Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 4
My worry is, the Dems don’t seem to have learned this lesson. Very few of the 2020 candidates seem to have any instincts about how to woo the lowbrow 'vangie' Red crowd. Instead they seem to think the way to win is to woo the AOC crowd.

Sure it’s the Dem primaries they’re concerned with now, but I just don’t see any crossover appeal in their bones.


And that pretty well sums up the problem with the closed primary system most states employ. Candidates can't get out of their own way moving to the extremes to rally the party base (the folks who actually vote in the primaries), and they're miles from the middle by the time the general election campaign begins. The primary process literally polarizes the candidates.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It isn't sexy but I can certainly get behind a campaign slogan called, "Make America Pragmatic Again."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Gallup found that 89% of Republicans approve of the job Trump is doing.

I can't imagine any future circumstances where I would vote for a member of this anti-American cult or fail to vote for any Democrat running, from Pope to dogcatcher. I have a good imagination.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I can't imagine any future circumstances where I would vote for a member of this anti-American cult or fail to vote for any Democrat running, from Pope to dogcatcher. I have a good imagination.

Which I think, in a nutshell, explains how Republicans were able to vote for Trump. Many of them, after all, can't believe that Democrats supported Obama to the end - and had decided that they couldn't imagine any future circumstances where they would vote for a member of thatanti-American cult or fail to vote for any Republican running.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I have a good imagination.

Not good enough it seems.

I bet you were alive when many southern dems were outright and proudly racist. I was alive then and I bet you are older than me.

George Wallace was a dem no less. Campaigned on platform of segregation in 1972 for the Democratic ticket. In 1968, he actually won five states.

Parties change positions frequently and it is clearly not outside the realm of possibility (or imagination) that the dem party could change again. You are fooling yourself if you think a charismatic figure could not grab the left and change them for the worse in a way similar to what Trump did to the right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You may not like Maher, but I think he's dead-on here. You may not get what you want, but you better get what you need.

Poorguy, REALLY? You follow this Neoliberal toad as words of wisdom? You really believe the right wing base is this understanding, and willing to compromise, rational people? THAT'S why they won??

They had a Tea Party revolution, and it was the rise of that revolution that led to their uncompromising candidate in Donald Trump and was their populist victory, pandering on the issue of birtherism...that the first Black president isn't really born here and he's a Muslim or Kenyan or some other nonsense. That's a victory based on FAR RIGHT EXTREMISM. Not you-may-not-get-what-you-want.

Trump super-served his base like no other Republican running.Telling them all everything they want to hear. Then the base was just too tickled pink to go vote for that.

What happens on the Left though? They push this Democratic conventional "bubble" wisdom for who knows how long. They push the nonsense that for Democrats to win they need to be center-right...appeal to Republicans with middle of the road bipartisan crap while over a thousand seats were lost under the leadership of people like Pelosi, Chucky the Shoe Schumer and Barack Obama. Running that bipartisan strategy, hoping to make friends among the Republican voters....AND THEY LOST.

Only after this new wave, a POPULIST LEFT WAVE, have we gotten more democratic votes like never before.

We should be telling people like Bill Maher, to instead of berating voters, maybe start talking to the Democratic politicians to start listening to their own base. That's what worked for Republicans.

Maher used to be a voice of the Democratic base, but that was a long time ago. Now he's a neoliberal elitist with no good ideas. Do you want someone to blame for Trump's attack on Muslims? Bill Maher was doing it before Trump was even elected.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
You really believe the right wing base is this understanding, and willing to compromise, rational people? THAT'S why they won??

It has nothing to do with understanding. It has to do with voting against the greater evil, rather than staying home or protest-voting for a no-chance candidate just because your favorite candidate lost in the primaries. The Reps thought HRC was the greater evil, and they voted against her. Just look at the evangelicals, as Maher pointed out, who knew he was a sleeze-bag (didn't everyone know that?) but also knew they would get the sort of SCOTUS picks they wanted.

Any Dem that seriously says HRC would have been "just as bad" as Trump is in serious need of therapy. There would be no Brett Cavanaugh if HRC had won. Hate her all you like, but we would have gotten what we needed on such things as SCOTUS picks, competent department heads (who didn't want to dismantle their departments), sane foreign policy (e.g. no giving Putin everything he wants, no talk of leaving NATO, etc), no pointless trade war, no dismantling of the ACA, and so much more.

Ideological purity is going to kill us if we let it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ideological purity

is a very close analog to making for yourself

an image in the form of anything in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters below.

for "You shall not bow down to them or worship them".

david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Any Dem that seriously says HRC would have been "just as bad" as Trump is in serious need of therapy.

Any democrat that thinks HRC won fair and square and was also the populist vote also needs just as much therapy.

While Sanders was filling stadiums, HRC couldn’t even fill a high school gymnasium, and yet it’s the voters fault for being unenthusiastic to vote.

“Medicare for all will NEVER come to pass...” HRC

That’s a death sentence now if a Democrat uses that only 3 years later. Voters vote when they have something to vote FOR. Always.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Irrelevant to the point. It was Trump or HRC. For a variety of reasons, including some snowflakes who couldn't seem to realize Trump was worse, we got Trump. And then Cavanaugh. If I were religious I would say "pray" that RBG hangs on for another few years. Otherwise the Court, and a lot of hard-won freedoms, will be lost in the coming years.

Big picture, dude.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If I were religious I would say "pray" that RBG hangs on for another few years.

And if I were running for president, I wouldn't ignore Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania, expecting votes because "I'm not Trump". I'd go GET THEM votes. Appeal to your base, not your mega donors. Too many people working paycheck to paycheck with 2 or 3 jobs, don't want to take time out of their busy day to vote against anything. Neoliberals should have learned that by now.

Sanders just raised $1 million in 4 hours after announcing his campaign. Do you think that was done by a handful of wealthy donors in some secret building, blocked off by noise cancelling speakers like HRC had?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And if I were running for president, I wouldn't ignore Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania, expecting votes because "I'm not Trump".

Absolutely right. That was one of the "various factors" I mentioned earlier.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dummyrock: And if I were running for president, I wouldn't ignore Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania, expecting votes because "I'm not Trump". I'd go GET THEM votes. Appeal to your base, not your mega donors. Too many people working paycheck to paycheck with 2 or 3 jobs, don't want to take time out of their busy day to vote against anything. Neoliberals should have learned that by now.

