OK, From What I'm Seeing Here, My Confidence

[MineralMan]

about winning a majority in at least one house of Congress in 2018 is fading fast. We seem to still be divided as a political party, between party loyalists who know that no single approach can win enough districts and people who want to change the Democratic Party into a strictly hard-line progressive party in a number of platform areas.

In that respect, things look a lot like they did in 2016. I'm far from happy with the results of that election, as can be easily imagined, and I'm less than confident that we can win back either house of Congress with that approach. I will keep trying to convince people that a Unity Approach is the best possible choice, but I'm not getting a lot of positive feedback from posts along those lines.

If we do not regain control of one house of Congress, at a minimum, I believe we may not have another opportunity until I have returned to the dust. So, this is a relatively important thing for me at this time. The Democratic Party appears, at the moment, to be in the process of splintering further, and that does not bode well for either 2016 or 2020.

I hope people begin to realize that, and I'll do my best to convince them, but right now, I'm growing less optimistic with each passing month.

[leftstreet]

1. The way the GOPers are suppressing votes, it won't matter

The Democrats will fuck around and try to figure out the best "better" message, while more and more voters won't be able to exercise their rights

Not saying you're right or wrong, just the reality is the GOPers have not stopped suppressing vote.

[MineralMan]

3. Those suppression efforts could be over-ridden in many cases

with a concerted effort to produce a massive turnout of Democrats, along with a registration drive to make sure those who have been taken off the rolls get back on.

However, that's the same problem I mention in the OP. It would take a unified effort of all hands to make that happen.

[leftstreet]

4. True enough n/t

[MiddleClass]

14. Winning majority takes control always, voter suppression can be overcome by overwhelming turnout

Voter suppression only works if it's allowed to by the people that are oppressed, voter, not showing up because it's hopeless, makes it easier for your opposition to accomplish its mission.

Organization, turnout, will win, the majority eliminates gerrymandering. Sitting back and waiting for the court's takes too much time, decades upon decades

[Gothmog]

62. Agreed-GOP voter suppression can be fought

In 2016, I helped train over 200 poll watchers for Harris County. The GOP election workers were attempting to limit the effect of the court order on voter id by having "greeters" stand outside polling places to tell voters that they needed picture ids. This was not consistent with the court order in the Texas voter id case and we got the GOP to stop this.

We now have the first Democratic District Attorney in 34 years and the lady in charge of registering voters (Texas used to have a poll tax and so the tax assessor is in charge of this operation) was one of the poll watchers who I trained back in 2012. A guy I know who used to work for Battleground Texas now works in the Tax office registering voters.

GOP voter suppression efforts can be fought but it takes hard work

[Sunlei]

77. help people, post for the states the online "check your registration" and where to register.

online for most states. post the link.

[lunasun]

56. And republican true hearts will vote for any republican over dem . Trump normalized is proof

[Gothmog]

60. We are geared up to fight voter suppression

For example, the court found that the Texas voter id law was adopted to intentionally discriminate and so the court has the option of striking down the law. At worst, we have a modified version passed by the Texas legislature that is better than the old law but not as good as the court ordered remedy we used in 2016.

There are a good number of legal types who are geared up to fight GOP voter suppression and so far we are able to fight back. I am not giving up

[Sunlei]

71. easy to help people check their registration, re-register if needed.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. It's intentional.

Sure there are a bunch of new voters, youngsters, who heard Bernie and decided that they would have litmus tests or not vote, and to some extent they can be excused because they are ignorant of how the two party system works, which is why I spend so much time explaining it.

Some of them can be saved from this self destruction, but many are doing this on purpose.

They WANT the GOP to retain power if they dont get their way.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, I can only hope you're wrong.

If you're right, we're in for hard times.

[Foamfollower]

11. OFFS!

[beam me up scottie]

13. Yes. That was my reaction too.

Abortion is a matter of life and death for women. I don't appreciate being told I'm ignorant because I question the wisdom of supporting candidates who would vote to strip away my rights.

Women's lives matter.

It's not up for debate, my rights are just as important as anyone else's.

[Foamfollower]

42. Where does the OP say a thing about abortion?

[m-lekktor]

16. and he blames that on Bernie!

lol.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Right?

[Eliot Rosewater]

25. Why are you attacking me? Is there a way to report such behavour?

[beam me up scottie]

34. It wasn't an attack.

Let's review what you just said about us:

to some extent they can be excused because they are ignorant of how the two party system works, which is why I spend so much time explaining it.

Some of them can be saved from this self destruction, but many are doing this on purpose.

They WANT the GOP to retain power if they dont get their way.

When someone calls women who are fighting for their lives 'ignorant', condescendingly claims they need to have things 'explained' to them, and then accuses them of wanting the GOP to win if they don't get 'their way' they should expect some pushback.

What I posted was not an attack, it was a response to an attack.

Women and minotities are fed up with constantly being told we have to suck it up and look at the big picture. If some of them want to draw a line in the sand it's not anyone else's place to lecture them and preemptively blame them for any future losses.

Most of us have always done the right thing and supported the good over the perfect, and most of us will probably do the same thing again - but we don't appreciate being told that our rights are negotiable. We are angry and we're not going to be quiet.

