• Elizabeth Warren slams calls for Democrats to move to the center, says party 'won't go back'
    92 replies, posted
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/elizabeth-warren-slams-calls-for-democrats-to-move-to-the-center-says-party-wont-go-back/article/2631359[/url] [QUOTE]ATLANTA — Referring to the crowd of progressive conference-goers as President Trump's "worst nightmare," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tore into members of her own party who believe Democrats should move toward the center in a fiery speech at Netroots Nation. In the Saturday morning keynote, Warren singled out a July op-ed in the New York Times written by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein titled "Back to the Center, Democrats." The headline itself was enough to draw a loud chorus of boos from the audience. "It was all about how we have to stop caring about 'identity politics' and how we have to stop waging 'class warfare,'" Warren said, mocking the idea that "the path forward" for Democrats involves locking up "non-violent drug offenders and ripping more holes in the economic safety net." "We've been warned off before," Warren observed. "Give up, keep your heads down, be realisitic, act like a grown up, keep doing the same old, same old." "But here's what's interesting," she continued. "Instead of lots and lots of ferocious back-and-forth and piling on, this time, no one cared. Big yawn. Why?" Because, Warren asserted, Democrats are not going back to the center. The senator specifically argued the party "won't go back" to the days of welfare reform, being "lukewarm on [abortion] choice," and making empty promises on universal healthcare. But contrary to Warren's contention, far from "no one [caring]," Penn and Stein's op-ed sparked days of debate among Democrats online. And having just targeted centrist Democrats for criticism, Warren pivoted to argue that in-fighting is harmful to the party. "We can't waste energy arguing about whose issue matters more, and who in our alliance should be voted off the island," she said. "We are looking ahead and we will not, we shall not, we must not, allow anyone to turn back the clock," Warren said, further cautioning Democrats against a slide to the center. The senator also assured supporters that "Trumpcare" would not receive a single Democratic vote, "not now, not ever." [/QUOTE] I don't normally insert my opinion into these stories (I just post 'em here so people can read 'em.) but I'll say that those "extreme" views helped cost them in the election in 2016. Doubling down on it like that is a bad idea.
So all that's needed is essentially a centrist republican and the next election would be done with. Provided the democrats go with the above policy. [QUOTE=Toybasher;52570772]If the GOPe (Grand Old Party "Elite" or "Establishment") elect a RINO (Republican in name only) you betcha their base won't get out and vote for 'em. I would have stayed home if iJEB! had won the nomination.[/QUOTE] I disagree, It wasn't exactly a wide gap between the Republicans and Democrats this election. Have someone with more charisma than a wood board and propose 2014 status quo and they will win in a second. If some of your policies are unpopular enough to lose you votes, then perhaps a better solution is to compromise in order to have your other policies more likely to succeed. Slightly better than claiming self-righteousness.
[QUOTE=Thlis;52570769]So all that's needed is essentially a centrist republican and the next election would be done with.[/QUOTE] If the GOPe (Grand Old Party "Elite" or "Establishment") elect a RINO (Republican in name only) you betcha their base won't get out and vote for 'em. I would have stayed home if iJEB! had won the nomination.
The democratic loss had as much if not more to do with Hillary herself, rather than the democrats not being centrist enough.
They would need to be on the left to begin with
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52570821]I don't really grasp how people think the GoP is going to be in good shape come 2020. They've shown themselves that even with control of the executive and legislative branch to be woefully inept at governing, caring little for american lives, complicit in treason on the behalf of a hostile dictator and making the country a laughing stock internationally. Now that it's butt naked obvious that the Republicans can't do that government thing worth a damn, there's a solid chance for a campaign that's a total repudiation of Trump's bullshit to win. All it needs is a figure head from outside of the DNC's moldy parts bin like in 2008.[/QUOTE] You're assuming Trump is going to be the Republican candidate again in 2020. If a moderate candidate that could be respected by both sides gets the Repub nomination in 2020, they could very well beat the Dems again. It's rare for the incumbent President not to get the nomination, but it has happened before, and I wouldn't be surprised considering Trump's approval ratings. A presidential race against Donald fucking Trump should've been a landslide. The Dems may have won the popular vote, but it was still close enough to allow Trump to take the win thanks to electoral votes. That alone should tell you what a shit platform the Democrats are running on.
