Jump to content
chasfh

The 2020 Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CMRivdog said:

 

Looks like Trump was right, after all. This is herd mentality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

6 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

So why were Gingrich and Armey able to market their far right agenda in 1994 as palatable, mainstream policy but Democrats can't do the same today with a progressive policy agenda?

Because there was a market/demand for what they were selling, for better or worse? 

That's the problem: AOC's platform works in AOC's district.... it doesn't guarantee success in a whole bunch of other districts across the country. And in order to have power in Congress (let alone the Senate, which is a much tougher nut to crack), you have to win a bunch of these other districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

AOC is already doing it to Joe Manchin (who's just about the only Democrat who can win an election in West Virginia anymore)

Getting really really tired of it.

If you run on pure ideological purity and do not allow candidates to run the races they need to run in the districts or states they represent, you don't get to complain when you end up locked out of power.

Devil’s Advocate reminds us that Manchin is a DINO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

This was wildly successful in 1994. Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey forced all House Republicans, new and incumbent members to run on the same, conservative, far right agenda, across every district. The result, they swept Congressional seats and gave the GOP control of Congress for the first time in decades. Why not just have a progressive version of the Contract With America?

ZA53UMMPG5H55I3BM7UPBZUKRQ.jpg

because Contract with America was basically bait and switch economics. In 1994 you could still sell Reaganism as majority coalition economics because its failure had not become manifest to the majority of Americans. If progressives could come up with a way to package a reformed public interest capitalism that could (and should) appeal to a broad swath across the middle they might succeed also. But the left edge of the party  - including Bernie, want to blame business and people with money and make a moral argument out of it, when the truth is that Corps (in the main) are just responding rationally the the environment we have provided for them to work in. As long as you are practicing a politics of moral demonization, you are going to make people who work for all those companies fear for their jobs if they give you power. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Oblong said:

The PA SC ruled those segregated ballots ineligible....

What's not clear to me is whether those ballots were counted already and included in the 50K margin or have yet to be counted?  Either way it means the margin is either what it is now or up to 10K less?  Or am I missing something?  Nothing changes overall in terms of PA's outcome.

A judicial activist ruling that disenfranchises legitimate votes. Anti-democracy and actually pretty shameful. After all, the government counts tax returns as being on time if they are postmarked on April 15 but arrive days after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

This was wildly successful in 1994. Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey forced all House Republicans, new and incumbent members to run on the same, conservative, far right agenda, across every district. The result, they swept Congressional seats and gave the GOP control of Congress for the first time in decades. Why not just have a progressive version of the Contract With America?

ZA53UMMPG5H55I3BM7UPBZUKRQ.jpg

Republicans would like to see that very, very, very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

because Contract with America was basically bait and switch economics. In 1994 you could still sell Reaganism as majority coalition economics because its failure had not become manifest to the majority of Americans. If progressives could come up with a way to package a reformed public interest capitalism that could (and should) appeal to a broad swath across the middle they might succeed also. But the left edge of the party  - including Bernie, want to blame business and people with money and make a moral argument out of it, when the truth is that Corps (in the main) are just responding rationally the the environment we have provided for them to work in. As long as you are practicing a politics of moral demonization, you are going to make people who work for all those companies fear for their jobs if they give you power. 

This is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

because Contract with America was basically bait and switch economics. In 1994 you could still sell Reaganism as majority coalition economics because its failure had not become manifest to the majority of Americans. If progressives could come up with a way to package a reformed public interest capitalism that could (and should) appeal to a broad swath across the middle they might succeed also. But the left edge of the party  - including Bernie, want to blame business and people with money and make a moral argument out of it, when the truth is that Corps (in the main) are just responding rationally the the environment we have provided for them to work in. As long as you are practicing a politics of moral demonization, you are going to make people who work for all those companies fear for their jobs if they give you power. 

So you don't think Democrats would be successful demonizing greedy rich people, big business, corporations and people like Jeff Bezos and Wall Street Executives in the same way Republicans have found success going after people of color, non-Christians, etc. It is basically a reverse of the Republican strategy where you sell it to people that the reason for all your economic woes are because greedy rich people have their boot on your head and are purposefully oppressing you and your quality of life for their own personal profit gains.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Devil’s Advocate reminds us that Manchin is a DINO.

Considering it's West Virginia, you take it. The alternative would be far worse. West Virginia's other senator sided with Trump about 95% of the time whereas Manchin was 50-60%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

So you don't think Democrats would be successful demonizing greedy rich people, big business and corporations and people like Jeff Bezos and Wall Street Executives in the same way Republicans have found success going after people of color, non-Christians, etc. It is basically a reverse of the Republican strategy where you sell it to people that the reason for all your economic woes are because greedy rich people have their boot on your head and are purposefully oppressing you and your quality of life for their own personal profit gains.

No, I don't think it works the same way because too many Americans a) are still impressed by successful people b) depend on them for their livelihood.

Sure, there are bad boy poster children that make for good political fodder, but in the main I don't believe most American's hate their employers. What that means is that the demonization appeal works OK for people who don't work for US business (academics, public service workers, successful salon professionals) but tends to founder with the very working class that the left thinks it wants to help. We need a path to help employers be better employers and better corporate citizens. That can appeal to their employees in a way that a promise to 'punish' corporations - which threatens their livelihoods - will not.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Because there was a market/demand for what they were selling, for better or worse? 

That's the problem: AOC's platform works in AOC's district.... it doesn't guarantee success in a whole bunch of other districts across the country. And in order to have power in Congress (let alone the Senate, which is a much tougher nut to crack), you have to win a bunch of these other districts.