Sanders just raised $1 million in 4 hours after announcing his campaign. Do you think that was done by a handful of wealthy donors in some secret building, blocked off by noise cancelling speakers like HRC had?


What's your point, dummyrock? That we are better off with Trumpplethinskin and Cavanaugh than with Hillary?

Get help.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The point Sir Count, is when you show you don’t give a crap about middle class voters, including myself, many, many more besides myself, and you expect them to fall in line, regardless if the delegates and superdelegates don’t represent you or your needs and ignore you.... they don’t come out to support elitist neoliberal candidates.

That’s not coming from me, but the millions of voters who were slighted. You neoliberals pride yourselves on HRC winning 3 million more votes than the Republican front runner....

It was AGAINST DONALD “grab em by the ....” TRUMP. The win should have been by tens of millions.

And I’m the one who needs to wake up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And if I were running for president, I wouldn't ignore Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania, expecting votes because "I'm not Trump". I'd go GET THEM votes.

Spot on.

HRC deserves full blame for our current disaster. The Soviets didn’t make the difference. We bet on her, but she failed to keep her promise to campaign effectively.

My worry is, the Dems don’t seem to have learned this lesson. Very few of the 2020 candidates seem to have any instincts about how to woo the lowbrow 'vangie' Red crowd. Instead they seem to think the way to win is to woo the AOC crowd.

Sure it’s the Dem primaries they’re concerned with now, but I just don’t see any crossover appeal in their bones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
My worry is, the Dems don’t seem to have learned this lesson. Very few of the 2020 candidates seem to have any instincts about how to woo the lowbrow 'vangie' Red crowd. Instead they seem to think the way to win is to woo the AOC crowd.

Sure it’s the Dem primaries they’re concerned with now, but I just don’t see any crossover appeal in their bones.


And that pretty well sums up the problem with the closed primary system most states employ. Candidates can't get out of their own way moving to the extremes to rally the party base (the folks who actually vote in the primaries), and they're miles from the middle by the time the general election campaign begins. The primary process literally polarizes the candidates.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
The point Sir Count, is when you show you don’t give a crap about middle class voters, including myself, many, many more besides myself, and you expect them to fall in line, regardless if the delegates and superdelegates don’t represent you or your needs and ignore you.... they don’t come out to support elitist neoliberal candidates.

Problem is that a lot middle class voters are afraid of brown people and Moslems. A majority of the middle class don't want to give up their employer provided health insurance for Medicare-for-all. A lot of the middle class would rather have lower taxes than give more money to people who they believe don't want to work. And a majority of the middle class in the Bible Belt don't like abortion (they use it, but don't like it). I'm guessing that most of the middle class in the counties Hillary lost do not believe the progressive "Green New Deal" demonstrates giving a crap about middle class voters.

What you don't seem to realize is that a majority of the country falls to the right of your politics. What you propose is to give America a choice between a progressive who proposes to lower the quality of health care for most working people while raising taxes and Trump who is an obnoxious idiot but who will at least keep taxes low and protect us from what many believe are scary immigrants.

I think the result will not be what you think it will be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I want to just add that I do believe most of the Middle Class in Trump counties care about opiate addiction because most know someone with the problem. The same is the case for elder care and dementia. I also believe democrats can easily make the case that folks in Pennsylvania and Ohio are far more likely to be harmed by failing bridges, roads, water mains, and other declining infrastructure than from Central American refugees. Should be easy to make the case money for the wall would be better spent on infrastructure.

That is what democrats should be talking about IMO: Addiction, elder care, and infrastructure. That's about it. Those are a winning set of issues. Guaranteed income/job and medicare-for-all not so much. The national election is going to be won in places like Wisconsin and Michigan, not California and New York.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah I'm sure these people just love their healthcare:

Who Else Might Like Medicare for All? Retired Coal Miners Who Just Had Their Health Benefits Ripped Away


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/02/18/who-else-might-...

Coal miners—who Republican lawmakers have used as pawns in their political battles for years—have repeatedly been sold out when their pensions or healthcare become a liability for mine owners or investors. As Common Dreams reported in 2016, Republicans—led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—refused to allow a bill to protect miners' pensions receive a vote in the Senate. "We're dying like flies," said Billy Smith, a coal miner for 39 years said at the time, as he put the onus on McConnell and his fellow Republicans.


County failed to help 85% of lead-poisoned kids amid Flint water crisis, state says

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2018/09/overwhelm...

The county couldn't keep up with followup care for hundreds of city kids identified with lead poisoning during the Flint water crisis - more than 200 at the start of the new year, according to state and county records requested by MLive-The Flint Journal through the Freedom of Information Act.

FYI, they are not to the right of my politics, or the left. They know both sides have abandoned them, and are desperate for anyone willing to listen. Anyone at least offering to help.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
They know both sides have abandoned them, and are desperate for anyone willing to listen. Anyone at least offering to help.

No, they're not. Not anyone.

They want people who are offering to help - but not if those people are deeply progressive. They just want someone that will help them specifically, not rework the entire health care system or liberalize immigration flows or adopt gun control or pay for people who are unwilling to work get health care or benefits. They're not going to vote for a hardcore liberal just because it might get them better health insurance.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
not if those people are deeply progressive....

Yea, and just to explain how Sanders made $4 million in less than a day, it was all me. I sent that money, I’m the superpack no one knows about.

Did you sell you stock in United Health yet?

I told you over a year ago Medicare for all was inevitable. And you disagreed. Now it’s the talking point of any Democrat worth running.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I totally agree with you. The only difference between me and them is that their hatred of Obama was based on lies and my hatred of Trump is based on crimes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Yea, and just to explain how Sanders made $4 million in less than a day, it was all me.

Because there are millions of progressives in this country, many of whom like Sanders.

But this is a really big country. You can have millions of progressives, and still have them constitute a minority of voters - because there are millions of conservatives and millions of people that are in the mushy middle as well.

I told you over a year ago Medicare for all was inevitable. And you disagreed. Now it’s the talking point of any Democrat worth running.

And I think it's still not inevitable, and indeed still not particularly likely.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Who Else Might Like Medicare for All? Retired Coal Miners Who Just Had Their Health Benefits Ripped Away

In the internet and social media era it is easy to find news stories and groups that agree with your position, regardless of what that position might be. It's often called the echo chamber effect. The test is whether your position holds up when tested against the rest of reality.

You really believe that coal country is going to be favorably impressed with progressives who's first action after winning the House is the "Green New Deal"?

They know both sides have abandoned them, and are desperate for anyone willing to listen. Anyone at least offering to help.

