Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ThePragmaticPolitico

The Path to Victory in Georgia

Recommended Posts

Ossoff appears destined for a runoff.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/georgia-house-race-stokes-gop-identity-crisis--and-opportunity-for-democrats/2017/04/18/a2231a48-242f-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?utm_term=.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.

This was Newt Gingrich's District, actually.

 

The key to winning the runoff will be turnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

What you term "a far greater victory" would never have been passed or implemented. Politics is the art of the possible, and the ACA brought heath coverage to millions. Can we hope for continued improvement? Sure.

 

Suggesting Obama is a corporatist is more disrespectful Democrat bashing.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama realized that universal healthcare of any sort was preferable to none at all.\

I am pretty much sure that he would have preferred to have a single payer plan with no need for private companies, but this was a not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred a bigger fight for "the public option" which I believe would have created more competition with (often very limited) choices of insurance options.

 

But the ACA is progress. Getting nothing done is just hot air.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


"Best thing for the Left to do is to get over its anti-Trump hyperventilation, move to the policy center"
If what you are labeling the Left moves to the policy center, would you still call it the Left?

"Mathematically, how can the Left possibly lose by moving to the center?"
I dunno, maybe it's identity, and principles, and dignity?

I take it that you consider yourself perfectly placed at the precise "center" of the political spectrum. Must be very comfortable (and lonely) there, but taking a principled stand is an admirable quality in my book.

"So the 2010 Midterm Massacre was due to Obama's 2009/2010 agenda was not progressive enough?"
The 2010 Midterm elections was the responsibility of Wasserman-Schultz.Just as the 2018 midterms will the responsibility of Tom Perez.

"We have many SMIDs that are forced to hire high school kids well above market rate."

We should really look into who's 'forcing' employers to hire against their will. Sounds downright Un- American. Exactly was is the market rate for high school kids these days? Maybe pre-schoolers would be more profitable.

"(Trump is hardly a Republican)."
This is an alternative fact. Your cannot be that uninformed. Did you miss the RNC Convention last year? Or the Republican Primaries? Or the endorsement of 90% of the Republican leadership? Are you calling Trump a liar or something? If he is not a Republican, what is he? A Bull Moose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Best thing for the Left to do is to get over its anti-Trump hyperventilation, move to the policy center"

If what you are labeling the Left moves to the policy center, would you still call it the Left?

 

"Mathematically, how can the Left possibly lose by moving to the center?"

I dunno, maybe it's identity, and principles, and dignity?

 

I take it that you consider yourself perfectly placed at the precise "center" of the political spectrum. Must be very comfortable (and lonely) there, but taking a principled stand is an admirable quality in my book.

 

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

The 2010 Midterm elections was the responsibility of Wasserman-Schultz.Just as the 2018 midterms will the responsibility of Tom Perez.

 

"We have many SMIDs that are forced to hire high school kids well above market rate."

 

We should really look into who's 'forcing' employers to hire against their will. Sounds downright Un- American. Exactly was is the market rate for high school kids these days? Maybe pre-schoolers would be more profitable.

 

"(Trump is hardly a Republican)."

This is an alternative fact. Your cannot be that uninformed. Did you miss the RNC Convention last year? Or the Republican Primaries? Or the endorsement of 90% of the Republican leadership? Are you calling Trump a liar or something? If he is not a Republican, what is he? A Bull Moose?

 

 

  1. I hate political labels, so I really do not care
  2. Would you rather be 100% principled and get nothing done; or "compromise" 50% of your principles to get something done?
  3. K
  4. If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10...
  5. Trump doesn't want to cut entitlements; wants to run deficits; spend on infrastructure; and was pro choice his entire life. Hardly a Paul Ryan Republican...again with the labels!

 

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.

 

This is precisely why I joined this forum. I have literally never considered this as an explanation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What you term "a far greater victory" would never have been passed or implemented. Politics is the art of the possible, and the ACA brought heath coverage to millions. Can we hope for continued improvement? Sure.

