to put it another way - neither party has been immune to Acton's Dictum. And it's getting worse, and will only continue to get worse, as the oligarchs consolidate their power. Until there is a correction.

    Of course we want the process to spit out the very best candidate possible. I don't think anyone is arguing against that notion. Are you going to organize a takeover of the DNC to help restructure things there so as to assure that? Even if you knew how... do you think there's time before 2020 to pull it off? What, precisely, would you propose to improve the process?

    The only point I'm making is that - after the primary process is done - and our personal preference for a candidate has won or lost... what then? I'd suggest then it is time to get behind the candidate (I don't care who it is, I'm willing to bet they won't be as bad at Trump) with everything we've got to make sure the reversal begins.
    That condescending BS you posted is exactly what turned voters off of Clinton. The implication being that She and the DNC were the adults in the room and we're simply supposed to follow. f26k that, you pi55ed me off.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  23. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Northern California Mountains
    Posts
    12,370

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    If Sanders had been nominated, he'd probably be President right now. He had a favorability surplus over Trump by some 30 points. He remains one of the most likeable and trusted politicians in America.

  24. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,498

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    That condescending BS you posted is exactly what turned voters off of Clinton. The implication being that She and the DNC were the adults in the room and we're simply supposed to follow. f26k that, you pi55ed me off.
    That reactive bs is precisely why your approach is not only doomed to fail, but has the potential to doom us all.

    Gosh this over-emoting is fun, innit? And oh-so productive, wouldn't you say?

    You can disagree. But answer the questions.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  25. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    That reactive bs is precisely why your approach is not only doomed to fail, but has the potential to doom us all.

    Gosh this over-emoting is fun, innit?

    You can disagree. But answer the questions.
    Which questions ohhh exalted one?
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  26. #166
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,498

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Which questions ohhh exalted one?
    The questions in paragraph 3 of the comment you quoted. Might I suggest you actually read and consider before you go off next time. I hope that's not TOO condescending...
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  27. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    I sympathize with your frustration.

    Or - to put it another way - neither party has been immune to Acton's Dictum. And it's getting worse, and will only continue to get worse, as the oligarchs consolidate their power. Until there is a correction.

    Of course we want the process to spit out the very best candidate possible. I don't think anyone is arguing against that notion. Are you going to organize a takeover of the DNC to help restructure things there so as to assure that? Even if you knew how... do you think there's time before 2020 to pull it off? What, precisely, would you propose to improve the process?

    The only point I'm making is that - after the primary process is done - and our personal preference for a candidate has won or lost... what then? I'd suggest then it is time to get behind the candidate (I don't care who it is, I'm willing to bet they won't be as bad at Trump) with everything we've got to make sure the reversal begins.
    Oh, these, I didn't read past your Gandalf routine.

    I donate to the DNC, I would say that's their job to figure it out . . . or get out of the way for those that can. Drop the Gun debate, Drop the identity politics, pick healthcare and work the sh17 out of it. Look to Beto, I think that guy's got moxi.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  28. #168
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    49,498

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Oh, these, I didn't read past your Gandalf routine.

    I donate to the DNC, I would say that's their job to figure it out . . . or get out of the way for those that can. Drop the Gun debate, Drop the identity politics, pick healthcare and work the sh17 out of it. Look to Beto, I think that guy's got moxi.
    Sounds like you have some good suggestions. What are you going to do with them? I'd suggest writing letters not only to the DNC, but to all upper-level national democratic leaders.