The people in Flint Michigan need help today, not in some distant future when progressives rule all sides of government, which is what would be necessary to get medicare-for-all. What is the progressive plan to help those kids with lead poisoning during the time-frame when it might actually help them?

No offense Domeyrock but I don't have a lot of patience with ideologues. Extremists tend to care more about ideology than they do about actually helping people. If all those progressives in the House truly want to help the people of Flint, then they should propose and pass a program that immediately provides federal money for Flint.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yea, and just to explain how Sanders made $4 million in less than a day, it was all me.

That's impressive, but if it is mostly coming from California, New York, and Massachusetts then it may not have much relevance to the general election. I think democrats will win those states even if they run...well, you. How much money is coming from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ujv0emOuI
Bernie Sanders in Trump Country, a Town Hall in West Virginia 2017

Funny how CNN will broadcast a Town Hall for Sanders only after Trump is elected, when Sanders was no longer a threat, but it would give CNN high ratings. (standing ovation when Sanders enters) They must have hand picked those Bernie bros right?

Chris Hayes to coal miner:"Philip, you just got hired as a coal miner?....If there were jobs here that paid what coal mining does, and gave the benefits coal mining does, would people take those jobs?"

Coal miner: Absolutely

West Virginia Coal Miner Thanks Bernie Sanders For Fighting For Him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiexlHcOp5E

Coal Miner: "I think it's kind of ironic that a senator from the north east takes care of my benefits better than someone like Mitch McConnell" (another standing ovation)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Coal miner: Absolutely

Meh. First, go out and find jobs and companies that want to move to WV and pay the same as coal mining. Good luck.

Until then...

January 22, 2019
Coal Miners Grapple With Black Lung And Their Futures After Decades On The Job
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/687527742/coal-miners-grapple...

CHARLES SHORTRIDGE: It was something that was in our blood that we loved to do.

...

PAUL KINDER: I love coal mining. If I was able today, I'd be working in the mines.


--------

These are people with black lung and as Paul said, if he was able, he would still be working in one today.

When something is a "way of life," you simply are not going to come in and say, "here are your new call center jobs!" and think these manual labor folks are gonna just quit the mine, even if you have your single anecdotal example that suggests otherwise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Frontline has done some informative work in this area.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/coals-deadly-dust/

I linked the latest show last January. It was really bleak. On the one hand, they are just about the only good-paying jobs in the region. At least some of the miners did regret the mines were closed. And one parent specifically implored his son NOT to go into the mines, and instead go to school. The boy didn't want to go to school and had begun being a miner. Dad was suffering from black lung.

Nevermind the cheapskate mine owners who don't provide proper safety equipment that would at least reduce the hazards of mining dust (the worst being silica, not coal, but there's a lot of silica in the vicinity of coal veins).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What you don't seem to realize is that a majority of the country falls to the right of your politics. What you propose is to give America a choice between a progressive who proposes to lower the quality of health care for most working people while raising taxes and Trump who is an obnoxious idiot but who will at least keep taxes low and protect us from what many believe are scary immigrants.

========================================================

I disagree with you that the majority of the country is conservative.

The UK is going through the similar issues and the young people are feed up with capitalism.

Giving up on capitalism

Britons who came of age after the 2008 global financial crisis will, in many cases, be worse off than their parents. Thirty-year-olds are only half as likely to own homes as baby boomers were at the same age, and a third are expected to rent for their whole lives.

Raised under the British government’s austerity program and burdened by student debt, a growing number of millennials have turned to socialism. Like their American counterparts, they’ve given up on free-market capitalism, convinced that it can’t provide their families with a decent life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/briefing/china-north-kore...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
a third are expected to rent for their whole lives. Raised under the British government’s austerity program and burdened by student debt, a growing number of millennials have turned to socialism.

I expect real estate prices to fall as the older generation dies off, leaving too many McMansions empty. The unknown though is if climate change is severe, Britain and other developed countries will be flooded by immigrants, creating new housing demand.

I wonder why Don doesn’t use that to strike more fear of brownskins into the hearts and minds of the citizenry, thereby gaining support for Big Wall. Build Wall, or a brown person could soon be living in your house! And worse, you’d be dead!!

Oh yeah, I forgot... that would require him to accept climate change as being real.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I disagree with you that the majority of the country is conservative.

Not the majority but certainly the plurality - which in a two party system can mean just as much.


U.S. Still Leans Conservative, but Liberals Keep Recent Gains
January 8, 2019
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245813/leans-conservative-liber...

Americans' assessment of their political ideology was unchanged in 2018 compared with the year prior when 35% on average described themselves as conservative, 35% as moderate and 26% as liberal.

---------------

Additionally, from the same article:

True to their non-partisan stance, the plurality of independents has consistently described their overall political views as moderate. The remainder have been more likely to identify as conservative than liberal...

--------------
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I disagree with you that the majority of the country is conservative.

The UK is going through the similar issues and the young people are feed up with capitalism.


The majority of the country aren't young people.

Median age for the entire U.S. population is 38. Median age of the voting age population is about 47.5. Median age of voters in the last election was 51.

http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-aging-electo...

You keep talking about young people as if their preferences were reflective of the policy preferences of the country or the electorate. They are not. Most of the country is middle age or older, and most of the voters are over the age of 50.

Albaby


P.S. Median age in the U.K. is even higher, at 40.2 years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I disagree with you that the majority of the country is conservative.

My statement that the majority of the country falls to the right of domeyrock is not the same as saying most of the country is conservative.

I would also add is that if you remove California, New York, and Massachusetts from the equation, what do you suppose the conservative:liberal ratio of the remaining states will be? Democrats can't win a national election with just California, New York, and Massachusetts. Therefore, democrats are going to have to appeal to moderates and those that domeyrock calls "neo-liberals" if they really want to dump Trump.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would also add is that if you remove California, New York, and Massachusetts from the equation, what do you suppose the conservative:liberal ratio of the remaining states will be? Democrats can't win a national election with just California, New York, and Massachusetts. Therefore, democrats are going to have to appeal to moderates and those that domeyrock calls "neo-liberals" if they really want to dump Trump.

=====================================================

BS - Democrats already demonstrated that they can win across the country in the 2018 midterms. Arizona's new senator is an example of the landslide victory that Democrats amassed across the country.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The majority of the country aren't young people.

Median age for the entire U.S. population is 38. Median age of the voting age population is about 47.5.

