The State of the Democratic Party II

[USS Monitor]

I'm from the US and I never had to buy textbooks in K-12.

You're also from Massachusetts, a Commonwealth that actually spends money on education rather than expecting the Fed to do it all for them.

I went to school in Maryland, but that's another state that doesn't mind funding their schools.

[Post War America]

You're also from Massachusetts, a Commonwealth that actually spends money on education rather than expecting the Fed to do it all for them.

I went to school in Maryland, but that's another state that doesn't mind funding their schools.

Indeed, it would be safe to say that Maryland puts much more investment into education than does Arkansas, or Kansas, or Oklahoma

[Corrian]

I am sure it is done out of political convenience, but I don't even care. Anything that gets rid of this shit. Good on them. I hope they stick with it and prove it.

Doing it now, before it's even clear if they're going to run for president in 2020, means either they sincerely respect the principle of it or, if they are doing it for political convenience, at least they are paying attention and planning ahead.

This actually doesn't change my opinion of Gillibrand or Booker. I still dislike Gillibrand for reasons that have nothing to do with PAC money, and I still think Booker is a decent dude.

It might help me vote for them if they commit. Though that all still depends on who does and doesn't show up. I'll likely still have a priority candidate first. But it may help create less reluctance (Unless we go with Harris. I'll probably be reluctant no matter what with her)

[USS Monitor]

Doing it now, before it's even clear if they're going to run for president in 2020, means either they sincerely respect the principle of it or, if they are doing it for political convenience, at least they are paying attention and planning ahead.

This actually doesn't change my opinion of Gillibrand or Booker. I still dislike Gillibrand for reasons that have nothing to do with PAC money, and I still think Booker is a decent dude.

It might help me vote for them if they commit. Though that all still depends on who does and doesn't show up. I'll likely still have a priority candidate first. But it may help create less reluctance (Unless we go with Harris. I'll probably be reluctant no matter what with her)

I'm not enthused about Harris either.

[Senkaku]

It might help me vote for them if they commit. Though that all still depends on who does and doesn't show up. I'll likely still have a priority candidate first. But it may help create less reluctance (Unless we go with Harris. I'll probably be reluctant no matter what with her)

I'm not enthused about Harris either.

take all these first term senators away ugh

[Corrian]

I'm not enthused about Harris either.

take all these first term senators away ugh

I definitely feel like she should get more experience first as well, even if I did like her. Wasn't one of Obama's biggest problems was him being inexperienced in some ways? Like in the early days of his presidency.

[USS Monitor]

I'm not enthused about Harris either.

take all these first term senators away ugh

I don't have such an issue with her being a first term senator. Liz Warren is still in her first term, but I think she'd be a solid choice. The problem with Harris is that her detractors have legitimate complaints about stuff she's supported and most of the argument in her favor seems to revolve around identity politics rather than useful accomplishments.

[Post War America]

take all these first term senators away ugh

I don't have such an issue with her being a first term senator. Liz Warren is still in her first term, but I think she'd be a solid choice. The problem with Harris is that her detractors have legitimate complaints about stuff she's supported and most of the argument in her favor seems to revolve around identity politics rather than useful accomplishments.

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

[Myrensis]

I don't have such an issue with her being a first term senator. Liz Warren is still in her first term, but I think she'd be a solid choice. The problem with Harris is that her detractors have legitimate complaints about stuff she's supported and most of the argument in her favor seems to revolve around identity politics rather than useful accomplishments.

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

Is this the part where we pretend taht Republicans, at every level, of course never sink to baseless attacks and smears against their opponents, or their own people who aren't toeing the party line? Certainly we all remember Donald Trump striking that stark contrast to hateful liberals with his campaign built on tolerance, unity and respect for all.

Really these kinds of arguments generally boil down to , "People expect and tolerate Republicans behaving like spoiled foul mouthed 3 year olds, but are appalled by any slip up by Democrats."

Which is less a problem with Democrats in general, and more that we've reached a point where only one of the political parties in this country is expected to behave responsibly and for the good of the country, while the response to the other one constantly in engaging in selfish, destructive, spiteful behavior is, 'Hahah, classic GOP!".

[Post War America]

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

Is this the part where we pretend taht Republicans, at every level, of course never sink to baseless attacks and smears against their opponents, or their own people who aren't toeing the party line? Certainly we all remember Donald Trump striking that stark contrast to hateful liberals with his campaign built on tolerance, unity and respect for all.

Really these kinds of arguments generally boil down to , "People expect and tolerate Republicans behaving like spoiled foul mouthed 3 year olds, but are appalled by any slip up by Democrats."

Which is less a problem with Democrats in general, and more that we've reached a point where only one of the political parties in this country is expected to behave responsibly and for the good of the country, while the response to the other one constantly in engaging in selfish, destructive, spiteful behavior is, 'Hahah, classic GOP!".