    Sadly, though, you still didn't answer the questions I posed. I was asking about the improving the 'process', and you gave me your ideas on 'content'. Both are important... but they ARE different.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  29. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,315

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    First, they didn't select the candidate who got more votes. They selected a candidate by voting. Saying it your way implies the claim that Clinton was the logical choice BECAUSE she got more votes. That's nonsense. People did not know that when they voted for her. She was not selected on the basis of getting more votes.
    Clinton got more votes. That is simply a fact. Getting more votes is why she got more delegates. That's how the system works. Claiming she didn't win the nomination by getting more votes is just silly.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Second, no one is asking for Democrats to abase themselves--that's pure hyperbolic spin on your part.
    From the OP:
    Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    . . . they admit that Hillary Clinton was a huge mistake and a horrible candidate. Trump will win a second term unless the Democratic Party exposes their flawed judgement and apologizes. You want votes, clean up the spilt milk.
    I accept that McMike means what he says. You apparently do not.
    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    For my part,I am being critical of choices Democratic voters and officials made, and setting forth an argument about why it probably wasn't the best choice strategically, and why doubling down on that choice would be a mistake. Whether you find that argument convincing or not, I hope you'll see that making it is an act of civic engagement, and that it deserves consideration. Particularly because the DNC already went a loong way toward alienating the progressive wing with their well-documented contempt for Sanders in 2016 (which no doubt had some influence on the primary results).

    Acknowledgment is not abasement. But it is essential for building and maintaining trust.



    Because it's a problem when Democratic party officials choose to alienate and to some degree attempts to disenfranchise its own progressive wing, who might decide at some point to launch a third party which would split the Democratic vote. Is that likely? I don't know. Is it possible? Certainly.

    But beyond that risk, it's a poor strategic choice. It's reactionary. It indicates a defensive bunker mentality, rather than the more productive mindset of "Let's establish an identity on common ground that will appeal to the largest untapped block of voters available" (who also happen to be the future of the party if only we can get them involved)--the young.

    2016 is over. I'm not trying to argue the results--yes, Clinton got more votes from Democrats. But I don't see much awareness among establishment Democrats of just how poor their choice was at a strategic level, and why, and what a better choice would look like. Even in the face of developments like this:

    SOURCE
    That lack of awareness, that willingness to ignore opportunities for growth, worries me.

    Tom
    This implies that you have not carefully read what I have written. I would have been happy to have Bernie as the candidate, had he won more votes. I would be delighted to have Elizabeth Warren as the candidate, if she can win the most votes. This is how democracy works. No candidate will be perfect, in my view, but I'll vote for the one with a chance to win who is closest to representing my views. There is close to a 100% chance that will be whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

    What I will not do is moan about it for years after the election if the one I hoped would win the nomination fails to get enough votes. I will not insist that the Democratic Party can never get redemption until it undercuts the reputation of the last person they nominated for president. That's not constructive, and does not increase the chance of getting someone better in the White House, and it certainly doesn't encourage people who care about their reputation to run for the Democratic nomination.

    You apparently feel that the Democrats can never get redemption until they condemn their last nominee. You keep doubling down on this point of view, even though you admit that there were enough Bernie Bros to tip the election, even though you admit that Bernie didn't know how to appeal to people of color. Bernie is a fine man, I certainly would have voted for him, but how does getting Democrats to blame Hillary for the outcome make it more likely we'll get a better president? Why are other people to blame for Bernie not getting enough votes, but Hillary is to blame for her not getting enough votes? I've asked you and McMike repeatedly about this double standard, but you have failed to respond.

  30. #170
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    10,470

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Sounds like you have some good suggestions. What are you going to do with them? I'd suggest writing letters not only to the DNC, but to all upper-level national democratic leaders.

    Sadly, though, you still didn't answer the questions I posed. I was asking about the improving the 'process', and you gave me your ideas on 'content'. Both are important... but they ARE different.
    Look, I've written to everyone about my ideas, much more carefully than I do here. All I get is spam emails with a big donate button and snail mail with self addressed, envelopes where they expect me to donate and pay for the stamp. I've done my part, they simply want money and bodies in call center chairs or knocking on doors. I don't have the temperament for that, as clearly demonstrated here. I'm not willing to work for people I don't believe in either, I hate my reps, think they're shills, the only thing I like about them at this point is that they're not Republicans. For what it's worth, I'm not electable or, believe me, I'd run and wipe the floor with them all or get shot like many have in the past trying. I'm also a very poor public speaker, so, there's that.
    In the US this perverted idea of “blood and soil” over “constitutional principles” is the most radical and anti-democratic and anti-Conservative idea I have heard in my lifetime.