====================================

The NYT article referred to young people in their 30s. Every two years we have a new crop of young voters (under 40) and a smaller crop of older voters (over 50).

In the 2020 election, we will see the under 40 population being more powerful and more vociferous with another massive tide of Democrats winning more seats in Congress and taking over the Senate and the Presidency.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Therefore, democrats are going to have to appeal to moderates and those that domeyrock calls "neo-liberals" if they really want to dump Trump.

They already do.

Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don’t Know It

https://prospect.org/article/most-americans-are-liberal-even...

-82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.

-65 percent of Americans think our economic system “unfairly favors powerful interests.”

-82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.

-66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.

-96 percent of Americans—including 96 percent of Republicans—believe money in politics is to blame for the dysfunction of the U.S. political system.

-80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

-60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”

-76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.

-84 percent of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.



That's just a few statistics. Doesn't look like most of Americans are to the right of me at all. If anything, it's spot on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Arizona's new senator is an example of the landslide victory that Democrats amassed across the country.

Is Arizona's new senator a liberal? I thought she was more of a centrist Democrat:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democratic-rage-builds-kyrsten-si...

In fact, many (if not most) of the seats that Democrats flipped during the 2018 midterms were secured by centrist candidates - not hardcore liberals. That's certainly true of the Senate seats that they retained in Trump states (like West Virginia or Montana) - no progressive firebrands winning there. Even Beto O'Rourke - who lit up progressive circles by coming so close in Texas - is still more centrist than the current mood among the Democratic base, leading to criticisms from progressives now that he's no longer running against the most hated man in the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive...
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/12/what-does-beto-orourk...

Doesn't really provide much support for the idea that hardcore progressive stances can win nationally.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The NYT article referred to young people in their 30s. Every two years we have a new crop of young voters (under 40) and a smaller crop of older voters (over 50).

True. So what?

I think you're assuming that age effects will end up being cohort effects. Younger people are generally more liberal than old people; but as people age, however, they tend to get more conservative. So if a group of young people have more liberal positions on an issue than older people, you don't know whether that's because they happen to be presently young (a condition that will change over time) or whether that's a position that that group will hold consistently over time. The former is an age effect, the latter a cohort effect. XKCD illustrates it nicely:

https://xkcd.com/2080/

For a very clear example, consider the Baby Boomers - the generation that tuned in, turned on, and dropped out. When they were young, they were out there rejecting conformism and capitalist pigs and everything conventional; today, they're Donald Trump's base.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Doesn't look like most of Americans are to the right of me at all. If anything, it's spot on.

Bah. Those kinds of general principles always poll well - but as soon as you get into the specific types of proposals that liberals favor and conservatives don't, support falls through the floor.

Do you believe that we should have a single-payer health insurance system, even if it meant that employer policies would be eliminated and taxes would rise?

If you do, most Americans are well to the right of you on that issue - even as they say they that is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Those kinds of general principles always poll well - but as soon as you get into the specific types of proposals that liberals favor and conservatives don't, support falls through the floor.

Are you sure that's what it is?? And not the non-stop propaganda and cherry-picked data smears the establishment politicians and media like to load into their arsenel? C'mon.

Why do you think less and less people get their news from television and turn to the internet and youtube?

Why do you think less and less people come out to vote each election cycle? Increase in number of independents and less number of registered republicans and democrats? I got news for you, it's not because the majority is centrist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Are you sure that's what it is??

Yes.

The same thing happened to the GOP with Obamacare. Replacing the ACA polled very well with their base, but any specific proposal to replace it polled much more poorly. Devil's in the details.

Why do you think less and less people come out to vote each election cycle? Increase in number of independents and less number of registered republicans and democrats? I got news for you, it's not because the majority is centrist.

1. Turnout for Presidential election cycles has been fairly constant over time, and actually has increased in recent years.

2. I didn't say the majority was centrist. I just agreed that the majority was to the right of you. There are an awful lot of conservatives out there - conservatives that will tolerate a centrist Democrat like Jon Tester or Joe Manchin, and vote against a hardcore progressive candidate.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The same thing happened to the GOP with Obamacare. Replacing the ACA polled very well with their base...

Not really. But I'm sure the politicians want you to think so.

6 Charts About Public Opinion On The Affordable Care Act

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/6-charts-abou...

A majority of the public – regardless of party identification – hold favorable views of almost all of the ACA’s major provisions. Most popular are allowing young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26, establishment of the ACA marketplaces, financial help for some Americans who buy their own insurance, closing the Medicare “doughnut hole,” and eliminating out-of-pocket costs for preventive care.

The problem was the right extremists labeling it "Obamacare". With their relentless bashing of everything under the Obama umbrella, it is no wonder you would think it didn't poll well. Meanwhile Republican voters agreed with most of the provisions that were in it. Just don't tell them it's Obamacare.

Like I said, the propaganda machine is stronger than what the facts actually are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
BS - Democrats already demonstrated that they can win across the country in the 2018 midterms. Arizona's new senator is an example of the landslide victory that Democrats amassed across the country.

Arizona is a great example, so let's go with it. Here is the Atlantic's take on Sen. Sinema's successful campaign:

"With two weeks to go until the midterm elections, this is the culmination of Sinema’s grand plan to become Arizona’s first Democratic senator in two decades. The onetime anti-war protester has spent a year carefully cultivating her moderate cred across the state, touting herself as a lawmaker who will work with “literally anyone who is willing to … get something done.” In Yuma, she spoke proudly about meeting with Trump on infrastructure and having him sign one of her bills. And she used the word bipartisan five times in four sentences as she discussed efforts to pass a farm bill in toxic Washington." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/kyrsten...

The Atlantic contrasts Sinema's centrist campaign for senator with David Garcia's leftist campaign for governor:

"Bernie Sanders had come to town to campaign for David Garcia, the Democratic nominee for governor. Throngs of screaming students packed into an auditorium at Arizona State University, near Phoenix...His [Garcia] rhetoric on immigration is left of Sinema’s: He has called for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that enforces immigration laws, and his campaign strategy has focused on mobilizing Latinos and young people...

Today Arizona has a centrist Democratic senator and a republican governor.

Probably a lesson to be learn there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you believe that we should have a single-payer health insurance system, even if it meant that employer policies would be eliminated and taxes would rise?

Yes.

Because if you explain that instead of paying through the nose for insurance and really not getting full coverage, not getting increasing copays... you just pay for health-CARE, you’re SAVING tons of money. But establishment politicians don’t like to frame it that way. Even Diane Feinstein is labeling it “a government take-over of healthcare.”