i think its sad that the only issue with bipartisan support is the continuation of the 2-party system
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52570864]You're not only supporting the Democrats in not altering their party platform, but you're demonstrating the exact attitude that lost them the election. The GOP is going to be rolled over the coals? You know how many people thought that Hillary was just going to decimate Trump and that the Democrats had just swept the election months before it even occurred? Do you really think that most of the country views Donald Trump as a typical Republican candidate and directly attribute his failure to the GOP? You know how much people would LOVE to have Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz in the oval office right now? The Democrats are running on a platform that is just straight up unappealing to millions and millions of people. If the Democratic party acts the same way you are then there is a fair chance that they will lose spectacularly again in the 2020 election cycle.[/QUOTE] Unappealing to the millions more who voted for the Democrat than the Republican?
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52570952]Unappealing to the millions more who voted for the Democrat than the Republican?[/QUOTE]No the rest of the country outside a few high population areas that came out in force.
Democrats moving left and moving center would be the same thing.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52570777]She's advocating that the democrats don't change anything in a platform that lost them the election to a reality TV star - how blind do you have to be? The newest generation of voters are generally liberal on social issues and conservative on topics of economics and foreign affairs. She's just going to relinquish the chance at some progress in exchange for being stubborn and accomplishing nothing.[/QUOTE] Wait a minute there's a word to describe this socially liberal and fiscally conservative! Libertarian! That's a bit of a dirty word around here isn't it though?
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52571170]1. Yeah they're going to be rolled over the coals. Clinton didn't create Obama care, but it was still used as a weapon against her. Clinton isn't at fault for benghazi, but it was still used as a weapon against her. The birther conspiracy is racist fantasy but droves of republicans including the media still ran with it for years. I don't think you're as dumb as to think something that could very well end in impeachment or the resignation of the president, with mountains of evidence behind it is going to somehow not be a massive thorn in the GoPs side of years. And again you're not even factoring in the effect of russian collusion and Hillary's nomination as candidate in this conclusion. Not very sneaky of you. Somehow when the Republicans suffer a loss, it has no effect in your mind, but when Democrats suffer a loss its entirely because they're confident in their platform and not at all because they chose a bad candidate and outside parties intentionally sabotaged them. If only I had an example of a candidate who ran a very similar, almost identical platform, from the same party, who didn't have a dirty history, was charismatic, wasn't sabotaged by the russians and won by a massive margin. [img]https://i.imgflip.com/12j63l.jpg[/img] :thinking: I'm going to be straight with you all though, if you're just going to keep framing this as "the Dems ran ideas that lost them votes" and or "the dems lost in the court of public opinion" you are very obviously f[B]raming a complex cluster fuck with a hundred different variables to only the ones that run your biases in the way that feels good[/B] and in the latter case straight up lying because that is [B]measurably false.[/B][/QUOTE] Like all things politics and public opinion, it's up to a myriad of reasons. You're mostly on the dot, but it can't be ignored that the Democrats have some policies that aren't worth dying on a hill for; I think specifically gun control is something they should drop, not because I don't think it's worthwhile, but because the amount of voters it scares off is way more harmful than beneficial. If the Democrats could get someone good running (Bernie, or Biden), drop their anti-gun crusade, and try to appeal to middle-America middle income people, I think there's a chance to turn this mess around.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52570777]She's advocating that the democrats don't change anything in a platform that lost them the election to a reality TV star - how blind do you have to be?[/QUOTE] If we're going to be stuck with a two party system, I don't think our options should be "Conservative" and "Less Conservative". The Democrats problem wasn't the fact that they are the liberal party, it's that they ended their campaign before the race was over, and even when they did run their campaign they ignored the plight of rural America, which the GOP capitalized on massively. They also need to drop gun control and identity politics, these are don't help anyone. [editline]14th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52571218]Back ground checks, getting black market guns off the streets and ending the drug war.[/QUOTE] 1. we already have them 2. police already do this 3. agreed