    ~C. Ross

  31. #171
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Clinton got more votes. That is simply a fact. Getting more votes is why she got more delegates. That's how the system works. Claiming she didn't win the nomination by getting more votes is just silly.
    What's silly is that you tried to say that people chose Clinton as their candidate BECAUSE she got more votes. I agree that once the votes were in, delegates needed to vote for Clinton. Doing otherwise would have threatened the legitimacy of the process. But voters did not vote for her because she had more votes.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I accept that McMike means what he says. You apparently do not.
    Fair enough. But I think his tendency is to overstate, and that his real meaning is closer to the argument I have been making. His recent posts support that interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I will not insist that the Democratic Party can never get redemption until it undercuts the reputation of the last person they nominated for president.
    If you think that's what I have asked for, you really haven't been paying attention. Your line of thought comes perilously close to "My party, right or wrong." Go too far down that road and you'll wake up to find yourself a Republican.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    You apparently feel that the Democrats can never get redemption until they condemn their last nominee. You keep doubling down on this point of view
    Nonsense. Not only am I not doubling down on it, it's a point of view I've never embraced in the first place. I've said nothing against Clinton other than that her campaign was uninspiring.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    even though you admit that Bernie didn't know how to appeal to people of color.
    I admit no such thing. As of March 1, 2016, he had the support of, what, 43% of black voters under 30? That's not nothing.

    But more importantly, I'm not arguing in favor of Sanders specifically, so why do you keep responding as if I am? 2016 is over. You're the one fixated on the past here, and you're the one moaning about how progressives and independents won't toe the line. I'm arguing that, given how poorly the "hold your nose and vote for the non-Trump candidate" approach worked to persuade progressives, independents, and undecideds to vote for Clinton, the smart strategic move would be to embrace a progressive agenda and a progressive candidate for 2020.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Bernie is a fine man, I certainly would have voted for him, but how does getting Democrats to blame Hillary for the outcome make it more likely we'll get a better president? Why are other people to blame for Bernie not getting enough votes, but Hillary is to blame for her not getting enough votes? I've asked you and McMike repeatedly about this double standard, but you have failed to respond.
    Again, fix the problem, not the blame. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, just suggesting that it borders on the idiotically self-destructive for the party to stick to the same strategy that failed so spectacularly last time. Sanders is not the issue. You're fixated on what happened last time. I'm worried about what should be done this time around.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  32. #172
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    25,563

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    And THIS is what doubling down looks like. Exactly the message that establishment Democrats and entrenched officials want you to send.

    Edit to add: Do you realize how condescending this is to progressive voters? "You were childish last time because you wanted a candidate we didn't approve of, one who wasn't a reliable part of the political machine. Toe the line this time around."

    Seriously, this is NOT the way to win back the trust of progressive voters. How about this instead?

    We tried it our way last time. It didn't work.

    This time, we'll listen to you.


    After all, it'll gain us 20 million+ votes from young people, and our base isn't going to pick Trump over a progressive candidate anyway.

    Tom
    Thank you Tom - you nailed it. I am surprised at the Dem machine supporters here - especially after their abysmal behavior last time around. Yeah, yeah, they'll all say it's Bernie's fault, or the fault of the progs who didn't vote for HRC - but the problem is with the Dem leadership - as many of the progs did indeed vote for her. The real problem was all the people who stayed home - largely because of the complacency of the DNC & their "We've go it in the bag" attitude.

