Obama vs. Activists

[lpetrich]

The calculation for most Dems is "how far left can we go without losing again".
I fear false confidence coming from these impeachment proceedings - most trumpsuckers don't even know they're going on.

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the  1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

When I saw Obama slam “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I guessed very quickly who he might have in mind. There is only one other person here who seems to have done so.

I'm guessing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But I think that her primary victory offers a path forward for the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on likely primary voters, she focused on recruiting normally-unlikely voters. She also had a bold platform instead of barely having any platform, as Joe Crowley did. JC made some vague promise to stand up to President Trump, and that was it.

I think that the Democratic Party ought to be doing that, instead of trying to recruit Republican-leaning on-the-fence voters and then grumbling about how "the base" won't go along. The Republicans don't do that, so why should the Democrats have to do that?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The calculation for most Dems is "how far left can we go without losing again".
I fear false confidence coming from these impeachment proceedings - most trumpsuckers don't even know they're going on.

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the  1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

When I saw Obama slam “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I guessed very quickly who he might have in mind. There is only one other person here who seems to have done so.

I'm guessing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But I think that her primary victory offers a path forward for the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on likely primary voters, she focused on recruiting normally-unlikely voters. She also had a bold platform instead of barely having any platform, as Joe Crowley did. JC made some vague promise to stand up to President Trump, and that was it.

I think that the Democratic Party ought to be doing that, instead of trying to recruit Republican-leaning on-the-fence voters and then grumbling about how "the base" won't go along. The Republicans don't do that, so why should the Democrats have to do that?

So, are you in denial that there are many urban democrats who are very pro business/economic development but very left on social issues? No democrat can win without this group. We probably can't win without the far left either. We need to come together to beat Trump. The reason why the republicans don't have to compromise is that they don't need to. There are more conservative Americans than liberal. Even if their numbers weren't greater, they don't need the numbers! They can win with substantially fewer votes.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the  1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.


I'm guessing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But I think that her primary victory offers a path forward for the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on likely primary voters, she focused on recruiting normally-unlikely voters. She also had a bold platform instead of barely having any platform, as Joe Crowley did. JC made some vague promise to stand up to President Trump, and that was it.

I think that the Democratic Party ought to be doing that, instead of trying to recruit Republican-leaning on-the-fence voters and then grumbling about how "the base" won't go along. The Republicans don't do that, so why should the Democrats have to do that?

So, are you in denial that there are many urban democrats who are very pro business/economic development but very left on social issues? No democrat can win without this group. We probably can't win without the far left either. We need to come together to beat Trump. The reason why the republicans don't have to compromise is that they don't need to. There are more conservative Americans than liberal. Even if their numbers weren't greater, they don't need the numbers! They can win with substantially fewer votes.

The far left and the "pro business/economic development" Democrats are absolutely, 100%, irreconcilably in opposition. We are not on the same side, Harry, and we cannot come together.

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the  1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.


I'm guessing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But I think that her primary victory offers a path forward for the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on likely primary voters, she focused on recruiting normally-unlikely voters. She also had a bold platform instead of barely having any platform, as Joe Crowley did. JC made some vague promise to stand up to President Trump, and that was it.

I think that the Democratic Party ought to be doing that, instead of trying to recruit Republican-leaning on-the-fence voters and then grumbling about how "the base" won't go along. The Republicans don't do that, so why should the Democrats have to do that?

So, are you in denial that there are many urban democrats who are very pro business/economic development but very left on social issues? No democrat can win without this group. We probably can't win without the far left either. We need to come together to beat Trump. The reason why the republicans don't have to compromise is that they don't need to. There are more conservative Americans than liberal. Even if their numbers weren't greater, they don't need the numbers! They can win with substantially fewer votes.

The far left and the "pro business/economic development" Democrats are absolutely, 100%, irreconcilably in opposition. We are not on the same side, Harry, and we cannot come together.