 

Suggesting Obama is a corporatist is more disrespectful Democrat bashing.

 

Bill

 

Not a whole lot is done on the first try in Washington DC. The easy stuff is possible soon. Harder endeavors take longer. An eventual single payer health plan would be a grand victory on which future Democratic candidates could ride the coattails, for a l-o-n-g time. It would be a victory such as would earn the Democrats the title "The Party of Universal Healthcare". And the electorate would make future progressive programs far easier.

 

Since the idea is so popular, as shown by polls, it is not as out of reach as Right Wing talking heads try to make it seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Obama's Affordable Care Act was FAR better than nothing at all. That is being proven now that it is under attack and defended so fiercely by users of the plan. But the passage Single Payer would renew the entire Democratic Party while reducing the Republicans, considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not a whole lot is done on the first try in Washington DC. The easy stuff is possible soon. Harder endeavors take longer. An eventual single payer health plan would be a grand victory on which future Democratic candidates could ride the coattails, for a l-o-n-g time. It would be a victory such as would earn the Democrats "The Party of Universal Healthcare". And the electorate would make future progressive programs far easier.

 

Since the idea is so popular, as shown by polls, it is not as out of reach as Right Wing talking heads try to make it seem.

 

Which is why I would have liked to have seen a "public option" as part of the ACA. Both to act as competition to private insurance (and hopefully drive costs down), but also to give both the people and government bureaucracies experience with an expanded government role in administering healthcare. In a sector that is this big incrementalism isn't a bad thing.

 

Never-the-less the ACA was more than any other president got passed. We can build on this progress if there is unity. 2016 was suicidal.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. I hate political labels, so I really do not care
  2. Would you rather be 100% principled and get nothing done; or "compromise" 50% of your principles to get something done?
  3. K
  4. If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10...
  5. Trump doesn't want to cut entitlements; wants to run deficits; spend on infrastructure; and was pro choice his entire life. Hardly a Paul Ryan Republican...again with the labels!

 

This is precisely why I joined this forum. I have literally never considered this as an explanation!

 

I think you've got the formulation of the bolded wrong. It isn't about compromising principles, but realizing you might not get everything your principles support in one fell-swoop and deciding if it is more progressive to advance one's principles incrementally (due to compromises) or to not advance on the principles at all.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...we have more than likely seen the worst of Trump, as he is already (and rapidly) shifting to the center."
What evidence do you have for this statement? I see no such movement, unless your definition of the center is dynastic, authoritarion plutocracy.


"I hate political labels, so I really do not care"
For someone who hates labels, you sure use them a lot.



"If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10..."
Please provide evidence that the market rate is $8/ hour. This cannot be true unless you are referring to an illegal market. What you mean is that the owner would like to pay $8 /hour, and the owner determines the market rate.
I'm sure the owner would like the market rate to be $0 / hour, but the 13th amendment frowns on that sort of thing. Perhaps we should compromise on that also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10..."

what if all the high school deli clerks unionize, and drive the market rate up to $12 / hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10..."

what if all the high school deli clerks unionize, and drive the market rate up to $12 / hour?

Would the owner then be tempted to hire an illegal immigrant @$2 /hour?

Who knew macro economics could be so complicated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...we have more than likely seen the worst of Trump, as he is already (and rapidly) shifting to the center."

What evidence do you have for this statement? I see no such movement, unless your definition of the center is dynastic, authoritarion plutocracy.

 

 

"I hate political labels, so I really do not care"

For someone who hates labels, you sure use them a lot.

 

 

 

"If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10..."

Please provide evidence that the market rate is $8/ hour. This cannot be true unless you are referring to an illegal market. What you mean is that the owner would like to pay $8 /hour, and the owner determines the market rate.

I'm sure the owner would like the market rate to be $0 / hour, but the 13th amendment frowns on that sort of thing. Perhaps we should compromise on that also.