Black lives matter. Women's lives matter. Lgbtq lives matter.

[BainsBane]

38. That's not what he's saying at all

There are people arguing that in threads on DU, but he isn't one of them.

[R B Garr]

46. That's not what that post said.

[R B Garr]

49. NPR: Sanders defends campaigning for anti-abortion rights Democrat

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

"Sanders pushed back against the criticism. "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about," Sanders told NPR."

[lapucelle]

53. I prefer to review what he actually said.

Sure there are a bunch of new voters, youngsters, who heard Bernie and decided that they would have litmus tests or not vote, and to some extent they can be excused because they are ignorant of how the two party system works, which is why I spend so much time explaining it.

I keep reading it, and I still can't find the part about women who are fighting for their lives being ignorant.

[tonyt53]

27. I agree 100%!!!!!

[Fresh_Start]

6. I find myself agreeing with you

I wish that DU had a filter to prevent ANY post referencing Clinton or Sanders.
I know I can block them for myself...but a sitewide block would be better.
Any discussion with either of those words in it degenerates.

[MineralMan]

7. Blocking posts on DU won't help, really.

DU is a minor player in all of this. While it may seem to be a major influence for those of us who frequent this forum, the reality is that it has very, very little impact on national politics. It's OK as a mirror of those politics, but it doesn't have much influence, really.

So, blocking whole classes of posts will simply remove them from view for you, but won't change what is going on in any way. I think it is better to know the direction things are going than to not know, even if I can do little about that direction.

[Gothmog]

64. There are ways to volunteer in the real world

The best thing that any good democrat can do is to volunteer to work as an election worker at the upcoming elections. Having good democrats serve as election workers is a very valuable service.

My youngest has served as an election judge in 8 elections (some local) and she is great at protecting the vote.

[stonecutter357]

36. You can Auto-trash by Keyword . trust me DU is a lot different with Clinton or Sanders on

trust me DU is a lot different with Clinton and Sanders on Auto-trash by Keyword .

[Fresh_Start]

37. thank you for letting me know it is worth doing nt

nt

[teamster633]

48. How do I do that?

[Sunlei]

76. why don't you trash the trump word? I block the #1 LBN poster of OPs with trump in headline &

then DU is a much different place.

temporary block just to remove ALL trump headlines, about half of DU LBNs.

[Flying Squirrel]

95. Problem with that

is there are still people who believe both of those candidates may run again. That being the case, they are not just "in the past."

[angrychair]

8. A question

I'm sure this is related to the DCCC proposal to court anti-choice candidates.
So I ask this question: what rights are negotiable to you? What other rights are you willing to give up?

LGBT rights?

Global warming?

Women's right to vote?

PoC voting rights?

If any or all seem like a ridiculous question than I ask another question:

Why are they ridiculous but a women's basic human rights negotiable?

Sometimes the argument is "it's their personal beliefs not how they vote"

Ok

So if you knew a Democratic candidate personally hated people of color or someone that identifies as LGBT, but "promised" to be supportive of them, would you still support them as a candidate because they have a "D" after their name?

My point is that it cannot just be about getting a person that claims to be a Democrat but personally does not support basic human rights for everyone, elected to office.

Most importantly, It is not a partisan issue. Supporting basic human rights, like a women's ability to obtain reproductive healthcare or an LGBT person's ability to marry who they love, does not make someone a "Democrat" it makes them a human being.

[Curmudgeoness]

12. THIS

[MineralMan]

15. Frankly, it has nothing to do with that at all.

You may have noticed that I have not posted in any of those threads in any serious way. So, you are incorrect. I'm not in favor of giving up any rights at all. That's not really the issue I'm addressing. The issue I'm addressing is winning elections. Every time a Democrat loses an election, a Republican wins. If too many Democrats lose, as has happened more often than I can believe, we end up with Republicans deciding things, and they don't recognize any of those rights as important.

My post is not about any particular candidate or race. It is about trends. If you want my opinion about a particular candidate, just ask and I'll go look at that candidates history of votes on those issues, assuming that the candidate has won elections in the past. Then, I'll tell you what I think of that candidate, specifically.

But that's another topic altogether. This thread is only about winning elections and defeating Republicans. As we're seeing right now, when we don't defeat Republicans, they gain control of government and those rights go right out the window if they can manage to get rid of them. That's what this thread is about.

So, which Democratic candidate is saying that he or she will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or to reverse women's rights to choose, reverse LGBTQ rights that have been gained, or who hates people of color? Name those candidates for me. I don't know any such Democratic candidates who now hold office, and would try very hard to get someone else on the general election ballot if such a person ran in a primary I could vote in.

Where I live, such a candidate would have zero chance of getting through a primary. I live in a progressive state and district. Everyone I vote for is a strong progressive, because I've helped them in their campaigns, along with many other people who have also helped. Al Franken, Betty Klobuchar, Betty McCollum, along with state legislators and officialsl whose names you wouldn't recognize.

I live where I live. I vote here. I work here. I help candidates here.