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52571310]If we're going to be stuck with a two party system, I don't think our options should be "Conservative" and "Less Conservative". The Democrats problem wasn't the fact that they are the liberal party, it's that they ended their campaign before the race was over, and even when they did run their campaign they ignored the plight of rural America, which the GOP capitalized on massively. They also need to drop gun control and [B]identity politics, these are don't help anyone.[/B][/QUOTE] Except minorities, women, LGBT, poor, etc.. Gun control helps everyone, background checks even count as gun control. The problem isn't that guns should be a laissez-faire free for all but it's that many democrats just lose their ability to reason when the topic comes up. They didn't ignore the plight of rural america either. They didn't lie to their faces promising that, with meme magic they'd bring back manufacturing jobs that were already mostly lost to automation along with a revitalizing of a forlorn coal industry. But they offered more accessible education, and free trade. Of course, the former was based on a flawed idea that just shoving people into college would save rural america, and the latter was through a bill with very problematic intellectual property concerns (tpp,) but it was miles ahead of what the Republicans laid out as their plan.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52571324]Except minorities, women, LGBT, poor, etc.[/QUOTE] Advocating for equal rights is good, [I]"Vote for me because I'm a woman."[/I] is not. It's cringey and disappointing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52571339]Advocating for equal rights is good, [I]"Vote for me because I'm a woman."[/I] is not. It's cringey and disappointing.[/QUOTE] It's a shame she and her party didn't provide a long list of policies they sought to accomplish along with her speaking about a plethora of other reasons why she was preferable to Trump. It started and ended at "woman." The main cringey disappointment here was propagandists successfully getting people to focus on stupid shit like that instead of policy.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52571218]I think the dems can run gun control, but they need to keep it off feel good measures and show the public they're doing it in good faith and not as a holy cruesade against gun owners. Back ground checks, getting black market guns off the streets and ending the drug war.[/QUOTE] the NRA will convince and mobilize massive hordes of conservatives who equate gun control with the spanish inquisition, as bad as it sounds they should move to the center on gun control or try to emphasize state and local jurisdiction rights instead which wouldn't give the NRA that edge. bernie was right on gun control at least for platforms, you can't run against guns in the majority of the country. you can run against abortion, for healthcare, for higher taxes on the rich, but you can't run against guns, not with the nra
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52570834]You're assuming Trump is going to be the Republican candidate again in 2020. If a moderate candidate that could be respected by both sides gets the Repub nomination in 2020, they could very well beat the Dems again. It's rare for the incumbent President not to get the nomination, but it has happened before, and I wouldn't be surprised considering Trump's approval ratings. A presidential race against Donald fucking Trump should've been a landslide. The Dems may have won the popular vote, but it was still close enough to allow Trump to take the win thanks to electoral votes. That alone should tell you what a shit platform the Democrats are running on.[/QUOTE] if Trump should have taught Democrats anything, it's that having a decent platform and [I]selling[/I] a decent platform are entirely different things. Hillary Clinton was an extraordinarily shit candidate, yes. but the platform was entirely unextraordinary. and that's not a [I]good[/I] thing, but it's workable. now don't get me wrong, i dislike blue dogs as much as the next guy, but it can't be overstated enough that Clinton [I]did not campaign in the most crucial states of her strategy.[/I] that's just as much down to plain stupidity as it is about message.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52570834]You're assuming Trump is going to be the Republican candidate again in 2020. If a moderate candidate that could be respected by both sides gets the Repub nomination in 2020, they could very well beat the Dems again. It's rare for the incumbent President not to get the nomination, but it has happened before, and I wouldn't be surprised considering Trump's approval ratings. A presidential race against Donald fucking Trump should've been a landslide. The Dems may have won the popular vote, but it was still close enough to allow Trump to take the win thanks to electoral votes. That alone should tell you what a shit platform the Democrats are running on.[/QUOTE] No, that should tell you what a shit candidate the Democrats were running, alongside an arrogant campaign that believed they couldn't lose. Had the Democrats run someone with an ounce of charisma, with a less shit political background, with a campaign that had a worthwhile message (instead of "More of the same" and "At least we're not that other guy"), or even with a campaign that bothered to campaign to the bitter end instead of just presuming they would win months in advance, the current shitshow in our government probably could have been avoided. Policy had very little to do with the Democrats' loss, aside from the generally lack thereof from Hillary (beyond "more of Obama").
In so saying: DaMastez is right for me at the very least. If the Dems ran a candidate and not a queen who seemed like they'd actually back their words with action and wasn't dripping in nepotism and secrecy - whose party promised a clean fight and then delivered on that promise - and who actually had some Charisma I'd have voted for them. I'd have gladly voted for Sanders. I could've even been convinced to vote for Kasich (e: not happily). My vote has to be won and neither Trump or Hillary won it; couldn't vote in good conscience for either candidate.