The problem is always the propaganda spin, not so much the policies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
6 Charts About Public Opinion On The Affordable Care Act

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/6-charts-abou......

A majority of the public – regardless of party identification – hold favorable views of almost all of the ACA’s major provisions...


Except you failed to mention the exception. #3 is the Individual Mandate, which is very unpopular (60% of Americans against).

The simple explanation is that most Americans don't like being forced to pay for health care.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"What you don't seem to realize is that a majority of the country falls to the right of your politics. What you propose is to give America a choice between a progressive who proposes to lower the quality of health care for most working people while raising taxes and Trump who is an obnoxious idiot but who will at least keep taxes low and protect us from what many believe are scary immigrants.

"I disagree with you that the majority of the country is conservative."

The person didn't say that a majority of the country is conservative. They said a majority of the country falls to the right of your politics. That would describe conservatives, but it would also include moderates, independents, and slightly leaning liberals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"I would also add is that if you remove California, New York, and Massachusetts from the equation, what do you suppose the conservative:liberal ratio of the remaining states will be? Democrats can't win a national election with just California, New York, and Massachusetts. Therefore, democrats are going to have to appeal to moderates and those that domeyrock calls "neo-liberals" if they really want to dump Trump."

"BS - Democrats already demonstrated that they can win across the country in the 2018 midterms. Arizona's new senator is an example of the landslide victory that Democrats amassed across the country."

Way to miss the point. If you take out California, New York, and Massachusetts from the equation, Democrats did not win across the country in the 2018 mid-terms. The Democrats were a clear minority across the country outside of those areas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
HEY,

I'm a real conservative, deeply concerned that the crucial cultural inheritance upon which we depend, almost as much as we depend on the environment of earth, is being destroyed by mad plutocratic greed and ignorance.

Most people calling themselves conservatives have been sold a bill of goods and would not comprehend Kirk or Burke if they cooked them supper.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In the 2020 election, we will see the under 40 population being more powerful and more vociferous with another massive tide of Democrats winning more seats in Congress and taking over the Senate and the Presidency.

Maybe the Senate. Almost certainly not the White House. I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I haven't really seen anything that tells me the Dems can win the electoral college (and that's really all the matters for the Presidency).

But I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is Arizona's new senator a liberal? I thought she was more of a centrist Democrat:

She's reasonably liberal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Kyrsten_Sinema.htm

At least by current standards. Back in the days of Reagan she probably would have been very centrist.

I can't seem to find her old campaign site. I recall her having position papers in there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Way to miss the point. If you take out California, New York, and Massachusetts from the equation, Democrats did not win across the country in the 2018 mid-terms. The Democrats were a clear minority across the country outside of those areas.

======================================

If you take out Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina from the equation, then Republicans can never win a majority in the country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The NYT article referred to young people in their 30s. Every two years we have a new crop of young voters (under 40) and a smaller crop of older voters (over 50).

True. So what?

I think you're assuming that age effects will end up being cohort effects.

=====================================

I am not assuming anything. The under 40 people are spitting mad at Trump and the Republicans for all the economic, environmental and social crap that has happened over the last 10 years and especially in the last two years. They have been hurt the most - they want to punish Trump and the Republicans. The over 50 people are split between into 3 groups: Trump haters, Trump lovers, and the independents.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would also add is that if you remove California, New York, and Massachusetts from the equation, what do you suppose the conservative:liberal ratio of the remaining states will be? Democrats can't win a national election with just California, New York, and Massachusetts. Therefore, democrats are going to have to appeal to moderates and those that domeyrock calls "neo-liberals" if they really want to dump Trump.

===============================================

If you removed Texas, Ohio and Georgia from the equation - what do you suppose the conservative:liberal ratio of the remaining states will be? Republicans can't win a national election without those three states.

Democrats are going to have the moderates from those remaining states. They may even upset Texas, Ohio and Georgia.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Is Arizona's new senator a liberal? I thought she was more of a centrist Democrat

=====================================

She is going to vote with the Democrats - not the Republicans. The Democrats are not pushing a hardcore progressive program. That is just fear mongering by Republicans and Trump who are scared to death of the 2020 elections. Lets just see how many Republicans decide to not run in 2020 elections.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Yes, Democrats don't do well in the conservative heartland, the home of the intentionally ignorant.

Yes, I am VERY disdainful of people who adopt that sort of self-centered view. I also left the country because I expect this won't end well, but I still vote.

No, this isn't going to end well. The politics has become more and more divisive.

This is a result of the neo-liberal propaganda machine, which a lot of Americans listen to, that private market solutions are the best, and informed self-interest is the best, way to run everything. Greed is good. Wealth indicates virtue. Effectively Hobbes' notional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_omnium_contra_omnes

Which is of course, an extremely POOR way to bind the nation together, and contrary to the actual methods by which humans manage to succeed, which invariably involve us working together.

As for "informed self-interest" - that only works if people are a LOT better informed!!!

That same propaganda machine that promotes the neo-liberal agenda feeds them lies about science and society and threats to their livelihood which would give Pinocchio a nosebleed.

While we remember what Jefferson said -
"if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be"
http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/327


It is unlikely as a result, that the people who are currently identifying themselves as being liberal in their relative youth, are going to switch sides later. It becomes a quantum leap rather than a gradual side. You should pay attention to the raw hatred that is being stored up by the repeated imposition of minority government on the US and on individual states by Republicans.

However, there isn't going to be a lot more time for this horsebleep.

After 2025 it will be impossible for anyone in denial of the need for climate action to be elected in pretty much any nation or state affected and that will be most of them.

After 2030 the Republican party as it is currently formed, will cease to exist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"If you take out Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina from the equation, then Republicans can never win a majority in the country."

Still missing the point eh. Are you missing it on purpose or are you just not smart enough to grasp it. Go back and read the posts in context. Have someone read them to you if you need help.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A majority of the public – regardless of party identification – hold favorable views of almost all of the ACA’s major provisions.

Note the key phrase "almost all" of the ACA's major provisions. Sure, letting kids stay on their parents' plans was popular. And the individual mandate was hugely unpopular, as were the effects on some previously-existing private plans that were cancelled or modified in response to the Act's mandates.

That's the problem with looking at polls on generalities, and thinking that the public actually supports a particular policy proposal. The public generally likes "health care reform" or the federal government making sure everyone has health insurance. But when you start talking about details that involve eliminating some (or all) private employer-based insurance, or raising taxes, or slashing the budget of the local hospital, then suddenly people get far less supportive.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you take out Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina from the equation, then Republicans can never win a majority in the country.