This thread is about Democrats winning elections. Getting good Democrats on the ballot for every district and office is up to Democrats in the states and districts where the elections will be held. Where I am, we elect strong progressives. I don't know where you live. How do your representatives and other office-holders stand up to that standard.

You have made a large assumption about the reason for my thread, and it was an incorrect assumption. I'm always happy to explain my threads and the reasons for them.

[angrychair]

19. With all due respect MM

You stated in your OP:

We seem to still be divided as a political party, between party loyalists who know that no single approach can win enough districts

This statement implies that in some cases that people in those districts may support a candidate that may not work in other districts, i.e. a candidate that may be anti-choice in approach or personally held beliefs, as an example, but "promises" not to vote that way or maybe he would vote that way on certain issues.

This statement implies that we should be willing to compromise, which is great, as long as you are not the one being compromised.

As a Party we should not endorse or support a candidate that would, could or holds personally held beliefs, that would deny another human being of their basic rights.

(FYI I live in Washington state, in a progressive district, that only supports progressive candidates)

[MineralMan]

20. That statement implies nothing beyond what it says.

I can only discuss specifics if I know the name of the candidate and the district in which that candidate is running. If you provide me with that information, I will tell you what I think of that candidate and whether I think a primary opponent might have a chance.

My OP is not about any sort of specifics. It is about a general trend.

I'm glad that you, too, live in a progressive district. We are, as they say, privileged.

[BainsBane]

40. Except it's not the "establishment" Democrats

making the argument that equal rights need to be abandoned to win. I was told that my concern that candidates support equal rights was "purity." They then went on to insist such demands for "purity" were hypocritical because I didn't vote for Bernie, which was apparently my obligation, according to this poster.

The only people I've seen demand the party turn away from "divisive" issues that relate to the rights and lives of the non-white male majority are people who claim to be progressive. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they are just tolling, but to pretend those arguments are coming from long-term Democrats does not correspond to what I've seen.

It's not like we're talking about just a couple of posts either. We've seen one OP after another arguing that abandoning civil rights and reproductive rights was necessary to win.

And of course we saw the Mello campaign, where an anti-choice candidate was held up as the "progressive" future of the party.

[angrychair]

72. I don't have a Clinton/Sanders agenda

I don't even even give a shit about that tired old crap. In full disclosure, in the primaries I campaigned my ass off for Sanders but it wasn't enough and Clinton won. In the General I campaigned my ass off for Clinton. In fairness, neither candidate was the ideal but I supported them.
Also in full disclosure, I'm a middle aged white male.
You don't have to be a woman or LGBT to know that basic human rights are critical for the future of our country.

So this isn't a meme or the issue of the day for me, it's who I am. It's what I assume is a shared value between, at the very least, all Democrats. Apparently not always true.

If we cannot, at the very least, agree that a women's access to reproductive healthcare is a basic human right and that the DNC endorsing or financially supporting a candidate that opposes such things than we are compromising who we are for the sake of a vote that may or may not actually benefit us in the end.

[BainsBane]

78. I agree completely

I think core values of equal rights are essential, a baseline.

[crosinski]

69. MineralMan, I get you.

I'm 63 and a woman. I was there in the thick of the woman's movement, and in many ways the fight goes on, but we're not in the same position we were back then. We have resources, brain power, allies, and much more at our command now.

My parents were raised during the Depression of 1930's, and they knew hardship. They knew the Democratic party was the party of the people though, and the way out of hardship. Nationally, my husband and I vote Big D as our parents did.

Local votes are local though. We vote Dem on everyone that has that designation, and then we research every non-partisan position to ferret out the candidate's loyalties.

I wish there was a way to share the knowledge that our parents passed down to my husband and me about how the Democratic Party saved their lives. And not just their lives, but the lives of all their relatives and neighbors, and probably the grandparents of many of the people who post here at DU. Those social programs are taken for granted now, and we're going to lose them if we don't elect DEMOCRATS.

I get you MineralMan.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Well said!

Last edited Tue Aug 1, 2017, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

[50 Shades Of Blue]

26. Thank you!

[Egnever]

65. My answer would be a question

which one of those is more important than the rest of them?

[angrychair]

73. The answer is "none"

All of them are basic human rights.

No exceptions.

No compromise.

[Egnever]

75. So you would refuse to vote for someone that supported nine out of ten of those

and let the opponent who is against all ten win? It is certainly your prerogative to do so but I think it would be a foolish way to try to get your goals accomplished in a body with 100 people in it.

[angrychair]

81. No it's not

My point was proven in the recent set of votes to repeal the ACA.

1 to 10 votes could be the difference between something passing or not.
No, I'm not demanding the perfect candidate. I am and will continue to demand candidates that support basic human rights.
If we start actively cultivating candidates that don't support women's reproductive healthcare or bathroom access or marriage for LGBT people than who are we as a Party and what actually matters to us as a Party?

What does it say to young people when both political Parties actively recruite candidates that would deny women and LGBT people their most basic human rights for political gain? What message does that send?

If a 14 year old gay teenager, just starting to become politically aware, suddenly realizes neither political Party wants him to exist as a person because both actively recruite candidates that would, in the right situation, happily limit or abolish their rights to use a public restroom or marry the person they love than how is that winning anything and how is that approach sustainable?