But there is clearly a market demand for what progressives are selling. Climate change and aggressive climate action, universal healthcare as a human right, policing reforms, criminal justice reform, fair trade agreements that put workers first, labor unions/bargaining rights, etc. all poll very well. I think it isn't so much that progressive ideas equal an automatic electoral failure as much as it is finding a better, more palatable ways to brand them.

Furthermore, Democrats need to learn to be more ruthless and do a better job at branding the Republicans. A party of rich sycophants for the rich. A party run by special interests and corporate lobbyists. A party that wants to take away your healthcare and maximize the profits of big pharma and insurance companies. The way Mitt Romney was branded by Obama in 2012 serves as a template for this. A bumbling, out of touch, elitest, who only cares about lining the pockets for himself and his rich buddies. A guy who wouldn't stop to pour his own bottle of water on your head if he passed you by while you were on fire. A guy who cares nothing about you and your family. Selfish, self-centered, heartless, and cold.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddha said:

what do you think she meant when she retweeted that?  that she agrees with him?

Is there something wrong with not agreeing with him?

Is there something wrong with thinking what you believe isn't "crazy socialist agenda" as Manchin put it?   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But there is clearly a market demand for what progressives are selling. Climate change and aggressive climate action, universal healthcare as a human right, policing reforms, criminal justice reform, fair trade agreements that put workers first, labor unions/bargaining rights, etc. all poll very well. I think it isn't so much that progressive ideas equal an automatic electoral failure as much as it is finding a better, more palatable ways to brand them.

Furthermore, Democrats need to learn to be more ruthless and do a better job at branding the Republicans. A party of rich sycophants for the rich. A party run by special interests and corporate lobbyists, A party that wants to take away your healthcare and maximize the profits of big pharma and insurance companies. The way Mitt Romney was branded by Obama in 2012 serves as a template for this. A bumbling, out of touch, elitest, who only cares about lining the pockets for himself and his rich buddies. A guy who wouldn't stop to pour his own bottle of water on your head if he passed you on fire. A guy who cares nothing about you and your family.

Yet Romney won West Virginia with ease. How do you expect Manchin to win with that message? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But there is clearly a market demand for what progressives are selling.

Where, exactly?

I mentioned Nebraska-2 earlier... Biden flipped it and won it by a more comfortable margin than any swing state/district in the Electoral College. Kara Eastman? She lost by a decent margin.

5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But there is clearly a market demand for what progressives are selling. Climate change and aggressive climate action, universal healthcare as a human right, policing reforms, criminal justice reform, fair trade agreements that put workers first, labor unions/bargaining rights, etc. all poll very well. I think it isn't so much that progressive ideas equal an automatic electoral failure as much as it is finding a better, more palatable ways to brand them.

Is the goal to win the argument or to win elections?

Winning the argument is a nice moral victory, but it doesn't result in any change. You need to win elections in order to have power. And I'm not sure that taking AOC's platform, which may work for her in The Bronx, and rebranding it for places like Omaha or Dubuque works all that well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Furthermore, Democrats need to learn to be more ruthless

this I agree with totally. It's the old saw about bringing a knife to a gunfight. What I remember of gaming theory said that when someone breaks the taboos, you accept the first blow and take the high ground. If they persist the most successful strategy is to hit them with everything you have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that people think she shouldn't respond to someone calling her beliefs a "crazy socialist agenda" (HIS WORDS) is hilarious.   Pretty rad argument.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Considering it's West Virginia, you take it. The alternative would be far worse. West Virginia's other senator sided with Trump about 95% of the time whereas Manchin was 50-60%. 

Voting with the other party and against your own party 60% of the time should be acceptable to the party?

I can understand why many in the party would have issues with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the "moderates" should look in the mirror and blame themselves. Candidates who supported M4A were reelected. Those who didn't lost to Republicans. Instead of chasing these unicorn RINO voters, bring new faces and people into the party by offering something. 

Biden has a transition team full of executives from Amazon and other top companies and you wonder why Democrats are so reviled? I wish i had options to choose from aside from Republicans and Diet-Republicans aka corporate Dems. AOC makes mistakes but she's laying the groundwork for the next generation of voters. She better represents the future of Dems better than Nancy Pelosi or Joe Manchin. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Manchin should think what he thinks and AOC should think what she thinks.  Problem solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chasfh said:

Voting with the other party and against your own party 60% of the time should be acceptable to the party?

Would they prefer to have a candidate from the other party that votes with them 0% of the time in that seat instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Would they prefer to have a candidate from the other party that votes with them 0% of the time in that seat instead?

No, of course not. I can still see why she and others in the party are unhappy with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mtutiger said:

Would they prefer to have a candidate from the other party that votes with them 0% of the time in that seat instead?

yes.  obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Voting with the other party and against your own party 60% of the time should be acceptable to the party?

I can understand why many in the party would have issues with that.

Reality is always about the available options. Isn't 50-60% better than 0? How does the DNC gain by having one more officeholder declared in full opposition?

EDIT:already asked and answered counselor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Would they prefer to have a candidate from the other party that votes with them 0% of the time in that seat instead?

How about run on things that will appeal to them? Bernie won WV in the primaries. Maybe a Democratic party that talks about strengthening unions, ensuring Medicare for all, connecting towns to cities and helping defeat the opioid epidemic would go further then whatever tax breaks or whatever Schumer and Pelosi have been peddling for a decade to voters. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,871
    • Total Posts
      3,042,082
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...