So how do democrats win Texas, Ohio, or North Carolina to prevent a Republican majority? I don't think it is by going far left.

See, that's the point. CA, NY, MA are more liberal than most of the nation and are not sufficient for consistent democratic control of the senate and presidency. Beating Trump and gaining the senate is going to require winning states like Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. It will require the democratic party understanding and focusing on the needs of these battleground states.

The last three democratic presidents were from Georgia, Arkansas, and Illinois, states pretty far from liberal bastions of the West Coast and Northeast. I don't think that is a coincidence. Democrats who want to be president are going to have to learn how to relate with a Middle America that is more religious, socially conservative, fearful of immigrants, and suspicious of big government than what you find in CA, NY, MA.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Because if you explain that instead of paying through the nose for insurance and really not getting full coverage, not getting increasing copays... you just pay for health-CARE, you’re SAVING tons of money.

Except that's not true.

The administrative load for private insurance overall is fairly low (about 7%, the last time I looked it up). It's much higher than that for a very limited subset of the market - non-group individual health plans. But it's pretty modest for the dominant form of coverage, employer-based private health plans. Most private health plans offer fairly good coverage for price. Not all, and certainly there are millions of people priced out of those private health plans - but on balance, the employer large group self-funded private health insurance that makes up most of the private market does a pretty decent job.

That's why switching from the current system to single-payer doesn't save tons of money. It actually costs a fair amount, which is why states have been unable to make the numbers work. The caveat is that you can save money if you slash hospital and physician reimbursement...but that comes with it's own political problems.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am not assuming anything. The under 40 people are spitting mad at Trump and the Republicans for all the economic, environmental and social crap that has happened over the last 10 years and especially in the last two years. They have been hurt the most - they want to punish Trump and the Republicans. The over 50 people are split between into 3 groups: Trump haters, Trump lovers, and the independents.

If you're not assuming anything, why does it matter that every two years some of the (now) over-40's pass away, and we get new young people?

That only affects the political dynamic if the currently-young people stay spitting mad at the GOP. Ie., a cohort effect.

But as we saw with the Boomers, that doesn't always hold true. Those folks were spitting mad at Nixon and the GOP when they were younger....but now that they're older, they're Trump's base.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Democrats are not pushing a hardcore progressive program.

Really? So you don't think the GND is hardcore progressive? Do you think that the 2020 Democratic candidate will come from the centrist wing of the party, not the progressive wing?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Centrists are burnt toast in this country. The schmuck that Ocasio Cortez primaried Joe Crowley is now a lobbyist. Shocker!!

Most centrists on both sides always flock to either that or some hedge fund, because all they’re good at is making money for their donors, or raising money from their donors, spending less time interacting with regular Americans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Centrists are burnt toast in this country.

Link?

Or perhaps more helpfully, who do you think is the Democratic Senator that is the line between Democratic centrists and actual progressives? IOW, who is the least progressive Senator that you think is still a progressive, and not a centrist?

My guess is that when you give that answer, you'll find that there are more centrist Democrats than progressive ones in the Senate....belying your contention that they are "toast."

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Link?

LOL!

You can’t possibly be serious. After Obama’s election almost 1,000 seats lost and you need a link? Maybe you need a Red Bull Energy drink?

When was the last time a centrist won an election??

Hillary tried TWICE. Romney tried, McCain who Democrats admire for some reason tried. Centrists do nothing but give platitudes, fight for nothing and meander.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
When was the last time a centrist won an election??

How about Jon Tester in Montana, or Joe Manchin in West Virginia?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When voters during a primary are either asleep or surprised, usually during a primary, that’s the result.

Don’t think Joe Manchin is their friendly neighborhood superhero. Not by a long shot. Try watching a video of his last town hall, at least one he had the guts to show up for.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don’t think Joe Manchin is their friendly neighborhood superhero.

I don't. I just think that either your definition of "centrist" is completely out of whack, or you're mistaken in thinking that centrists don't get elected.

In the last cycle, you had scads of Democratic centrists getting elected or re-elected. In fact, those are the candidates that flipped the House back to the Democrats and limited their losses in the Senate.

That's why I asked you to help me understand who you think is a 'centrist' vs. an actual progressive. Is Jon Tester a progressive to you? Joe Manchin? Joe Donnelly? Martin Heinreich? Bob Casey? Debbie Stabenow? Tom Carper?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Democrats who want to be president are going to have to learn how to relate with a Middle America that is . . . fearful of immigrants,

I'm curious as to why you think they fear immigrants. Is it fear as in some kind of "phobia" (i.e. you disagree with some protected class' beliefs or agenda, therefore you "fear" them), or is it something else?

Note I am not disagreeing with you (although I do think fear is only part of it), just want to know what you mean.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Those folks were spitting mad at Nixon and the GOP when they were younger...

Is that really true? I forget where I read it, but I remember reading that actually a very small minority of folks opposed Nixon and the war, much less were out protesting. Sure, they were very vocal and got a lot of press. But most of America was "OK" with it (hence the Nixon landslide in '72).

I question whether or not the Boomers ever really changed. I know a few former hippies, and they are NOT fans of Trump. At least one of them was a protester at the time. (yes, small sample size, not necessarily indicative of the entire cohort)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm curious as to why you think they fear immigrants. Is it fear as in some kind of "phobia" (i.e. you disagree with some protected class' beliefs or agenda, therefore you "fear" them), or is it something else?

All you need do is look at how the republican party justifies policies like the Moslem ban and the southern wall. It is all based on a fear of terrorists and of criminals and drug runners coming from south of the border. Underlying it all is a fear that white-American culture is under siege.

We have an illegal immigration problem because American farmers, home builders, landscapers, and restaurant owners want cheap labor but also don't want the laborers to live in their neighborhoods or attend their kids' schools. So we end up continuing to provide folks an economic incentive to enter the country and then we spend billions to try to get them to leave or at least hide.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But most of America was "OK" with it (hence the Nixon landslide in '72).

They were okay with Nixon in 1972. They were not okay with Nixon and the GOP after Watergate (hence the Democratic landslide in '74).

I question whether or not the Boomers ever really changed. I know a few former hippies, and they are NOT fans of Trump. At least one of them was a protester at the time. (yes, small sample size, not necessarily indicative of the entire cohort)

Trump won the 50+ demos by 53%-44%, while losing the younger demos by double-digits:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/631231/voter-turnout-of-...

