Yes the back lash in '10 and '14 was large, Dems did well with Obama on the ballot in '08 and '12. Which holds historically, especially modern times. '18 was more historic backlash than either. Like, 100 year level margins. There's also no way you know that regarding Pritzker, basically everything in '18 could be predicted based off of Trump approval. Rauner won by a small margin in '14 when Dems got wiped out nationally, which makes sense. Most local elections are predicted by the national climate. Illinois is no different. You can make the argument on a district level there's more wiggle room based on quality of candidate but statewide it's not so much.
The point is that we don’t care about your argument. I’d rather not neuter policies that excite the country over how Republicans are going to feel. Edit: and put people on record with a vote.
1. There’s not enough support to get rid of filibuster among Senate Dems. 2. It’s going to realistically be 2024 at the earliest before we retake Senate. (Thanks FL.) 3. If we lose in ‘20 Trump will replace Ginsburg and Thomas. 4. All I takes is one federal judge out of 700+ to find that the burdens it places on people are unconstitutional.
It’s absurd to me that course correcting man-made climate change is a political point of distinction. Those kids in that video, and Rothko’s kids, and so on, that they are going to feel the fallout of our inaction because of... politics? Are you joking?
It was designed that way but in case you haven’t been paying attention it has not worked the last couple of years. The GOP allowed lobbyists to re-write the tax code over a weekend and then passed it without knowing what was in it, but now democrats need to thread lightly and not make any drastic changes to help 99% of the people.
I 100% know that about pritzker. Rauner had one of the worst governorships in Illinois history (that didn’t end in indictment). He won because Quinn sucked and picked a fight with the unions which stupidly stayed home because they were mad and got a much bigger enemy elected.
GOP grudgingly saved the ACA. They will preserve and possibly expand it under a Dem potus in a trade off for something like taxes. Same with immigration. Curbing tuition costs will have broad bi-partisan support. Even a centrist Dem’s judicial nominees will be better than Trump’s, you disagree? The right move is to win in ‘20 by not freaking people out, and waiting for the coming demographic changes to neuter the GOP. Time is on our side.
The way you post is so infuriating. Stop fucking talking down to people and you might get some actual conversation instead of angst. You aren't an authority on anything -- you're just a jackass like the rest of us. To even start that process -- which is way down the road -- you have to inspire people to actually vote for Democrats. For whatever reason, you seem to think that being milquetoast, idea-less and middle-of-the-road is the way to do this. You're trying to kiss the other side's ass instead of maximizing the output of voters who are more likely to lean toward you. To do that, you have to have a clear separation from Republicans, inspire people who are more inclined to choose your side to actually go out and do it. 2018 was an effective election because the Democrats actually came up with more ideas than "please vote for us." Being a Republican lite does not do that. 2016 was evidence of that. It's not enough to be a Democrat -- you have to make being a Democrat mean more than not being a Republican. Before enacting change, you have to get people to vote for you. Being virtually indecipherable from the classic Republican doesn't do that IMO even though you seem to be convinced it does. Either way, I give you shit more because of how you post than what you post. And the only people "freaked out" by the "socialism" are people who wouldn't vote Democrat anyway. Who gives a shit how they feel?
That's fine. Ignoring the national climate and influence on turnout that involves is really, really, dumb. It's a completely anti-empirical opinion to hand wave it away.
I agree it is shameful. Im certainly not arguing we abandon climate legislation. What I am arguing is that by going too far, we might lose the election thereby allowing dipshits like Scott Pruitt to determine our govts climate policies.
Moron republicans might burn the filibuster themselves. And if the new D President pushes for it, could happen. I don’t at all agree with you about the senate chances. Three isn’t happening. And you didn’t say shit about packing the courts so fuck your rando federal judge cause when it goes to the Supreme Court, it will be before a balanced bench. There should be no debate period about burdens on people, fuck your burdens when you’re destroying the world that we live in. I’m really trying to be nice because I vehemently oppose your stance and its unfortunate prevalence amongst the masses of “well-I-won’t-be-alive, fuck it, we have to think about the short term”
So the Georgia speaker of the house helped change a law that instructs courts to postpone cases if counsel for the defendant is away on legislative duties. He then was able to postpone cases for several years of people who were going to go to prison. A man convicted several times of domestic assault, for instance, said that he paid the speaker a 20k retainer (which is, uh, large for a case like this) in order for him to continue to postpone the case, keeping the man out of the court room and prison. As you might imagine, Georgia republicans have been dragging their feet but there's finally enough public pressure that he's probably gonna be forced out:
We agree that the tax bill was terrible. But the constitutional mechanisms are still there. Not easy to overcome if we are being honest.
Oh so this is a "moderate Dems are more electable" takes? Modern history shows very little evidence for this, especially when every poll has nearly every candidate winning by similar margins. Why not go with one who will actually put cabinet members, department heads, etc that will do real things vs just maintain the status quo? And are you saying expand ACA for more tax cuts? What does expanding ACA even look like? Republicans holding the Senate will laugh at anything involving tuition costs because it'll make the banking industry upset. This take of yours is insanely indicative of someone who has no idea what they're talking about, like top tier ignorance.