I'm well aware of the GOP's bullshit the problem lies in the demographics of that bullshit. Democrats, by appealing to minorities more generally, when they engage in those sorts of tactics piss off the majority. Republicans when pissing off minorities, piss off minorities. Usually, its not enough to make people change their votes, but all it takes is about 10,000 people in Pennsylvania to swing an election.

[USS Monitor]

I don't have such an issue with her being a first term senator. Liz Warren is still in her first term, but I think she'd be a solid choice. The problem with Harris is that her detractors have legitimate complaints about stuff she's supported and most of the argument in her favor seems to revolve around identity politics rather than useful accomplishments.

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you think 2016 is the start of a long-term trend.

[Bakery Hill]

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

Is this the part where we pretend taht Republicans, at every level, of course never sink to baseless attacks and smears against their opponents, or their own people who aren't toeing the party line? Certainly we all remember Donald Trump striking that stark contrast to hateful liberals with his campaign built on tolerance, unity and respect for all.

Really these kinds of arguments generally boil down to , "People expect and tolerate Republicans behaving like spoiled foul mouthed 3 year olds, but are appalled by any slip up by Democrats."

Which is less a problem with Democrats in general, and more that we've reached a point where only one of the political parties in this country is expected to behave responsibly and for the good of the country, while the response to the other one constantly in engaging in selfish, destructive, spiteful behavior is, 'Hahah, classic GOP!".

Which is why Trump is so popular right? Talk about a persecution complex.

[Bakery Hill]

So is the plan just to have all the Democratic candidates tell loud obnoxious offensive lies in the hope that they'll get billions of dollars of free coverage from the media? Otherwise lack of money tends to equal lack of media presence and exposure, and as Trump has spent the last 2 years demonstrating the average voter has the attention span of a particularly dim goldfish.

Anything is possible if you believe comrade.

Myrensis seems to believe the poor unwashed are idiots, so perhaps not so much in their mind.

[Senkaku]

Anything is possible if you believe comrade.

Myrensis seems to believe the poor unwashed are idiots, so perhaps not so much in their mind.

No, he just recognizes that Americans have short attention spans. That's not saying they're idiots, I believe there's all kinds of data to show our attention spans have declined, though the reasons are debatable. Short attention span =/= stupid.

That said, statistically speaking, not everyone can be intelligent. Most people are about average, and average is... well, average (I am my own citation here ). It's not like America is bursting at the seams with stable geniuses.

I don't have such an issue with her being a first term senator. Liz Warren is still in her first term, but I think she'd be a solid choice. The problem with Harris is that her detractors have legitimate complaints about stuff she's supported and most of the argument in her favor seems to revolve around identity politics rather than useful accomplishments.

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

meanwhile

Talk all you like about Dems calling everyone who doesn't agree w/them racists or sexists, but when you have GOP politicians unironically acting like their own caricatures of the Dems, it rings a little hollow lmao

[Bakery Hill]

Myrensis seems to believe the poor unwashed are idiots, so perhaps not so much in their mind.

No, he just recognizes that Americans have short attention spans. That's not saying they're idiots, I believe there's all kinds of data to show our attention spans have declined, though the reasons are debatable. Short attention span =/= stupid.

That said, statistically speaking, not everyone can be intelligent. Most people are about average, and average is... well, average (I am my own citation here ). It's not like America is bursting at the seams with stable geniuses.

Comparing voters to goldfish sounds fairly elitist, but I appreciate how charitable you are being. It'd have more clout if it weren't for the other interactions I've had with them.

[USS Monitor]

It's not like America is bursting at the seams with stable geniuses.

I dunno... I've seen a lot of stables when I take road trips.

[Senkaku]

It's not like America is bursting at the seams with stable geniuses.

I dunno... I've seen a lot of stables when I take road trips.

And how well-constructed were they?

No, he just recognizes that Americans have short attention spans. That's not saying they're idiots, I believe there's all kinds of data to show our attention spans have declined, though the reasons are debatable. Short attention span =/= stupid.

That said, statistically speaking, not everyone can be intelligent. Most people are about average, and average is... well, average (I am my own citation here ). It's not like America is bursting at the seams with stable geniuses.

Comparing voters to goldfish sounds fairly elitist, but I appreciate how charitable you are being. It'd have more clout if it weren't for the other interactions I've had with them.

I don't think Myrensis is claiming they're somehow superior, I think they're just noting reality- voters have short attention spans and on average aren't brilliant, because that's just how people are. There's nothing bad about recognizing that none of us are superbrights or luminaries of our time with all the answers and perfect memories.

[Bakery Hill]

I dunno... I've seen a lot of stables when I take road trips.

And how well-constructed were they?

Comparing voters to goldfish sounds fairly elitist, but I appreciate how charitable you are being. It'd have more clout if it weren't for the other interactions I've had with them.

I don't think Myrensis is claiming they're somehow superior, I think they're just noting reality- voters have short attention spans and on average aren't brilliant, because that's just how people are. There's nothing bad about recognizing that none of us are superbrights or luminaries of our time with all the answers and perfect memories.

He's just parroting the "most people are idiots and will vote for Trump because they are so dumb" line rather than examining the unfortunate realities.

