Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Path to Victory in Georgia


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#1 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:35 AM

https://nyti.ms/2oOCKJj

Perhaps Democrats should first "spend their millions" on developing a coherent policy platform.
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#2 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 April 2017 - 06:31 AM

Fantastic discussion on Morning Joe this morning regarding the Georgia election starting around minute 36 thru the subsequent commercial break.

Trump won the district in play by +1 in November. So for the Left to claim there is grass roots momentum against Trump, they can't just win - they need to win materially. And if they lose, no bueno.

Joe highlights the "hollowing out" of the Democrat Party under Obama in that segment. Most Democrat leaders he speaks with on the show say that they cannot support a pro life candidate with whom they agree with economically...

...BINGO. As Joe says, culturally the Democrats have lost the country.

MakeTheLeftGreatAgain#
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#3 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 April 2017 - 08:50 PM

Jeremy Peters of the NYT on the plight of the Left today on Morning Joe:

https://youtu.be/k8LeQtOXO8U
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#4 TheOldBarn

TheOldBarn
  • Member
  • 2,650 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:US

Posted 17 April 2017 - 10:06 PM

So, we hint at long-term ideas on the Liberal side... And meanwhile we get fucked by the long-term ideology from the conservatives every damn time! And what I mean by that is the conservative think tanks, the conservative talk radio, the Federalist society which has soaked the courts long-term almost overnight, and the state houses where they redistricted the shit out of the U.S. congress making it what they always envisioned, anti-democratic!

 

http://www.redistrictinggame.org/

 

Peace!


  • 1

#5 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 April 2017 - 06:01 AM

So, we hint at long-term ideas on the Liberal side... And meanwhile we get fucked by the long-term ideology from the conservatives every damn time! And what I mean by that is the conservative think tanks, the conservative talk radio, the Federalist society which has soaked the courts long-term almost overnight, and the state houses where they redistricted the shit out of the U.S. congress making it what they always envisioned, anti-democratic!
 
http://www.redistrictinggame.org/
 
Peace!


Have to thank Obama for that. Comes into office with filibuster-proof control, and in one of the biggest political miscalculations in history, tackles Healthcare reform first, which then leads to the rise of the Tea Party.

Then to compound it, he does nothing at the state level for the duration of his time in office, and the GOP gains 900+ state level seats + Congress + sort of the presidency (Trump is hardly a Republican).

That is why I'm pounding the table on what the Left needs to do to regain power. The GOP has formed a political "snowball" that the Trump Team is actively shoving downhill. The snowball cannot be stopped by the Left letting Bernie Sanders lead it...further Left!!

In Maine yesterday Sanders said that the "majority of America is progressive." And he made the case that Maine needs to fight for higher minimum wage...

A) By definition the majority of America is not progressive (Sanders' type) as the entire Democrat Party is not Sanders-progressive.

B ) He has no clue what he's talking about on minimum wage in Maine. We have many SMIDs that are forced to hire high school kids well above market rate. So the owners simply work more instead of hiring more. It's insanity, and its crippling our SMIDs, which are not exactly the definition of robust (Maine is 49 out of 50 for business friendliness).
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#6 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:44 PM

Per WaPo's Robert Costa, as of 10pm with 50% of precincts reporting, Ossoff is at 50%.

Trump won by +1.

Anything sub 60% should be considered a giant failure considering the supposed groundswell of anti-Trump fever.
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#7 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,407 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 April 2017 - 12:00 AM

Ossoff appears destined for a runoff.

 

https://www.washingt...m=.db759cd8d0aa

Shortly after midnight, unofficial returns showed that Ossoff had fallen below 50 percent of the vote, the threshold needed to declare an outright victory. Instead, with 48.6 percent, Ossoff appeared headed to a runoff against Republican Karen Handel, the top GOP vote-getter in a special election to replace Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.

 

 

Per WaPo's Robert Costa, as of 10pm with 50% of precincts reporting, Ossoff is at 50%.

Trump won by +1.

Anything sub 60% should be considered a giant failure

 

That's one way to look at it.  Another is that Georgia's 6th Congressional District was, heretofore, a Republican stronghold.

 

 

considering the supposed groundswell of anti-Trump fever.

 

Whoa.  Trump has a long way to go to demonstrate what he is made of ...  And he is sure not to disappoint.  Today's "groundswell" could be tomorrow's seismic convulsion.