[Egnever]

86. it says they see the whole picture

not the fraction of the picture.


The object is to get the most votes on the widest range of issues important to democrats. Like gerymandering you make the sacrifices where you need to. In say Mississippi Where criminalizing abortion is at 59% you elect a democrat that is pro life but agrees with you on everything else or most everything else. So now in 50 dems you have first 50 dems instead of 49 and in those 50 you have 49 pro choice and one pro life. Dems win, pro choice is safe, and that one vote never sees the light of day because no legislation will ever reach the floor.

Those states exist Alabama is bad West Virginia, is bad if you want a dem candidate from those states chances are they are going to need to be pro something on your list because the district they represent is for it.

If we want to get our agenda done we have to understand not everyone lives where we do or thinks the way we do. If we demand everyone is a democrat from San Francisco we fail if we demand everyone is a carbon copy or we don't vote we fail.

The platform is what is important. Its the goals we state and that as a party we agree to work towards getting accomplished.

Now if we are talking president I think we are in a whole different area since that one vote is crucial but I don't think we have seen seen a Dem candidate in my lifetime that was against abortion. Tim Kaine was controversial just because of his past on abortion. I am sure it dampened enthusiasm for the ticket in many parts of the country.

We still have a lot of work to do on a lot of that list and no one is suggesting anyone stop fighting for it. Only that we try to avoid purity tests in a numbers game.

[angrychair]

90. Respectfully

The analogy in your first paragraph is seriously flawed.

Because you are not just talking about one candidate from Mississippi.
If the DNC starts actively recruiting candidates with no regard to their position on women's rights or gay rights or immigration rights, than it could be dozens or more since supporting those positions is not a criterion to be a candidate on the Democratic ticket. As long as they say they are a Democrat they are good to go, no matter what their opinions are on basic human rights.

So your position is that the DNC should be actively recruiting these type of candidates, that given the opportunity, would vote against a women's access to healthcare? To vote to prevent LGBT access to public restrooms? To vote against immigration? No one from one state may not matter but 5 would. 10 would. 15 would make a world of difference on these issues.

You think that would appeal to women? Those that support LGBT rights? Those that support immigration rights?

These are not insignificant groups, they are large groups of people that have shaped our agenda and our Party but now we stab them in the back?

Why would I or anyone that cares about these issues, support a Party that actively recruits candidates like this, no matter what state they come from. I care how my Party votes and the issues they support.

So to many people. This approach will make things worse not better.

[Egnever]

92. In a state where issue x is more popular

You bet .

You.think the way to win is to disagree with the majority of everyone around you?

The idea the DNC is actively courting people who are against x issue is nonsense. As if they are going out of their way to find the person against x to run.

They are looking for a Dem majority and are not asking for purity to all issues on the list to run.

I really don't see how this is hard to understand.

[angrychair]

94. Again, I disagree

Obviously you can have your opinion but when people start seeing videos of "Democrats" that are endorsed and financially supported by the DNC, speaking about limiting a women's access to birth control and/or agreeing with republicans that LGBT are not protected from discrimination in the workplace, than don't be surprised if contributions to the DCCC and DNC dry up.

Because I can promise you and the DCCC and DNC, that as long as they endorse and promote candidates that advocate and support for legislation that would deny people their basic human rights I will never send them a dime

[Bettie]

68. Well said

there are a lot of people who seem to think the basics of human rights are "litmus tests".

[MiddleClass]

10. I feel your pain, my opinion is not absolute, the opposite is not absolute, there's got to be give

And take to come up with the winning strategies.

One thing I know, a Democrat voter, (actual voter) in Massachusetts is very different from a Democrat voter in Texas, which is way different than a Democrat voter in Southern California, which in turn is way different than a Democrat voter in San Francisco, which is way different than one in northern California, which is way different than the Democrat voter in Miami, which is way different than a Democrat in Ocala, Florida.

In general, everybody Stop making perfect the enemy of the good. All the above vote for the Democrat nominee for president, but would never vote for the same Congressman in each area.

A vast majority of us voted for the generic Democrat nominee, let localities decide who the local or federal representative is period.

That said, I'm 100 percent willing to change my opinion because of a good argument/defense

[Kaleva]

22. I had posted an OP about that.

Saying the party base in my home district may not be the same as the party base in another. The world is a shade of many grays and little is stark black and white.

[MiddleClass]

41. Exactly, I hate to quote Reagan, but it fits.

"Person who agrees with me 80 percent of the time, is my friend, not my enemy."

If a gun loving, pro-life, pro-business, Democrat from Texas votes with my Congresswoman to save Obama care, I think that's a good thing. A Republican in that seat would vote against my interests

[Kaleva]

79. My former congress critter Bart Stupak voted for Obamacare

He was pro-life and gun friendly. His replacement, Repub Dan Benishek voted for repeal every time it came up.

[MiddleClass]

83. Now that is the exact message we have to get out to those absolutists

In that case it was those 2 issues created a congressman that voted against Democratic issues 100%

. I consider myself articulate, but not a linguist, I can't write to save my life, I write like I talk.