[Major-Tom]

Is this the part where we pretend taht Republicans, at every level, of course never sink to baseless attacks and smears against their opponents, or their own people who aren't toeing the party line? Certainly we all remember Donald Trump striking that stark contrast to hateful liberals with his campaign built on tolerance, unity and respect for all.

Really these kinds of arguments generally boil down to , "People expect and tolerate Republicans behaving like spoiled foul mouthed 3 year olds, but are appalled by any slip up by Democrats."

Which is less a problem with Democrats in general, and more that we've reached a point where only one of the political parties in this country is expected to behave responsibly and for the good of the country, while the response to the other one constantly in engaging in selfish, destructive, spiteful behavior is, 'Hahah, classic GOP!".

Which is why Trump is so popular right? Talk about a persecution complex.

in all honessty trumpt and his party have grown in ratings for avariety of reasons, some of whicn include ecnonomic growth and h fact that sll his scandals have quickly been perceived by the americacan public as the new "normal."

[Post War America]

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you think 2016 is the start of a long-term trend.

Its not a long electoral trend so much as Republicans being in a strong position going into 2020 redistricting. If they win 2018 and 2020, they will have the ability to secure majorities for the forseeable future.

I've openly heard people in the primaries call those who voted against her bigoted racist sexists, nevermind the general election. Those people I summarily dismissed as lacking in common sense. It does seem to be a problem tho with certain Dems. It might have an impact in why they got beaten in 2016, and could potentially be the key to securing 20 more years of Republican domination as a result of 2018 and 2020.

meanwhile

Talk all you like about Dems calling everyone who doesn't agree w/them racists or sexists, but when you have GOP politicians unironically acting like their own caricatures of the Dems, it rings a little hollow lmao

The problem is not criticizing the racist positions of GOP candidates. It lies in calling everyone who votes Republican, or worse not Democrat, or in particularly extreme cases not voting for the establishment candidate in primaries (which is the problem that I specifically pointed out in my post if you'd actually read it).

Tbqh I can understand for example, why a West Virginia coal miner might go for Trump. Your community is dying, and has been dying for a long time. You have been ignored by both major political parties for decades at this point. Then come 2016 you have one side saying "everything is fine", or worse "shut up and check your privilege", and the other is seemingly concerned about your problems and is indeed promising the world if only you'd sell your soul to people who will persecute people who don't live in your community. I might be able to see that such promises are not but the honeyed words of snake oil salesmen, people who'd never understand the White) working class as much as the people the snake oil salesmen want to persecute, however, my community is not literally dying around me.

Its not just a problem with people voting Republican either. It can also push people into third parties, or worse, out of the electoral system entirely, which of course triggers Dems whining about the spoiler effect and blaming people who voted third party for THEIR loss, which of course alienates said voters.

[USS Monitor]

I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you think 2016 is the start of a long-term trend.

Its not a long electoral trend so much as Republicans being in a strong position going into 2020 redistricting. If they win 2018 and 2020, they will have the ability to secure majorities for the forseeable future.

You're getting ahead of yourself if you think they're poised to dominate in 2020.

[Post War America]

Its not a long electoral trend so much as Republicans being in a strong position going into 2020 redistricting. If they win 2018 and 2020, they will have the ability to secure majorities for the forseeable future.

You're getting ahead of yourself if you think they're poised to dominate in 2020.

If the economy maintains its present course, and if the DNC insists on running candidates who campaign on neoliberalism and identity politics, ceteris paribus, we'd be heading for a likely Republican victory.

[Petrasylvania]

You're getting ahead of yourself if you think they're poised to dominate in 2020.

If the economy maintains its present course, and if the DNC insists on running candidates who campaign on neoliberalism and identity politics, ceteris paribus, we'd be heading for a likely Republican victory.

So the Democrats should run Republican Lite? That worked well before.

Also, identity politics is bad when catering to anything besides White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

[Post War America]

If the economy maintains its present course, and if the DNC insists on running candidates who campaign on neoliberalism and identity politics, ceteris paribus, we'd be heading for a likely Republican victory.

So the Democrats should run Republican Lite? That worked well before.

Also, identity politics is bad when catering to anything besides White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

No, the Democrats should appeal to the economic interests of working class people of any ethnic or religious background in a meaningful capacity. The key problem is neoliberalism, the secondary, inflaming issue is the identity politics. Both major parties in the United States are neoliberal, its just the GOP is better at rallying the majority population through fearmongering.

[USS Monitor]

You're getting ahead of yourself if you think they're poised to dominate in 2020.

If the economy maintains its present course, and if the DNC insists on running candidates who campaign on neoliberalism and identity politics, ceteris paribus, we'd be heading for a likely Republican victory.

Those are both huge "if"s and you've also left out a big one: "if the Russia stuff doesn't blow up in Trump's face." And can we seriously stop using "neoliberalism" as a buzzword for "anything I don't like"? People seem to think it makes them sound savvy and tuned in. It doesn't.