    The Dem. party is supposed to be the big tent party - how about lifting some flaps instead of bunkering down behind an "It's your fault" attitude?
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  33. #173
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,315

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    Thank you Tom - you nailed it. I am surprised at the Dem machine supporters here - especially after their abysmal behavior last time around. Yeah, yeah, they'll all say it's Bernie's fault, or the fault of the progs who didn't vote for HRC - but the problem is with the Dem leadership - as many of the progs did indeed vote for her. The real problem was all the people who stayed home - largely because of the complacency of the DNC & their "We've go it in the bag" attitude.

    The Dem. party is supposed to be the big tent party - how about lifting some flaps instead of bunkering down behind an "It's your fault" attitude?
    Good lord, what hypocrisy!

    You, Tom, and McMike support the proposition that "Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    . . . they admit that Hillary Clinton was a huge mistake and a horrible candidate. Trump will win a second term unless the Democratic Party exposes their flawed judgement and apologizes. You want votes, clean up the spilt milk."

    And you claim it's other people who are intent on placing blame? Not Mr. Self-Aware today, are you? In one breath you say, "the problem is with the Dem leadership" and in the next you claim others are "bunkering down behind an "It's your fault" attitude."'

    Is that supposed to make sense?

    In addition, you label people who would have been happy to vote for Bernie, had he been the nominee, "Dem machine supporters." Well, no, they are people who would have been happy to support your candidate had he been nominated. I don't give a fig about the machine, I just don't think Trump ought to be president. The way to achieve that is to elect someone else, not to keep moaning about the imperfections of the candidate or to keep "bunkering down behind an 'it's your fault attitude'" by berating those who opposed Trump.

    You seem to think Hillary and the DNC are to blame for Trump. The people to blame for Trump are those who voted for him, and those who didn't vote against him. The strategy of blaming your allies for the loss of the battle makes no sense at all.

  34. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Between Here and There
    Posts
    27,098

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.
    One of the most enduring qualities of an old wooden boat is the smell it imparts to your clothing.

  35. #175
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,315

    Default Re: Democrats will never get redemption until . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    What's silly is that you tried to say that people chose Clinton as their candidate BECAUSE she got more votes. I agree that once the votes were in, delegates needed to vote for Clinton. Doing otherwise would have threatened the legitimacy of the process. But voters did not vote for her because she had more votes.



    Fair enough. But I think his tendency is to overstate, and that his real meaning is closer to the argument I have been making. His recent posts support that interpretation.



    If you think that's what I have asked for, you really haven't been paying attention. Your line of thought comes perilously close to "My party, right or wrong." Go too far down that road and you'll wake up to find yourself a Republican.



    Nonsense. Not only am I not doubling down on it, it's a point of view I've never embraced in the first place. I've said nothing against Clinton other than that her campaign was uninspiring.



    I admit no such thing. As of March 1, 2016, he had the support of, what, 43% of black voters under 30? That's not nothing.

    But more importantly, I'm not arguing in favor of Sanders specifically, so why do you keep responding as if I am? 2016 is over. You're the one fixated on the past here, and you're the one moaning about how progressives and independents won't toe the line. I'm arguing that, given how poorly the "hold your nose and vote for the non-Trump candidate" approach worked to persuade progressives, independents, and undecideds to vote for Clinton, the smart strategic move would be to embrace a progressive agenda and a progressive candidate for 2020.



    Again, fix the problem, not the blame. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, just suggesting that it borders on the idiotically self-destructive for the party to stick to the same strategy that failed so spectacularly last time. Sanders is not the issue. You're fixated on what happened last time. I'm worried about what should be done this time around.

    Tom

    Re-read the thread title and the OP and tell me who is fixated on what happened last time. This thread was started to blame Clinton and the DNC for Trump's election.

    As to this paragraph:

    What's silly is that you tried to say that people chose Clinton as their candidate BECAUSE she got more votes. I agree that once the votes were in, delegates needed to vote for Clinton. Doing otherwise would have threatened the legitimacy of the process. But voters did not vote for her because she had more votes.
    That bit of sophistry seriously misstate my views. I'm giving you an F on it. If that's the way you're going to argue, there's not much point in telling you what I think.

Posting Permissions

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