  • 0
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#8 SpyCar

SpyCar
  • non-Liberal
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:male
  • Location:Gone

Posted 19 April 2017 - 12:13 AM

I wish we had a straight out victory tonight, but fight on!

 

Bill


  • 0
The forum is searchable. 

#9 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2017 - 03:51 AM

Ossoff appears destined for a runoff.
 
https://www.washingt...m=.db759cd8d0aa
 
 
 
That's one way to look at it.  Another is that Georgia's 6th Congressional District was, heretofore, a Republican stronghold.
 
 
 
Whoa.  Trump has a long way to go to demonstrate what he is made of ...  And he is sure not to disappoint.  Today's "groundswell" could be tomorrow's seismic convulsion.


With the obvious caveat that I could be wrong: IMO, we have more than likely seen the worst of Trump, as he is already (and rapidly) shifting to the center.

With anti-Trump furor "raging", Republican turnout down (haven't seen turnout in Georgia yet; but Kansas was down 60% from November versus only 30% for Democrats), and a splintered Republican field, Ossoff should have been able to take this thing tonight.

Point is: It doesn't get any easier from here for the Left. Again, IMO.

Best thing for the Left to do is to get over its anti-Trump hyperventilation, move to the policy center, and develop a bipartisan governing coalition that buries the Freedom Caucus idiots on the Right.
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#10 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2017 - 04:45 AM

This is gold, Jerry. GOLD.

http://www.politico....a-ossoff-237348
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#11 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,407 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:01 AM

With the obvious caveat that I could be wrong: IMO, we have more than likely seen the worst of Trump, as he is already (and rapidly) shifting to the center.

 

Welcome to the forum PragmaticPolitico.

 

Moving toward the center ... Yes.  But still making terrible mistakes like losing track of his carrier strike group and proclaiming to the world that it was going to the Korean Peninsula when it was headed toward Australia to take part in military exercises.  This is incompetence, carried to extremes.  And it involved one of the most sensitive areas of the world where nuclear war is most likely to ignite.  If the Trump team can be this incompetent once, it will probably happen again, in different ways.

 

With anti-Trump furor "raging", Republican turnout down (haven't seen turnout in Georgia yet; but Kansas was down 60% from November versus only 30% for Democrats), and a splintered Republican field, Ossoff should have been able to take this thing tonight.

Point is: It doesn't get any easier from here for the Left. Again, IMO.

 

At this time in history, there is huge Conservative momentum in the US.   People's mindsets are not so easily changed.  It will take much to reverse the tide.  Time will tell if we are too far down the road to turn back, or not.

 

 

Best thing for the Left to do is to get over its anti-Trump hyperventilation, move to the policy center, and develop a bipartisan governing coalition that buries the Freedom Caucus idiots on the Right.

 

I am unapologetically partisan to the left.  I am in the Bernie Sanders camp and my goal is FDR style, leftist politics.  Moving toward the middle and the politics of accommodation from the left is partly responsible for what got us into this hole.  Moving toward the middle, policy wise, is a proven disastrous strategy for the Democratic Party.  We need to demonstrate, to the American People that we are serious about sticking up for the interests of the ordinary person and not the 1%. 

 

When confronted with two parties that misrepresent who they support, the public will always pick the better liars.


  • 0
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#12 SpyCar

SpyCar
  • non-Liberal
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:male
  • Location:Gone

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:33 AM

FDR was not a leftist.

The Bernie Sanders style nativist/populism was a threat in FDR's time (as now) and FDR was the chief enemy of the populist nativists.

FDR supported internationalism and did everything in his power to aid the allies against the political objections of a united nativist right aligned with a nativist left.

FDR's biggest rival and political enemy was Huey Long, whose "Share the Wealth" program was the real role model for Bernie Sanders. and FDR considered Huey Long a dangerous man.

Just as real FDR liberals should understand that Bernie Sanders is a demogogue in the mold of Huey Long, and in no way is a person who is entitled to wrap himself in the mantle of FDR.

Read any serious biography of FDR or watch the Ken Burns series, and the attacks that FDR had to endure from the left, charges he was a plutocrat, a corporatist, and a capitalist exactly mirror the false attacks of HRC from today's nativist/populists.

Now FDR is the nativist/politest hero? Please!

This makes a mockery of political history. FDR opposed nativist populism in his time and would be rolling in his grave is he knew populists like Bernie Sanders were attempting to hijack his legacy today.