 

 

Go chat with a marginally profitable small business about this, then let's reconvene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you've got the formulation of the bolded wrong. It isn't about compromising principles, but realizing you might not get everything your principles support in one fell-swoop and deciding if it is more progressive to advance one's principles incrementally (due to compromises) or to not advance on the principles at all.

 

Bill

Fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go chat with a marginally profitable small business about this, then let's reconvene.

I would rather talk to a highly profitable small business owner, but...

 

I would ask that marginally profitable small business owner why (s)he is blaming a high school deli clerk for being marginally profitable.

Perhaps a marginally better deli sandwich, and paying a marginally better wage to the local high schoolers would encourage their friends to eat at their deli (arguably the biggest consumers of deli sandwiches), thus making the business grow more profitable.

I would also ask why the marginally profitable small business owner is asking for help from the government vis a vis minimum wage deregulation.

I would also question whether the marginally profitable small business owner is in the right business if (s)he is only marginally profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather talk to a highly profitable small business owner, but...

 

I would ask that marginally profitable small business owner why (s)he is blaming a high school deli clerk for being marginally profitable.

Perhaps a marginally better deli sandwich, and paying a marginally better wage to the local high schoolers would encourage their friends to eat at their deli (arguably the biggest consumers of deli sandwiches), thus making the business grow more profitable.

I would also ask why the marginally profitable small business owner is asking for help from the government vis a vis minimum wage deregulation.

I would also question whether the marginally profitable small business owner is in the right business if (s)he is only marginally profitable.

You win :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. I hate political labels, so I really do not care
  2. Would you rather be 100% principled and get nothing done; or "compromise" 50% of your principles to get something done?
  3. K
  4. If the market rate for a deli counter job for high schoolers is $8/hour, but the owner is forced to pay $10...
  5. Trump doesn't want to cut entitlements; wants to run deficits; spend on infrastructure; and was pro choice his entire life. Hardly a Paul Ryan Republican...again with the labels!

 

This is precisely why I joined this forum. I have literally never considered this as an explanation!

 

 

You claim to be independent and open to the best ideas from both sides and that's fine. However some of us especially Democrats are liberals and leftwing and becoming centrist is compromising principle. Moreover I never hear anyone telling right wingers to be less extreme or centrist. The GOP hasn't modified anything and they keep winning. That might be due to the fact that more people claim to be conservative than liberal or moderate. But we can't lose if we stand for principles. In fact even opponents would respect a liberal Democrat with the courage to embrace the label. Moreover being centrist or center right is no way for Democrats to win.

 

Bill Clinton lost both houses of Congress to Republicans in 1994 and in the last thirty years the political right has effectively taken over the South and large portions of the West once dominated by conservative and moderate Democrats not liberals or leftists. You don't need a moderately conservative Democratic Party to compete with an often far right GOP. We need center left liberal Democratic Party connected to activist left that mobilizes it's base and then reaches out to moderates and independents. I would argue that since the defeat of George McGovern in 1972 the Democrats have been become a undefined and incoherent centrist entity that lacks adequate grass roots organizing or a compelling message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic "loss" of the South predated Bill Clinton. LBJ knew the South was lost in 1964 when he signed the Voting Rights Act. Nixon and the GOP capitalized on the realignment in what was called "the Southern Strategy."

 

If anything Bill Clinton (and Jimmy Carter) helped staunch Democratic losses in the South, he didn't exacerbate them.

 

How soon we forget that Bill Clinton ended the Reagan Era that was strong and seemed like it might last a very long time. His was a stunning victory for Democrats.

 

And what far-leftists have brought electoral success for Democrats?

 

We live in a largely center-right country. I'd love, love, love for the Republicans to be less extremist. Two extremist parties isn't an improvement.

 

We Democrats do need a strong message. But nativist populism isn't it.

 

Like FDR we need to fight the nativist populists on both extremes and embrace a spirit of optimism and positive reform.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It very unfortunate that Bernie's time of highest recognition came so late in his life. His age effectively places him out of the running for president, making him 79 in 2020 and 83 at the end of his first term ... 87 at the end of his second. But for his age, Bernie is perfectly placed to win next time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It very unfortunate that Bernie's time of highest recognition came so late in his life. His age effectively places him out of the running for president, making him 79 in 2020 and 83 at the end of his first term ... 87 at the end of his second. But for his age, Bernie is perfectly placed to win next time around.