But we need somebody to boil down that situation and be able to argue for it.

Without getting bogged down in each emotional issue.

While still preserving the full legitimacy of those very important issues.

How do I get through to those people?

Being an absolutist will mean you lose every election, including your main focus

[elleng]

28. YES, Stop making perfect the enemy of the good.

[angrychair]

74. My point would be this

I'm sure this is related to the DCCC proposal to court anti-choice candidates.
So I ask this question: what rights are negotiable to you? What other rights are you willing to give up?

LGBT rights?

Global warming?

Women's right to vote?

PoC voting rights?

If any or all seem like a ridiculous question than I ask another question:

Why are they ridiculous but a women's basic human rights negotiable?

Sometimes the argument is "it's their personal beliefs not how they vote"

Ok

So if you knew a Democratic candidate personally hated people of color or someone that identifies as LGBT, but "promised" to be supportive of them, would you still support them as a candidate because they have a "D" after their name?

My point is that it cannot just be about getting a person that claims to be a Democrat but personally does not support basic human rights for everyone, elected to office.

Most importantly, It is not a partisan issue. Supporting basic human rights, like a women's ability to obtain reproductive healthcare or an LGBT person's ability to marry who they love, does not make someone a "Democrat" it makes them a human being.

[CousinIT]

21. Agree. The anti-Bernie/Anti-Hillary - pro-Bernie/pro-Hillary folks must UNITE

or Dems are through for most of our lifetimes. And don't count on healthcare, Medicare, Social Security or anything else. It will ALL be gone and you'll live in your kid's basement or garage - IF they'll let you and there's no guarantee of that.

Nobody here is old enough to remember the Great Depression or the days before Social Security or Medicare or birth control/reproductive rights. If there were they'd be horrified at where we're headed without Dem unity ie: progressives to centrists uniting to defeat the radical right.

[elleng]

29. Stop making perfect the enemy of the good.

[marlakay]

23. They talked about it a bit on the view today

Got into conversation about abortion with a conservative democrat on panel. Whoppi asked her if she wanted abortion to be made illegal and she said no would respect others choice, which is how many dems that are pro life think.

I am pro choice but feel if it brings unity to party and we can all agree law stays then open up our tent. They said a recent poll of entire U.S. Says 49% are against abortion and only 46% for it. Said it is changing more against it than before.

So if that is true we had better think hard before we push those people away that agree with us on everything except that.

[BannonsLiver]

24. Well said

What works in Vermont might not work in Georgia.

to me it comes down to value.

Is it better to have a Dem rep who might be personally opposed to abortion but would do no harm to abortion rights through his/her policy, or a republican who votes against progressive issues every single time?

People can do what they want to do with their money. But it's worth noting that the Dems took control of the house in 2006 at least in part because of candidates that fit this bill. Heath Schuler in Tennessee is one example. There were others.

That being said I wouldn't support a presidential candidate that wasn't for choice. There are different dynamics at play in a national election.

[elleng]

30. Stop making perfect the enemy of the good.

[Zoonart]

31. Any of you guys watch GOT?

I propose, as John Snow has...let's band together and defeat the white walkers! They're will be plenty of time later to weed the garden, if that is your bent.

[peggysue2]

47. This!

I've said the same thing using a different analogy but the point is the same: we need to win in 2018 if we're to stop the madness in the same way Jon Snow knows that defeating the white walkers trumps (ha!) everything else.

Because if we don't? God help us all.

[Expecting Rain]

32. My only quibble...

is ceding the term "progressive" to those who are so far left that they'd rather see Democrats lose.

These folks are regressives. Liberal Democrats are the true progressives and we are under attack.

[MineralMan]

33. I use the labels people adopt for themselves.

Sometimes, they mean different things, depending on who is using them. That's unfortunate, but labels are just that - labels.

[HarmonyRockets]

67. I don't think you're under attack

I think people are getting way too paranoid on here. Yes, there are a small contingent of JPR/Jimmy Dore/Susan Sarandon/Jill Stein nuts out there, but the large majority of progressive, pro-Bernie people (like myself) are NOT a part of that group and did support Clinton over Trump. I think a lot of people are taking all of this too far, so every time they see a criticism of someone like Cory Booker or Kamala Harris they freak out and think it's people conspiring to help the Republicans or some of the more paranoid one think they are all "Russian bots."

When it comes to possible 2020 candidates like Harris and Booker, I personally want to know about them, including negatives, because I would like to have the most progressive candidate possible (while still being electable). I'd rather get it out of the way now on a message board than arguing about it down the road in 2020. While I'm disappointed in some of the things Kamala Harris did, or didn't do, such as prosecuting Steve Mnuchin, I will keep an open mind and read other opinions. Poor people having their homes foreclosed is something I care about. Yet in two other threads I was called a sexist, a racist, a shithead, alt-left, a ratfucker, and a Russian troll. When I made a post explaining how I just care about those issues, my post was removed for the reason of being "divisive against a group." And I don't hate Kamala Harris either, I've read some other takes and it sounds like she didn't just totally lay down to the banks either. As it stands now, she wouldn't be at the top of my 2020 list, but not at the bottom either. I will continue to learn more about her and read things about her, positive or negative.