Now, as in FDR's time we need reforms. For these reforms to happen we need a working majority. To have a working majority either the far-left of the (potential) Democratic coalition needs to mature and accept that half-a-loaf (from their perspective) is better than none, or the Democratic party has to look towards the center where the most votes reside to form a stable coalition.

I have no belief that Donald Trump is suddenly going to develop principles or judgement or competence on the job. Nor do I see the extremism of todays Republican party changing anytime soon. America needs and deserves a sane alternative.

What is dosn't need is a left-wing anaalogue to the nuttery on the right. Two extremist parties with nativist populist tendencies would be a disaster for the entire world.

Time for sanity, folks.

Bill
  • 0
The forum is searchable. 

#13 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:51 AM

 
Welcome to the forum PragmaticPolitico.
 
Moving toward the center ... Yes.  But still making terrible mistakes like losing track of his carrier strike group and proclaiming to the world that it was going to the Korean Peninsula when it was headed toward Australia to take part in military exercises.  This is incompetence, carried to extremes.  And it involved one of the most sensitive areas of the world where nuclear war is most likely to ignite.  If the Trump team can be this incompetent once, it will probably happen again, in different ways.
 
 
At this time in history, there is huge Conservative momentum in the US.   People's mindsets are not so easily changed.  It will take much to reverse the tide.  Time will tell if we are too far down the road to turn back, or not.
 
 
 
I am unapologetically partisan to the left.  I am in the Bernie Sanders camp and my goal is FDR style, leftist politics.  Moving toward the middle and the politics of accommodation from the left is partly responsible for what got us into this hole.  Moving toward the middle, policy wise, is a proven disastrous strategy for the Democratic Party.  We need to demonstrate, to the American People that we are serious about sticking up for the interests of the ordinary person and not the 1%. 
 
When confronted with two parties that misrepresent who they support, the public will always pick the better liars.


Joe Scarborough notes two days ago that most of those he talks to on the Left would not accept a compromise where they agree economically with someone who is pro life. That is extremely simplistic, yet indicative of the problem.

Mathematically, how can the Left possibly lose by moving to the center? That would eliminate the Freedom Caucus while bringing Tom Cotton, John McCain and Susan Collins to the table.
  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#14 DonJoe

DonJoe
  • Member
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 19 April 2017 - 10:49 AM

Trump moving to the center??? In what ways do you see him moving to the center? It's hard for me to know where he stands because so much of his rhetoric is gibberish. When he talks about restoring the infrastructure, it appears he means the public buying/building oil pipelines and giving them to the Koch brothers. That is not the center. He talks about restoring jobs, by eliminating the EPA. That won't restore jobs, and it is not  the center. He talks about starting a nuclear war with NK. That is not the center. He has sold American policy to China for his personal gain. That is not the center. His obfuscation of Russian interference in our government operations is not the center. His policies of eliminating public education is not the center. His avoidance of diplomacy is not the center.

 

I don't see Trump moving to the center, but I would probably disagree on what the center is.


  • 0

#15 SpyCar

SpyCar
  • non-Liberal
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:male
  • Location:Gone

Posted 19 April 2017 - 10:52 AM

Not common for me to agree with DonJoe, but +1.

Trump has been erratic and unable to advance his domestic agenda, but that's not to be confused with a move to the center.

Bill
  • 0
The forum is searchable. 

#16 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,407 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 April 2017 - 11:11 AM

Joe Scarborough notes two days ago that most of those he talks to on the Left would not accept a compromise where they agree economically with someone who is pro life. That is extremely simplistic, yet indicative of the problem.

 

Joe Scarborough is a Republican with, perhaps, a slanted view of Leftist politics because of an underlying desire to see it fail.  And besides, his observation is anecdotal, based on some select few on the Left, who he knows ...  Not any large sampling.  

 

Still, up to now, the trend among congressional Democrats has been to vote for progressive social legislation while often voting with Republicans on economic issues.  This economic elitism is fueled by large campaign contributions and legalized lobbying bribes, in return for legislation which helps a rarified few at the top and does economic harm to everyone else. 

 

That is the Democratic Party's biggest problem.  They must then claim to support the Middle Class while economically opposing it.  The Republicans are much better at such deceptions and will attract more votes every time.

 

 

Mathematically, how can the Left possibly lose by moving to the center? That would eliminate the Freedom Caucus while bringing Tom Cotton, John McCain and Susan Collins to the table.