It's almost a truism that Democrats will outperform among the under 30 crowd compared to the electorate in general (I just quickly ran through the elections at Cornell's site, and that's been true for every election as far back as 1976). Yet that hasn't translated into a dominant Democratic party. Because people's voting preferences change as they age.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1976

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But as we saw with the Boomers, that doesn't always hold true. Those folks were spitting mad at Nixon and the GOP when they were younger....but now that they're older, they're Trump's base.

Albaby

===========================================

All Boomers are not Trump's base. It took 40 years for some Boomers to turn away from being Democrat to Republican. Now that they have had a taste of the Trump failures, they are going back to Democrats. Southwestern PA (coal and steel workers) dumped Republicans and voted for Democrats in 2018 midterm elections.

I have many relatives and my dear wife is a from Southwestern PA. They are all age groups and they are all spitting mad at Trump and the Republicans.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Democrats are not pushing a hardcore progressive program.

Really? So you don't think the GND is hardcore progressive? Do you think that the 2020 Democratic candidate will come from the centrist wing of the party, not the progressive wing?

Albaby

==============================================

I thought I already said GND is a good goal - it is not hard core progressive plan that Republicans are trying to use to scare the public.

I do not consider any of the current candidates as hard core progressive.

The problem in America is the Trump admin crooks and cheats with the gutless Republicans standing silently in fear of Trump. Look at all the crap the Trump has made with our economy, our security, our environment, our healthcare, our law enforcement, and our world standing. Any of the Democrat candidates and a Democrat Senate would turn these Trump failures around. We are going to see the disintegration of the Republican party in 2020.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Beating Trump and gaining the senate is going to require winning states like Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. It will require the democratic party understanding and focusing on the needs of these battleground states.

==================================

Democrats do not need Georgia, Ohio and Wisconsin. They already have the majority in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Therefore, the Democrats already have the majority across enough states to win in 2020. Democrats may also win Wisconsin and Florida in 2020.

With these majorities, Democrats are NOT going to cross over and vote for Trump in 2020.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All Boomers are not Trump's base. It took 40 years for some Boomers to turn away from being Democrat to Republican. Now that they have had a taste of the Trump failures, they are going back to Democrats. Southwestern PA (coal and steel workers) dumped Republicans and voted for Democrats in 2018 midterm elections.

I have many relatives and my dear wife is a from Southwestern PA. They are all age groups and they are all spitting mad at Trump and the Republicans.


No doubt. Voters will respond to candidates and events.

But Boomers are far more likely to vote Republican today than they were back when they were younger. Boomer-age voters (45-64) went 53-45% to the GOP in the 2014 midterms, and 51%-47% to the GOP in the 2012 presidential elections:

http://graphics.wsj.com/exit-polls-2014/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/245884/voter-turnout-of-...

That cohort tilted liberal while younger, and more conservative while older. For good or ill, I think we can expect the same thing of voters that are currently young.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I thought I already said GND is a good goal - it is not hard core progressive plan that Republicans are trying to use to scare the public.

I do not consider any of the current candidates as hard core progressive.


So you don't think Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are hard core progressives?

You don't think the GND is a hard core progressive plan?

I think we are using the word "progressive" differently from each other....

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
They were okay with Nixon in 1972. They were not okay with Nixon and the GOP after Watergate (hence the Democratic landslide in '74).

Not so sure about that. In '76 Carter won, but it was hardly a landslide. '74 was a midterm after a tumultuous event. Not unlike 2018 (the real test will be 2020, and I'm already on record expecting Trump to win).

Trump won the 50+ demos by 53%-44%, while losing the younger demos by double-digits:

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that Boomers may not have changed that much. The hippies you see in the newsreels were a very small (but very vocal) minority. If you look in the background of all those protests you see lots of young people wearing shirts and ties (men) and dresses (women) scurrying off to class, trying to ignore all that.** Very conservative. And those who didn't go to college but worked farms, factories, or whatever after high school, who had no use for the "long-haired weirdos". Those were the majority Boomers. Bob Dylan and Abby Hoffman were not representative of that generation. And even those who did oppose the war were not necessarily going to be on-board with the Democratic social platform.

I'm half a generation off of that group (I was 5 at the Tet Offensive). I've known all of the above, and they really haven't changed that much over the years. Trump is probably the biggest catalyst for getting some of them to change their affiliations.

1poorguy



**Look at the background in Kent State images and video, or UT Austin...the kids getting shot were generally dressed like they worked at IBM.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You don't think the GND is a hard core progressive plan?


This is like beating a dead horse.

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/26/democratic-party-centris...

But here is the reality: The Green New Deal is extremely popular and has massive bipartisan support. A recent survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University found that a whopping 81 percent of voters said they either “strongly support” (40 percent) or “somewhat support” (41 percent) the Green New Deal, including 64 percent of Republicans (and even 57 percent of conservative Republicans).

This is not great grandpa's political party anymore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What I'm saying is that Boomers may not have changed that much.

Well, they shifted from generally supporting the Democratic candidate by more than the national average to supporting the Repulican candidate by more than the national average - and that shift happened between 1996 and 2004, as the Boomers started to move out of being "middle" voters into being "older" voters.

Younger voters have been skewing Democratic since the 1970's...which means that almost all voters that are around today are part of a cohort that (in their youth) was strongly Democratic. Yet obviously we don't see the type of strong, permanent Democratic skew that we see if voting patterns remained constant as those younger voters age. Instead, we see the opposite - cohorts of older voters that used to skew Democratic now skew strongly Republican.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is like beating a dead horse.

Did you even click through the link? That was from a survey that was conducted in December, when the Green New Deal was just a slogan - not even a non-binding resolution. The opinions were based on a description of what the proponents said it would do - which description had no mention of health care or guaranteed employment.

And as we've discussed upthread, health care reform and other generalities poll very well until you start getting into the details, and then support collapses when people have to balance the thing they like ("Everyone gets health care!") with the things they don't ("Everyone has to give up their current employer plans!").

Did you have a chance to think about which Senators you think are on the line between centrist and progressives?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
jaagu: We are going to see the disintegration of the Republican party in 2020.


Pray to FSM you are correct.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That cohort tilted liberal while younger, and more conservative while older. For good or ill, I think we can expect the same thing of voters that are currently young.

Albaby

===============================================

It takes decades for the change. And with more honesty in reporting, less influence of religion, and better educated electorate - the crap that Republicans have generated for years will be less saleable.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you don't think Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are hard core progressives?