It's not "federal policy" that affected state elections(although states elections are becoming more nationalized) but the DNC strategy which has for decades neglected the grassroots foundation of the party that lost them those state elections. Republicans redistricting and policymaking has exasperated the problem but the DNC has been largely terrible at the state and local level. You are missing the point. The point is that running on policies that can get through a Republican congress is a losing game. Medicare for all is just as likely to pass through a Republican congress as is ACA is so why would you not advocate for the one that as ~85% approval within your party and 70% approval nationwide? Also you're showing your lack of knowledge again by saying "GOP senators saved ACA." The GOP is in court RIGHT NOW trying to repeal the ACA.
You guys are aware that RBG is going to die in early 2020 and McConnell will allow Trump to appoint her replacement, right? Because we live in a hell world
I respect your take and certainly don’t want to be perceived as talking down to anyone. I apologize for that and hope you realize it’s not my intention. Truce?
you seem to be missing this all dems killed in '18, when parsed you can't really tell establishment vs whatever you want to call them, because national climate predicts off-year voting
I have litterly had this nightmare before. Stupid fucking turtle neck Mitch up there in front of the press saying "The President can appoint who he wants and we will vote on them ASAP" like 3 months before the election. Fuck
Centrism flipped this seat and Sherrill admits she can’t support most progressive policies and keep it. Would you rather we let the GOP reclaim it by forcing her into unpopular votes?
No we’re going to be incrementalists and primary her with a more progressive candidate and continue to ride the blue wave to a socialist utopia
I'll let you redeem yourself through time. I'm not even what you would call a "Bernie guy" -- I've gotten into kerfluffles with that segment of this thread, too. I just think Democrats need to have a strong, distinct message that establishes why they are different from Republicans and why they are worth actually going out and voting for them (which is one thing I give Sanders a ton of credit for). I say this as a person who used to think of politics as "green jacket, gold jacket, who gives a shit?" and voted accordingly (when I could be bothered to vote, which was very rarely besides presidential elections). That's kind of the vibe I get from the centrist views ITT and why they just make me roll my eyes. The Republicans suck in many ways, but one way they don't suck is in telling voters who exactly they are. That, more than anything, is why they win what they do.
There are multiple factors that go into who wins or loses an election. Beto/Gillum are progressives that "lost" but performed better than any Democrat has in those states in decades. So isolating the exact reason someone won or lost is not easy to do. These are the facts though. Progressive ballot initiatives overwhelmingly won in the midterms even in red and purple states. Polls also show that they are overwhelmingly popular even among Republicans. So the idea that they will hurt Democrats running on them is not based in reality.
she won by being in a Trump +1 and PVI R lean +3 district where the average Dem swing from Trump margin was around double digits, especially in this type of affluent burb district. that was a Dem pick up in the '18 climate if a cat was running with a D by their name I get "narratives" are fun and all, but don't make this more complicated than it is.
Woah be careful now, word on the street is that Beto is a corporatist neoliberal middle America cardboard cutout. He is locked into his TX Senate campaign platform from now until the heat death of the universe, that’s just science.
Also if this is true then you're also proving my point. We have to spend just as much time convincing you (who presumably agrees with these policies) on it's feasibility as we do fighting back against the Republicans propaganda. Even if we disagree on its feasibility but you still like the idea how about just not shit on it and let people get excited about it?
Nobody is voting for any of that garbage. If you want to win, you need a movement election. Give the 50% of people who don't vote something to vote for. More of the same just loses.
Rothko I don't know if you intend this to be the case, but I vehemently agree with your premise that Dems should be compromising now. Run on the shit you want to do. Run on making the changes that people want and get excited about. Nobody cares how feasible your plan is when they step into a voting booth. We'll cross the Republican obstructionism bridge when we come to it. I just don't see the point in neutering the message because of anticipated Republican bullshit
I feel you. My only response is that if you noticed the cnn article I posted, Trump desperately wants to avoid an election that will be seen as a referendum on him and instead goad the DEM nominee into trying to be a salesperson for far-left policies that I feel many swing voters are reticent about. Now most of the Jacobins in here are convinced that making those policies the centerpiece of the campaign will carry us to victory. I pray they’re right. I’d love nothing more to be in here on election night eating crow. But, I just can’t shake this feeling in my gut that there’s a huge risk involved. It’s like that phrase: “people always fear what they don’t understand.” To me, most voters don’t understand these big leftist policies and trying to explain it during a matchup with Trump could be disastrous and end up setting us back even further. Again I’d love to be wrong.
Yup. I don't care if we have to wait 10 more years for m4a, but the time to start making demands is right fucking now. I mean it's really either that or just fully embrace nihilism and await the heat death of the universe.
the idea trump and the gop media wing won't call(with some impact!) Klobuchar a marxist plant sent to end democracy is so cute setting aside the high approval for these "leftist policies"