 

After all the cutthroat politics, from the Right, since 1980, how can one still believe McCain and Collins would bargain in good faith.  Cotton is out of the question altogether.  And then there are the Mitch McConnell's and Paul Ryans of the Republican Party to undermine any accord reached by Democrats with other Republicans.

 

Mathematically, by moving to the center, the Left alienates more voters than it gains.


  • 1
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#17 SpyCar

SpyCar
  • non-Liberal
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:male
  • Location:Gone

Posted 19 April 2017 - 11:19 AM

The Democratic party adopted the most left-ward economic party platform in its history in 2016, and leftists still (in large measure) abandoned the coalition.

 

The Left has proven itself to be an unreliable ally. Democrats were berned in 2000 and again in 2016.

 

Time to wake up to the fact that we need to build a stable coalition with reliable partners.

 

Bill


  • 0
The forum is searchable. 

#18 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2017 - 11:26 AM

Trump moving to the center??? In what ways do you see him moving to the center? It's hard for me to know where he stands because so much of his rhetoric is gibberish. When he talks about restoring the infrastructure, it appears he means the public buying/building oil pipelines and giving them to the Koch brothers. That is not the center. He talks about restoring jobs, by eliminating the EPA. That won't restore jobs, and it is not  the center. He talks about starting a nuclear war with NK. That is not the center. He has sold American policy to China for his personal gain. That is not the center. His obfuscation of Russian interference in our government operations is not the center. His policies of eliminating public education is not the center. His avoidance of diplomacy is not the center.

 

I don't see Trump moving to the center, but I would probably disagree on what the center is.

 

Infrastructure. Tough to make any judgement here without a bill on the table. So TBD. 

 

EPA. Obama went to the far left on regulation; Trump is going the other way, but it is impossible to know yet if he has gone too far at this juncture. The Clean Power Plan is not centered in any way shape or form, for example. So the elimination of that is quite centered. If he goes beyond that and allows corporations to start 1900-style pollution, that would be too far right (yes, that is an extreme example, but you get my point)...

 

Nuclear War. I follow the news quite closely but have missed the nuclear war talks. If you wouldn't mind providing links I would appreciate it! 

 

China Policy. The taking the Taiwan call to throw the Chinese a curve ball; the meeting at Mara Lago; the subsequent chat with Xi on North Korea; and China abstaining from the UN vote on Syria all look good to me so far. 

 

But if you could provide links to him enriching himself via China policy I would appreciate it. 

 

Russia. He has not handled that well. But both sides of the political aisle are absolutely outside of their minds on the issue. I have yet to see a single shard of evidence of collusion by Trump; and if it eventually comes out, then I would support his immediate impeachment. 

 

Education. I personally do not interpret expanding school choice as eliminating public schools; but I also don't follow education as closely as I should. So if you could point me to examples of school closings I would appreciate that as well. 

 

Diplomacy. Not following this one, sorry! 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Trump's economic agenda is very centered, in that he will not touch entitlements + is more than fine letting the deficit run "hot" until growth picks up. That hasn't changed. His recent shifting to the center is more with regard to: 

  1. Rhetoric --> He has calmed down on Twitter; reduced Press bashing; and de-emphasized Bannon-led policies such as the travel halt
  2. West Wing team --> Bannon demotion + rise of Kushner/Cohn 
  3. Healthcare --> He is pretty quickly figuring out that he cannot work with the Freedom Caucus; and the Republican moderates are very centered on the issue

  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#19 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2017 - 11:37 AM

 

Joe Scarborough is a Republican with, perhaps, a slanted view of Leftist politics because of an underlying desire to see it fail.  And besides, his observation is anecdotal, based on some select few on the Left, who he knows ...  Not any large sampling.  

 

Still, up to now, the trend among congressional Democrats has been to vote for progressive social legislation while often voting with Republicans on economic issues.  This economic elitism is fueled by large campaign contributions and legalized lobbying bribes, in return for legislation which helps a rarified few at the top and does economic harm to everyone else. 

 

That is the Democratic Party's biggest problem.  They must then claim to support the Middle Class while economically opposing it.  The Republicans are much better at such deceptions and will attract more votes every time.

 

 

 

After all the cutthroat politics, from the Right, since 1980, how can one still believe McCain and Collins would bargain in good faith.  Cotton is out of the question altogether.  And then there are the Mitch McConnell's and Paul Ryans of the Republican Party to undermine any accord reached by Democrats with other Republicans.