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

I totally disagree. Yes, we are totally opposed on the economic issues. I see your economic goals as a great threat to my family's economic well being. You probably see the same in my goals. But I have the ability to see the other issues. You do not. It's been asked, why do the republicans come together so easily. And it's simple, they see the larger issues. They want control of the supreme court, environmental laws reversed, regulations reversed, religious groups to replace government services, creationist to be taught in the schools, lower taxes on the rich, gerrymandering to allow the minority to control the majority, and etc. I want the reverse of that. You're only issue is class warfare. I don't care about class warfare. I want people to come together to defeat the rightwing.

 

[PyramidHead]

The far left and the "pro business/economic development" Democrats are absolutely, 100%, irreconcilably in opposition. We are not on the same side, Harry, and we cannot come together.

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

I totally disagree. Yes, we are totally opposed on the economic issues. I see your economic goals as a great threat to my family's economic well being. You probably see the same in my goals. But I have the ability to see the other issues. You do not. It's been asked, why do the republicans come together so easily. And it's simple, they see the larger issues. They want control of the supreme court, environmental laws reversed, regulations reversed, religious groups to replace government services, creationist to be taught in the schools, lower taxes on the rich, gerrymandering to allow the minority to control the majority, and etc. I want the reverse of that. You're only issue is class warfare. I don't care about class warfare. I want people to come together to defeat the rightwing.

There's no objective sense that the issues you describe are "larger" than the ones I care about. Republicans come together easily because they don't have economic disagreements, not because they put those disagreements aside for other stuff.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the 1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

That is certainly true for those of us who voted for McGovern, during a time when the country was further left than it is now. But, we've also come to terms with the fact that a high percentage of the country consists of left of center moderates. We've grown up and accepted that, like a line from an old rock hit said. "you can't always get what you want".

I can still see that bumper sticker in my mind, that my sister had on her car that read, "Don't blame me. I voted for McGovern". McGovern was a smarter, more reasonable man than today's candidates who are further to the left, and yet, he lost in a landslide. He had big ideas but seemed more pragmatic than today's more liberal candidates.

I've read numerous articles about how people who live outside the more progressive bubbles vote. I don't believe that someone like Bernie has a chance to win enough electoral votes. I personally don't think Bernie would make a good president and people who are not as liberal as I am, by traditional standards, would never vote for him. Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with any of the current candidates, but will still vote for anyone who wins the Democratic nomination. Not everyone will do that. There are people who are sore losers who won't vote if their dream candidate doesn't obtain the nomination. They are fools!

 

[Elixir]

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the 1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

That is certainly true for those of us who voted for McGovern, during a time when the country was further left than it is now. But, we've also come to terms with the fact that a high percentage of the country consists of left of center moderates. We've grown up and accepted that, like a line from an old rock hit said. "you can't always get what you want".

I can still see that bumper sticker in my mind, that my sister had on her car that read, "Don't blame me. I voted for McGovern". McGovern was a smarter, more reasonable man than today's candidates who are further to the left, and yet, he lost in a landslide. He had big ideas but seemed more pragmatic than today's more liberal candidates.

I've read numerous articles about how people who live outside the more progressive bubbles vote. I don't believe that someone like Bernie has a chance to win enough electoral votes. I personally don't think Bernie would make a good president and people who are not as liberal as I am, by traditional standards, would never vote for him. Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with any of the current candidates, but will still vote for anyone who wins the Democratic nomination. Not everyone will do that. There are people who are sore losers who won't vote if their dream candidate doesn't obtain the nomination. They are fools!

Nixon didn't have to contend with a significant "Never Dick" coalition that extended even to the fringes of his own party. It's hard to remember how popular he was in 1972, and contrast that with Cheato's ratings. Nixon had over 60% approval by election day and almost 70% by inauguration day '73...
Trump, as you know, has never seen a day when he had 50% or greater approval.

 

[Elixir]

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

What are you going to do PH? Vote for yourself or a third party candidate? Feel good for a day...
There has been plenty of discussion about how smart THAT is.

 

[Politesse]

I wonder. Those of you who think McGovern could have won by being more "moderate".

Which specific issues do you believe he should have caved on? Should he have openly endorsed the continuation of the war we were losing, and eventually lost, in Vietnam? Should he have vowed to never reduce "defense spending"? Or perhaps only reduced it by 17% instead of 38%? Would that have won him the White House? Would we be a better nation today? Who, specifically, did he need to f*ck to become president that he didn't?