 

We have a very strong difference of opinion about the desirability of Bernie Sanders' high profile on the political stage.

 

He is to today's Democrats what Huey Long was to Democrats in FDR's time.

 

Populist nativist demagoguery is a very bad path away from political reason and one that fuels extremism on both ends of the spectrum.

 

I wish he'd remained an obscure figure on the left, which he would have but not for lying about being a Democrat.

 

This is not a good guy.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It very unfortunate that Bernie's time of highest recognition came so late in his life. His age effectively places him out of the running for president, making him 79 in 2020 and 83 at the end of his first term ... 87 at the end of his second. But for his age, Bernie is perfectly placed to win next time around.

 

He most certainly is. He's a very spry mid-70's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Bernie Sanders behavior has been so erratic that it's prompted headlines those like yester's Washinton Post:

 

 

Bernie Sanders’s strange behavior

 

Over the last few days, Sanders's has at times offered some odd comments for a guy pushing for Democratic unity.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/20/bernie-sanderss-strange-behavior/?utm_term=.1836f43063bf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have a very strong difference of opinion about the desirability of Bernie Sanders' high profile on the political stage."

I appreciate your opinion. I differs from mine, of course, but I respect your POV. It also differs from the opinion of ~12,000,000 primary voters.

Sanders won the primaries in a not so insignificant number of States (many of which could hardly be called bastions of extreme left wing nativism):

Alaska, Maine, Washington*, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Nebraska, Kansas, Michigan, Idaho, Utah, Hawaii, Wisconson, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, and North Dakata

"I wish he'd remained an obscure figure on the left, which he would have but not for lying about being a Democrat."

There is no requirement that political parties must only nominate 'establishment'candidates.
The freedom of association part of the First Amendment protects political parties.
If they want to nominate a non-member, they can do that.

There are several instances of a party nominating a non-member:
in 1872 the Democratic Party chose Republican Horace Greeley;
in 1864 the Republican Party chose Democrat Andrew Johnson;
in 1952 the Republican Party picked independent Dwight Eisenhower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have a very strong difference of opinion about the desirability of Bernie Sanders' high profile on the political stage."

 

I appreciate your opinion. I differs from mine, of course, but I respect your POV. It also differs from the opinion of ~12,000,000 primary voters.

Sanders won the primaries in a not so insignificant number of States (many of which could hardly be called bastions of extreme left wing nativism):

Alaska, Maine, Washington*, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Nebraska, Kansas, Michigan, Idaho, Utah, Hawaii, Wisconson, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, and North Dakata

 

"I wish he'd remained an obscure figure on the left, which he would have but not for lying about being a Democrat."

 

There is no requirement that political parties must only nominate 'establishment'candidates.

The freedom of association part of the First Amendment protects political parties.

If they want to nominate a non-member, they can do that.

 

There are several instances of a party nominating a non-member:

in 1872 the Democratic Party chose Republican Horace Greeley;

in 1864 the Republican Party chose Democrat Andrew Johnson;

in 1952 the Republican Party picked independent Dwight Eisenhower.

 

 

I have no issue with Democrats supporting their preferred candidate in the primaries, that is the proper course of events. But when a movement turns on the party when their candidate loses, it is a different story.

 

I give full kudos to Bernie Sanders for the degree of success he had in the primaries. I'm sure even he was surprised at how well he did. Not forgivable are the false narratives that "he was robbed" of the nomination. He ran. Surpassed expectations (considerably). But he didn't prevail.

 

Turning on a party when you lose isn't cool and the results brought us a Trump presidency.

 

Now Bernie Sanders is publically questioning whether Jon Ossoff is a "progressive" as the Democrat heads into a General election battle to take a GOP House seat. This is not sane leadership IMO.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...