 

Mathematically, by moving to the center, the Left alienates more voters than it gains.

 

Respectfully, I think you are missing the forest from the trees. 

 

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority as recently as 2008. Eight years of Obama's progressive agenda lost the party 1000+ state-level seats, Congress and the "Presidency" (Trump in quotes, because he is not a Republican). 

 

Bernie Sanders said in Maine the other day that the progressive agenda is supported by the majority of Americans. That is just factually not true. And I suggest moving to the political center before the state-level "snowball" of GOP power begins to roll downhill even faster. 

 

Everyone can verbally fight it all they want. But the fact that with Trump approval ratings at an all-time low for a president at this stage + anti-Trump furor at rabid levels that Ossoff could not even break 50% is extremely telling. 


  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#20 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,407 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:21 PM

 

Respectfully, I think you are missing the forest from the trees. 

 

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority as recently as 2008. Eight years of Obama's progressive agenda lost the party 1000+ state-level seats, Congress and the "Presidency" (Trump in quotes, because he is not a Republican

 

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for only two months.  Not enough time to pass any significant legislation

 

http://factleft.com/...super-majority/

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

- snip -

 

But President Obama, was not even a moderately left Democrat.  In fact, in many ways, Obama was a corporate Democrat.  Obama was a big disappointment to many of us on the left

 

The Case for Obama as a Republican

- snip -

look at his record. He extended tax cuts while the country was in two wars, something no Democrat would ever do. He escalated the unwinnable war in Afghanistan. He failed to bring the troops home from Iraq as promised. He froze the pay of federal workers. He signed a health care bill that did not have a single payer provision. He said the suspects held in the prison in Guantanamo would be tried in federal courts; they will not. He blocked efforts to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs. He signed the debt limit bill that did not include revenue increases. He has failed to reduce the bloated defense budget. He has backed down in the face of opposition from Republicans on major issues. He has done little to create jobs in the U.S. and slow down the outsourcing of jobs overseas. He failed to end earmarks (pork) as promised.

- snip -

 

 

For all their swipes at him, Republicans could be thankful for the Obama presidency. 

 

Except for a few bones tossed to Democrats, President Obama has delivered for Republicans and can always be counted upon to cave in to Republican demands on key issues.

 

And that is one the main reasons so many state level seats were lost to Democrats during the Obama years.  Obama did not deliver a progressive agenda.

 

Bernie Sanders said in Maine the other day that the progressive agenda is supported by the majority of Americans. That is just factually not true. And I suggest moving to the political center before the state-level "snowball" of GOP power begins to roll downhill even faster.

 

Most Americans support a progressive agenda.  Moving to the center again is political suicide.

 

http://www.politicus...ie-sanders.html

According To The Polls, Most Americans Are Socialists, Like Bernie Sanders

- snip -

Socialist moniker or no, a February poll revealed that 68 percent of voters said wealthy households pay far too little in federal taxes. Voters also agree with Sanders’ policy, and legislation that cracked-down on offshore tax havens for the rich and corporations. Sanders’ bill required corporations to pay the top corporate tax rate on profits they hide offshore. Interestingly, a stunning 85 percent of business owners favor closing all overseas tax loopholes in their entirety and 68 percent of the public agrees that the government should “close any and all tax loopholes for large corporations that ship jobs offshore.”

Americans also closely align with self-described ‘socialist’ Sanders on campaign finance. Senator Sanders rails against Citizens United and has a called for a constitutional amendment that would effectively prevent corporations from making political donations and buying the government; he also support public funding of elections. Although most Americans think corporations should have a very limited right to make political donations, over half say ban all political donations from individuals and private groups and shift to a government-funded system; only 44 percent of voters oppose such a law.

- snip -

On regulations, a surprising sixty-four percent of Americans agree with Senator Sanders and strongly support regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and cars to reduce global climate change; they also support a federal law requiring utilities to generate more power from low-carbon sources. Americans are not, as Republicans claim, in favor of deregulating banks or abolishing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. In fact, a substantial majority of Americans agree with Sanders that big banks “are too powerful to be reformed and must be broken up.” A recent survey revealed that 58 percent of voters agree with ‘socialist’ Sanders and support “breaking up big banks.”

It is almost a no-brainer, but over 63 percent of Americans completely agree with Sanders that it is imperative to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour “over the next few years.” Americans want the minimum at $15 an hour by 2020. What is surprising, and should worry Koch Republicans in Congress and states, is that Senator Sanders support for legislation guaranteeing that workers can form and join a union is favored by 53 percent of Americans. In fact, that 53 percent actually “supports a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers.”