 

[PyramidHead]

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

What are you going to do PH? Vote for yourself or a third party candidate? Feel good for a day...
There has been plenty of discussion about how smart THAT is.

It doesn't matter, because I live in MA. If there's an actual danger of MA going red, we have bigger problems than me not liking Elizabeth Warren, and I would make sure to vote against Trump in that case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that the Democrats fear a repeat of George McGovern's massive loss against Richard Nixon in the  1972 United States presidential election.

Popular vote: RN 60.67%, GMG 37.52%, others 1.81%.
Electoral vote: RN 520, GMG 17.
GMG carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.


I'm guessing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But I think that her primary victory offers a path forward for the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on likely primary voters, she focused on recruiting normally-unlikely voters. She also had a bold platform instead of barely having any platform, as Joe Crowley did. JC made some vague promise to stand up to President Trump, and that was it.

I think that the Democratic Party ought to be doing that, instead of trying to recruit Republican-leaning on-the-fence voters and then grumbling about how "the base" won't go along. The Republicans don't do that, so why should the Democrats have to do that?

So, are you in denial that there are many urban democrats who are very pro business/economic development but very left on social issues? No democrat can win without this group. We probably can't win without the far left either. We need to come together to beat Trump. The reason why the republicans don't have to compromise is that they don't need to. There are more conservative Americans than liberal. Even if their numbers weren't greater, they don't need the numbers! They can win with substantially fewer votes.

The far left and the "pro business/economic development" Democrats are absolutely, 100%, irreconcilably in opposition. We are not on the same side, Harry, and we cannot come together.

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

Taking that position ensures 4 more years of His Flatulence.

The party that gets the middle ground votes is the party that wins the presidency. You have to be less bad to them than the Republicans are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of us has to concede to the other, and this time maybe it's not going to be the far left holding their noses and voting for a pro-business centrist.

What are you going to do PH? Vote for yourself or a third party candidate? Feel good for a day...
There has been plenty of discussion about how smart THAT is.

It doesn't matter, because I live in MA. If there's an actual danger of MA going red, we have bigger problems than me not liking Elizabeth Warren, and I would make sure to vote against Trump in that case.

But if you elect Warren instead of Biden and thus lose the general...

 

[Elixir]

It doesn't matter, because I live in MA. If there's an actual danger of MA going red, we have bigger problems than me not liking Elizabeth Warren, and I would make sure to vote against Trump in that case.

But if you elect Warren instead of Biden and thus lose the general...

Or if they select Biden instead of Klobuchar and lose, or select Sanders instead of Yang and lose ...
Sheesh, Loren - do you have ome kind of crystal ball we should know about?

 

[PyramidHead]

It doesn't matter, because I live in MA. If there's an actual danger of MA going red, we have bigger problems than me not liking Elizabeth Warren, and I would make sure to vote against Trump in that case.

But if you elect Warren instead of Biden and thus lose the general...

Or if they select Biden instead of Klobuchar and lose, or select Sanders instead of Yang and lose ...
Sheesh, Loren - do you have ome kind of crystal ball we should know about?

Yes, it's the one that always provides the opposite of the truth

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't matter, because I live in MA. If there's an actual danger of MA going red, we have bigger problems than me not liking Elizabeth Warren, and I would make sure to vote against Trump in that case.

But if you elect Warren instead of Biden and thus lose the general...

Or if they select Biden instead of Klobuchar and lose, or select Sanders instead of Yang and lose ...
Sheesh, Loren - do you have ome kind of crystal ball we should know about?

The point is the more moderate the candidate the more likely a win in the general. Voting for a far left is akin to voting for His Flatulence.

 

[J842P]

Or if they select Biden instead of Klobuchar and lose, or select Sanders instead of Yang and lose ...
Sheesh, Loren - do you have ome kind of crystal ball we should know about?

The point is the more moderate the candidate the more likely a win in the general. Voting for a far left is akin to voting for His Flatulence.

Kinda like Trump, right? He was very moderate. That's why he beat the radical Hillary Clinton.