You don't think the GND is a hard core progressive plan?

I think we are using the word "progressive" differently from each other....

Albaby

======================================

Of course I do not think Sanders and Warren are hard core progressives. I think Sanders is too old and it may hurt his chances. But Warren is very intelligent and knows more about good economics than all the Trump crooks and the Republican leadership who have egg all over their faces in their apoplectic attempts at "repeal and replace Obama-Care".

I could go on for hours about the economic stupidity of Trump and his Republican supporters.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course I do not think Sanders and Warren are hard core progressives.

Wow.

Who do you think is a hard core progressive?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We are going to see the disintegration of the Republican party in 2020.

That's what we thought after 8 years of Obama. And what we ended up with was a very angry, racist united Reps voting for an utter incompetent over someone of obvious competence.

I also was calling for the demise/reforming of the Rep party (like the Know-Nothings, Whigs, and others over the centuries). I don't think that anymore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Warren is very intelligent and knows more about good economics than all the Trump crooks and the Republican leaders

Yes, but so far she seems not to have caught on with the electorate. She comes across as awkward when she tries to be an average Joe. If ya can’t swizzle a beer, don’t try. And that surprise husband thing was hilarious. Now she's begging for donations on Twitter. Doesn’t look good.

She's a superb blue-state legislator, but I doubt she can do NASCAR and guns and beheading of turkeys and spout cornpone stuff believably. Biden seems the only one who maybe can. The rest don’t even seem interested to try. Pray that none of those Hillaries get the nomination.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who do you think is a hard core progressive?

Albaby

================================

Hard core progressive is a Republican made up term. Most Republicans for years have been saying that Nancy Pelosi is the ultimate hard core progressive.

What a joke the gutless Republicans have become!

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hard core progressive is a Republican made up term. Most Republicans for years have been saying that Nancy Pelosi is the ultimate hard core progressive.

Okay - what term do you think is the proper one to use for a politician or policy proposal that is very, very progressive?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hard core progressive is a Republican made up term. Most Republicans for years have been saying that Nancy Pelosi is the ultimate hard core progressive.

Okay - what term do you think is the proper one to use for a politician or policy proposal that is very, very progressive?

Albaby

======================================

Since you claim to be an expert on hard core progressives, tell me what are the progressive differences between:
Pelosi
Warren
Harris
Klobuchar
Sanders
Biden
Booker
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Since you claim to be an expert on hard core progressives, tell me what are the progressive differences between

I don't claim to be an expert on hard core progressives. You're the one that brought it up and said that the GND was not a hard core progressive plan. I wasn't aware that you believe that the term "hard core progressive" is a perjorative made up by the GOP - I just assumed that it meant someone or something that was really progressive, like hardcore fans or hardcore Sanders supporters or whatever.

That's the only reason I was asking. I believe that the GND (as ultimately released) is very very progressive, and that Sanders and Warren are also very very progressive candidates. I was surprised by your comments that they weren't, not realizing that you were objecting to that specific terminology (which again, I've never before seen anyone claiming it was perjorative or a GOP tactic).

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They are all age groups and they are all spitting mad at Trump and the Republicans.

..because he's too radical or not radical enough?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Since you claim to be an expert on hard core progressives, tell me what are the progressive differences between:

A very handy website to view the differences:

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Warren: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
Left Liberal 80 (social) 10 (economic).

Harris: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Kamala_Harris.htm
Left Liberal 70/10

Sanders: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm
Left Liberal 100/10

The differences might be subtle but they exist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Worth noting that ontheissues.org uses the term "hard-core" liberal for Sanders yet "populist-leaning" liberal for Klobachar and Harris.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Boomer-age voters (45-64) went 53-45%.

You are about 10 years off, I think...not that it matters for your point.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Boomer-age voters (45-64) went 53-45%.
You are about 10 years off, I think...not that it matters for your point.


Hmmm. The baby boom began when people started families after the war. So, 1946. The end of the boom is a little fuzzier, but there was a noticeable drop in 1965, so let's call the end at 1964.

2016 - 1946 = 70
2016 - 1964 = 52

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Boomer-age voters (45-64) went 53-45%.

You are about 10 years off, I think...not that it matters for your point.


As DrBob pointed out, the Boomers are roughly the generation born between 1946 and 1964. In 2014, that would have been ages between 50 and 68. None of the age brackets exactly match up to that, but the overwhelming majority of the Boomers would have been in that 45-64 age range in 2014 - and virtually all the voters in that age range would have been Boomers.

But yeah - the vote share of the slightly older demo isn't any better for Democrats, so it doesn't really change the analysis. As cohorts age, their political views generally fall a little further towards the conservative side.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
1pg has it right. Most of the boomers were not at all progressive, ever, although they (like many of their parents) supported the 64 civil rights bill and recoiled from Goldwater conservatism.

I was a full time worker for McGovern from fall of 71 until the New Hampshire primary, mostly organizing college students to vote. A huge part of the support McGovern and the Dems got from boomers was simply because of fear of being drafted and killed, and even so the boomer support for Nixon was large.

The boomers got covered as hippies and etc, but that was because the ones who weren't hippies ephemera. Most of the "hippies" at the "summer of love" and etc simply liked the music and wanted to get laid.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Most of the "hippies" at the "summer of love" and etc simply liked the music and wanted to get laid.

Don't forget the acid and grass....

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't forget the acid and grass....

Sort of a conundrum. With acid and grass can come forgetting...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Most of the "hippies" at the "summer of love" and etc simply liked the music and wanted to get laid.

Ain't that the truth.... I even went to a few 'church' meetings that had food and music, but the main attraction was the girl I met who was 'into it.'

As a long haired California hippie skier/surfer I was amused by the 'hippie hat sizers' displayed in a Steamboat Springs hardware store.

Some of the young ranchers liked the pot and the potential for sex with hippie chicks, but politically they were 'Love it or leave it' flag wavin' Nixon lovers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Most of the boomers were not at all progressive, ever,

Kind of depends on how you define the term. I am old fashioned and still define liberal:conservative as big government vs small government. The 60s-70s was a time when government expansion was popular. From LBJ's War On Poverty to the space program to Nixon's EPA to Carter's Dept of Education. Young Boomers expected the government to get involved and solve problems.

Seems to me that as the Boomers aged, their affinity for government declined.

I think that until folks here agree to a common definition of what makes a "progressive" we are all just talking past each other.
Print the post Back To Top