Anyways, us progressives, or whatever you want to call us are going to continue to be critical of some of your heroes like Booker and Harris--I think people here just need to get over that. And we are going to continue to support single payer, abortion rights, regulating banks, raising the minimum wage, etc, and criticize the Democratic Party establishment if they do not. I suggest people get over that too. And outside of a few idiots over at JPR, there is not some grand conspiracy. We are just progressives and have our strong beliefs.

[Expecting Rain]

88. Sorry, but I think it is disingenious...

to suggest the attacks on good progressive liberal Democrats like Booker and Harris are limited to JPR types. That's simply not so.

There is a much bigger and well-organized source of attacks out there with their knives sharpened. That's not "conspiracy thinking" but the cold-headed truth of the matter.

So for Democrats be asleep and not see what's coming at us would be a tragic mistake.

[HarmonyRockets]

93. What are you calling attacks?

I think you misunderstood me. I meant to say that bringing up concerns with Kamala Harris' record is NOT attacking her. There are completely legitimate reasons to be concerned. Basically anointing someone as the heir apparent to the nomination and completely turning a blind eye to any concerns or criticisms of that candidate is how you lose an election. All possible candidates, whether it's Booker or Harris or Warren or even Bernie need their feet held to the fire. They need to be vetted so we can get the best possible candidate.

To me right now Kamala Harris' record as AG of California is mediocre (prosecutorial misconduct, anti-transgender, Mnuchin, etc). I think the Democratic Party could do better. I don't want to see us lose 2020. I don't think this country can afford it. So once again, I'm sorry but bringing up concerns about her record as CA AG is not an "attack." And Harris has plenty of time to prove me wrong too. But at this point, others have done much more to prove themselves IMO (Franken, Warren, Sanders, Baldwin, Ellison, Sherrod Brown, Chris Murphy, just to name a few). If you think Booker and Harris are "good progressive liberal Democrats" that's fine, but some of us have different opinions. It doesn't mean we are a part of some "well-organized attack." I don't think anything is "coming at us" as you say. Some progressives just don't fully trust some of these potential candidates.

[ehrnst]

35. Yeah - Democrats seem to have to fall in love in order to bother to vote.

Last edited Wed Aug 2, 2017, 08:19 AM - Edit history (2)

The expectation to have one's candidate be tailored to one's user experience was planted by Nader and bore fruit in 2016.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/ralph_nader_and_the_tragedy_of_voter_as_consumer_politics.html

The concept that you might be able to do that during primaries, but then grow the fuck up and understand what the actual stakes in the general election are, died last year.

[MiddleClass]

44. Exactly, apply your voice vote in the primaries, pick between the 2 in the general

Because whoever you don't register a vote for, you are helping the other win.

Know that in a two-party election, country, that's your choice. Know it, own it.

Not my problem, only works if it's not a problem to you.

Donald Trump is a big problem to a lot

[panader0]

39. The so called hard line progressives and the purity people are few.

I supported Bernie in the primary and voted for HRC in the general, as did 90%+
of Bernie people. Sure, there were always far left purists, but 90%+ of Dems
will vote with us. I feel confident that by tying themselves to the Trump,
that the R's will suffer in the midterms.

[ehrnst]

51. The purists like to think of themselves as the majority - because they are loud.

Straight white people have always seen themselves as the majority, even when they haven't been for awhile.

They just don't "see" those that aren't in their image.

That was on full display on the left last year.

[Trial_By_Fire]

43. The Dem party is not winning elections. Why?

The 'party loyalists' want, it appears, to just keep on doing the same thing and move more to the Right. That
is not what the People want - the people want progressive policies. And note, 'progressive policies' are just what 'normal people' and our society needs.

The Dem party will continue to lose until the Dem Party once again becomes the 'party of the people' and I'll add, 'party for workers (labor)'.

[ehrnst]

45. We won the presidential election in 2016.

Despite massive voter suppression. Gerrymandering has had a huge impact on keeping red districts red, and carving up blue districts.

It takes more votes to elect a dem than a republican. Ignore that, and we'll have more of the same for years to come. It's why Obama and Eric Holder were going to make gerrymandering their prime issue before the election was stolen.

The worst thing we can do now is regress to prioritizing what white straight men want in terms of regaining hold of the dominant culture, and throwing social justice issues under the bus as "establishment." (Like trying to call the Black Congressional Caucus and Planned Parenthood "establishment.&quot

Keeping it the party of the people, and not turning back the clock to an era where white men held all the high paying jobs because women and people of color were kept out.

Those days aren't going to come back - partly due to automation, and partly due to globalization. Labor now means opportunity for all - which means addressing the school to prison pipeline for black men, the glass ceiling for women, discrimination of LGBTQs (and not simply dismissing it as 'bathroom" distractions.)

It means understanding that our base - and the majority is no longer straight white men - are the new labor force, and not dismissing the obstacles that majority faces as "identity politics."

THAT is progressive.

[Trial_By_Fire]

50. What about state and local offices?

Dems aren't winning those either.

Obama won in 2008. Dems took both the House and Senate.