- snip -

 

 

Everyone can verbally fight it all they want. But the fact that with Trump approval ratings at an all-time low for a president at this stage + anti-Trump furor at rabid levels that Ossoff could not even break 50% is extremely telling.

 

Again.  Trump's record breaking low approval ratings do not necessarily transfer to an overwhelming Ossoff win.  First;  Trump is seen as an anomaly.   And Second;  it will take time to reverse the National movement of all politics to the Right.  Considering that Ossoff all but broke the Republican grip in Georgia's 6th district and has a good chance in the June runoffs, Democrats are doing well ...  Maybe not as great as they would like, but progress is being made.


  • 1
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#21 SpyCar

SpyCar
  • non-Liberal
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:male
  • Location:Gone

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:23 PM

 

 

But President Obama, was not even a moderately left Democrat.  In fact, in many ways, Obama was a corporate Democrat.  Obama was a big disappointment to many of us on the left

 

 

 

For all their swipes at him, Republicans could be thankful for the Obama presidency. 

 

 

And that is one the main reasons so many state level seats were lost to Democrats during the Obama years.  Obama did not deliver a progressive agenda.

 

 

 

More gratuitous Democrat bashing. 

 

Bill


  • 0
The forum is searchable. 

#22 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,407 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:24 PM

 

More gratuitous Democrat bashing. 

 

Bill

 

Hiding from the facts guarantees innapropriate action later on.


  • 2
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty

#23 SpyCar

SpyCar
  • non-Liberal
  • 3,863 posts
  • Gender:male
  • Location:Gone

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:28 PM

 

Hiding from the facts guarantees innapropriate action later on.

 

We've already seen inappropriate actions, I'm sure there will be more of them.

 

For liberals to not face the war being waged on liberalism and the Democratic party by the far-left would be a fatal mistake.

 

The rational center must hold.

 

Bill


  • 0
The forum is searchable. 

#24 ThePragmaticPolitico

ThePragmaticPolitico
  • Member
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:49 PM

 

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for only two months.  Not enough time to pass any significant legislation

 

http://factleft.com/...super-majority/

 

But President Obama, was not even a moderately left Democrat.  In fact, in many ways, Obama was a corporate Democrat.  Obama was a big disappointment to many of us on the left

 

 

 

For all their swipes at him, Republicans could be thankful for the Obama presidency. 

 

 

And that is one the main reasons so many state level seats were lost to Democrats during the Obama years.  Obama did not deliver a progressive agenda.

 

 

Most Americans support a progressive agenda.  Moving to the center again is political suicide.

 

http://www.politicus...ie-sanders.html

 

 

 

Again.  Trump's record breaking low approval ratings do not necessarily transfer to an overwhelming Ossoff win.  First;  Trump is seen as an anomaly.   And Second;  it will take time to reverse the National movement of all politics to the Right.  Considering that Ossoff all but broke the Republican grip in the Georgia's 6th district and has a good chance in the June runoffs, Democrats are doing well ...  Maybe not as great as they would like, but progress is being made.

 

So the 2010 Midterm Massacre was due to Obama's 2009/2010 agenda was not progressive enough? 


  • 0

Website: The Pragmatic Politico

Twitter: @Pragmatic_Pol


#25 bludog

bludog
  • Senior Moderator
  • 6,407 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Watchdog Kennel On Planet Nine

Posted 19 April 2017 - 02:02 PM

 

So the 2010 Midterm Massacre was due to Obama's 2009/2010 agenda was not progressive enough? 

 

Not just Obama.  Many Democratic lawmakers had moved so far Right, economically, that for too many voters, there was not clear choice.  In the case of Obama, he was seen to cave in to the Republicans too often and his own initiatives were not progressive enough, as documented above.  To name a specific for-instance:  If President Obama had succeeded in getting a single-payer health care law passed, which cut the insurance companies out of the loop, it would have been a far greater victory than The Affordable Care Act.  It would have raised the public opinion of the entire Democratic Party, as shown by polls.   But in general, as with Obamacare,  Obama too often caved to corporate interests.


  • 2
You need some inequality to grow ...  But extreme inequality is not only useless but can be harmful to growth because it reduces mobility and can lead to political capture of our Democratic institutions - Thomas Piketty




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users