And yes the voter suppression et.al. does matter a lot.

Here is the thing - we have to give people a reason to vote Democratic. There is already a center right/right party - they call themselves repubs...

[ehrnst]

54. Did you read my post past the title?

More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. More Americans voted for Democratic Senate candidates than for Republican Senate candidates.

And there has been major gerrymandering in 2014. Along with the gutting of the voter rights act in 2013. You should look it up.

https://www.thenation.com/article/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/gerrymandering-made-impossible-democrats-win-house

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/three-years-after-scotus-case-weakened-voting-rights-act-leaders-n599551

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13708648/democrats-won-popular-vote

http://library.cqpress.com/elections/document.php?id=rcookltr-1527-84193-2523552

It doesn't matter a damn bit what you say if you don't address the fact that it takes more votes to elect a Democrat than a Republican - ESPECIALLY since 2014. And if the party veers away from "working class white men" that's the future, my friend. Whiny as they are, they are not the future, and they are not the majority of actual citizens.

This is all after 2008, BTW. Stuff has happened to voter rights for Dems since then, so check in.

And how the hell do we call ourselves Democrats by pandering to a white straight male midwestern and southern demographic that we lost in '65, and take a dump on the base that makes us progressive? That's as center right as it gets.

We go left by being the party of social justice. And by listening to experts, who have data, and not shouting them down as "corporate shills" when they tell us facts that don't confirm our bias. We are supposed to be the party that respects experts and data. That is how we win - not by a circular firing squad over manifesto lockstep thinking.

[lunasun]

55. For me getting back our governor seat in Illinois is priority. Then helping with state seats.

We need to see how tea party republicans evangelicals got so many state politics whether or not they were funded or aided by Koch etc. isn't the message right now. I hope everybody goes local with energy if not the republican cash they have. But here is the thing I see in suburbs that lean R yes we have a few here. The incumbent republican for a over decade now in those areas are challenged by extreme right candidates. So republican as a branding is broken right now and the primaries may finally repulse people in those areas or they are just deplorables out there. But I will work first with my own state reps mand keeping their seats Dems no surprises like 2016 allowed

[ehrnst]

57. In VA - we're going from purple to Blue. (nt)

[Gothmog]

66. Texas will turn blue eventually

It will take a ton of hard work but it will happen

[lunasun]

80. Good news GOTV !

[MiddleClass]

58. Let's look at the math

Whites make up 72 percent of the voting public. That means.

You want to alienate white males which represent 36 percent of the voting public,

adding their wives, which represent say 15 percent

adding NRA minorities, which say represents 5 percent

adding pro-life minorities, which say represents 3 percent



Now, how do you propose waiting any elections electing Democrats by starting off alienating 59 percent of the voting public?

[rzemanfl]

52. People need to understand that disputes among Democrats may well be stoked by the

Russians and their bots. I am personally convinced many people in key states, who would have voted for Hillary, albeit without a lot of enthusiasm, were micro-targeted and convinced either not to vote, or to vote third-party. I'm sure there were other forces at work, but the Russian's getting down to the individual level is what I think swung the election to Drumpf.

[MiddleClass]

61. Gave him enough 3 states to win those states by under 1 percent

Winner take all electoral votes gave them the election.

Micro-targeting got people to not bother voting or not voting for Hillary, or leaving the presidential ballot blank or Jill Stein.

[rzemanfl]

89. Yep. n/t

[Gothmog]

59. We need to put everything to one side and focus on winning back at least one house

[guillaumeb]

63. How does the Democratic party balance the two wings?

Is it done on a district by district basis, recognizing that what works in an urban blue area might not work in a rural red/purple area, or is a one national policy approach the better choice?

[Sunlei]

70. who is running?warren, sanders, &? DU should list those running and support them from here.

We can also go after their opposition & make a difference.

[Sunlei]

82. here I checked with a friend who has vs the gove(R)nment for many years."midterm election next year

""midterm election next year has every seat in the House up for grabs and nearly 40 seats in the Senate""

She also wrote the following with links so you can see who to back.




At this juncture it looks like there will not be any floor debate or vote on this amendment in the Senate until after August recess. I repeat, at this juncture.




So your calls on this bullet sound like this, “NO, on the Steward amendment. It’s not ok to kill tens of thousands of wild horses in the budget when there are at least a dozen other ways BLM can save money. As an American, I find this unacceptable.” That is really all you need to do.


Done calmly, politely and with as many of your family and friends as you can educate to what is happening, is an important action everyone can take.



All bills work the same; introduction, subcommittee or committee, committee vote, floor vote, the Budget is no different. So calls to your representative, even if they are not on a committee, are valuable in more than one way. Not only do you get your rep prepped for a floor vote but you begin to inform them to how things will turn out for them at the next election (midterm election next year has every seat in the House up for grabs and nearly 40 seats in the Senate). If you have a rep on the subcommittee for the Interior budget you have a chance to be influential in the language that goes to a full vote.


Find your Senator:

https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Interior Appropriations Committee: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/interior-environment-and-related-agencies

[NotASurfer]

84. Diversity is good

So there's no monolithic mindset...use it to your advantage, I say. Superprogressive in a state, or congressional district, or dogcatcher race where it matches the voters? Yep. Bible-reading Sunday-school teacher who spends spare time building shelter for the homeless in the Jesus belt? Absolutely. The local constituencies may not agree exactly on everything, but if there's a core of respect, dignity, and compassion, use the local "left" to move the ball.

[GaryCnf]

85. Okay,

You state:

We seem to still be divided as a political party, between party loyalists who know that no single approach can win enough districts and people who want to change the Democratic Party into a strictly hard-line progressive party in a number of platform areas.

So you see us as two groups - on one side the Party loyalist who know how to win and on the other those darn hard line progressives who don't.

And then you call for unity.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Awsi Dooger]

87. The polls will likely err in the same direction

That's what I'm concerned about. I don't take polling at one glance because I've devoted 20+ years to studying the trends for wagering purposes. I still receive blow back here when I assert Alaska polling sucks, always overstating the Democrat. Meanwhile, Alaska polling sucks, always overstating the Democrat.

As long as Trump is in office I expect his supporters will continue to be reluctant to speak to pollsters or the media. It's a cynical fearful pathetic lot but we're moronic if we underestimate their numbers, zest or persistence. Red shift is not only logical in the Trump era but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen at least to some degree. Therefore I fully expect a face-value clueless type like Rachel Maddow to be gleefully waving poll numbers throughout 2018 with zero comprehension regarding the ideological specifics of those states or how the electorate in that state tends to vary from presidential years to midterm years.

Twenty plus net seats is quite a hurdle. I'd be considerably more confident if it were mid to high teens, which is manageable. The senate makes little sense for reversal that cycle.

Beyond anything I'll be thrilled if we surge the gubernatorial numbers to parity or slight edge.

[NanceGreggs]

91. The important thing to keep in mind ...

... is that DU is not representative of our Party as a whole, nor is it reflective of how the majority of Democrats think. It once was - but that now seems a very long time ago.

There are posters here who are seeking to divide us. And due to a system that allows them to participate on juries, they have been given the power to "leave" posts that are clearly divisive while shutting down posts that object to that divisiveness.

I have been a DU participant for over a decade. I have watched as the anti-Dems have infiltrated this site, and have sought to pit Democrat against Democrat. They pose as "concerned Democrats" who never seem to have anything positive to say about the Party or its members. They insist that Democrats who support the Party are sell-outs satisfied with the "status quo" (a term which they still can't seem to define), without any regard to what allowing someone like Trump to be elected would mean. They were more concerned with keeping HRC out of the WH - based on her alleged ties to corporate America - than keeping Trump out of the Oval Office, despite his obvious ties to an adversarial foreign power, i.e. Russia.

These anti-Dems are the Third Party advocates who voted for Stein, and encouraged others to do so - knowing full well that doing so would diminish the chances of HRC being elected. They are the people who wrote-in Bernie Sanders on their GE ballots, knowing full well that he would never get enough votes to be elected. They continue to insist that those useless votes would "send a message to the Dem Party" - when the only message sent was that their agenda was far more important than keeping Trump out of the White House.

There will no doubt be alerts on my post - that's a given. The anti-Dems, who now have a strong foothold on this site, will serve on the "jury" that determines what gets said here and what can't be said, consistent with their own agenda. And quite frankly, I don't give a flyin' fuck. If I am FFR'd, I will only be joining the many, MANY real Democrats who have been driven off this site by the anti-Dems who are given free rein to do whatever they want.

I am not alone in longing for the "old DU" - a time when this was a gathering place for Democrats, who sometimes fought with each other tooth-and-nail, but nonetheless had the same goals. The dispute then was how we could work together to achieve those common goals. What is happening here now is an endless war between those who are attempting to find common ground and those who consistently try to drive wedges between us.

So ALERT away, people. The fact remains that Democrats are united in their determination to further our Party's agenda - and all the anti-Dem posts on this site won't change that fact. And if they think they're accomplishing something by dividing DUers, they are obviously too stupid to know that Democrats are a far larger group than the people who are still posting here.

If I thought for a minute that DU was representative of my Party members, I, too, would be discouraged. But it's not - not by a longshot.

[MineralMan]

96. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I don't look at DU as representative of much of anything. It simply is what it is. It's also the only political forum I visit and the only place I am active in posting. It's an idea mill, but I have no illusions about it being actually influential on politics, really.

I've mentioned DU to dozens of people involved in Democratic Party activities here in Minnesota. Not one of those people have even heard of the site. Our Democratic Party (DFL) organizations are active, involved and successful at getting Democrats elected and in choosing candidates to endorse who are solid progressives in every area.

That's the actual political activity that I'm engaged in. I spend a lot of time on DU, because I enjoy discussing politics in groups of more or less like-minded people. I do try to encourage active participation in local party organizations, because I know that does have an effect on real-world politics. I am also a strong advocate for serious GOTV and voter registration activism.

But, DU is not going to change the world. It's just not that much of a player in actual politics, really. It is, however, a good forum for exchanging ideas, if a bit brittle when those ideas are either misunderstood or don't conform to some people's individual ideas about politics. That's shruggable, though.