Nah the democrats not being "centrist" enough sure as shit isn't the reason they lost the election. Clinton was the "centrist" candidate and she lost whereas people don't fucking hate bernie in spite of his more economically liberal views. What the democrats need to do is mute social policy for a bit, they're winning on most fronts there in the long run anyways, and drop the fucking gun issue for the foreseeable future, and go hard-in on economic policy. Develop a clear plan and then sell it to the populace. If they do that, they'll win.
They can't do that though. They're the party of 'no guns' and the party of social policy. They don't understand that their economic policies could easily hand them an election if they went the route of Sanders; the hardcore Democrats would vote Democrat no matter what and that'd get Independents off the fence and Progressives to come out in droves. People are hurting right now; that's what Trump winning should've told us. If you want their vote, give them policies that help them suffer less: increased minimum wages, forgivance on student loan debts or making college effectively free for all, better healthcare that costs less - or just costs less. You want people's attention right now you go for their wallet; I don't know why the DNC doesn't see it - they've got policy researchers out the butt and the signs are everywhere. I just hope Sanders taught them to focus on that point. I don't think it did teach them given some of their actions and reactions post-election but I hope I'm wrong.
Democrats aren't progressive enough, and not in the correct areas. They need to drop gun control and identity politics and go full force on liberal economic policies that make things better for everyone. Universal Healthcare. Universal Education. These are what we need.
Democrats cannot move to the center on policy issues because for many people politics is a matter of matter of life and death and a matter of human dignity. Gay rights, transgender rights, women's rights, immigrant rights, minority rights, voting rights, worker's rights, affordable healthcare, subsidized college education, intelligent regulation of industries, police reform, progressive tax reform, immigration reform, military reform, pacifism; to compromise on any of these is to condemn a percentage of the population to either death or disrespect. This is the critical flaw in Democratic ideology as well, that because the party cannot ethically or morally afford to compromise on these issues, voters with different mindsets become apathetic towards or disgusted with ideological candidates. Voters become focused on the short-term, the political baggage and blunders of a candidate or zero-in on the segments of the candidate's ideology that differ from their's. That's why Democrats don't vote, that's why Democrats have lost Governor's mansions, state Houses, state Senates, the national House, the national Senate, and yes, the Presidency. Many people fail to understand that if a political party's main draw is an intense ideology, that the game we play has to be long-term; progressive politics demands that subsequent generations of politicians and voters uphold its ideals. When we focus on the short-term issues we give ground in the long-term. Yet, without paying attention to the superficial issues of charisma, appeal, and public perception, we cannot win in the short-term to win in the long-term. The Democrats won by three million votes on November 8th. There is a way to capitalize on that majority in the future, but it does not necessarily require that we compromise on human rights issues. If not enough people voted, then we need to find candidates with widespread appeal, stainless political histories, and a passion for people that is genuine and reaches a widespread audience not united by any one underlying geographic, age, gender, race, religious, or economic commonality. We need to embrace those candidates, and educate Democrats on why voting is important, especially when you don't like every single thing about the person in question. Every Democratic politician is supposed to stand for several hundred years of progressive politics. Though some battles have been won, either through civil war or legislation, there is still much work to be done. We cannot do it if we move to the center. The individual, whether politician or proletariat, can be center-of-left. But the underlying aspects of progressivism cannot be undermined for the sake of political expediency. People are going to die if we give up the fight.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;52572128]If Democrats dropped the gun control shit they'd win both Congress and the Presidency in a landslide. That's it, change nothing else.[/QUOTE] It is definitely not that simple since we have equivalent resistance on the right with things like immigration, but that would absolutely be a sane step in the right direction. Single-issue voters are a real, and large, thing.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;52571785]Democrats aren't progressive enough, and not in the correct areas. They need to drop gun control and identity politics and go full force on liberal economic policies that make things better for everyone. Universal Healthcare. Universal Education. These are what we need.[/QUOTE] Well, that's the problem. They prefer to give little concessions here and there like gay marriage or same sex toilets or whatever other crap they cook up to appease the population, rather than focus on real substantive change that improves the lives of the many, and not the few.
[QUOTE=Anteep;52572432]Well, that's the problem. They prefer to give little concessions here and there like gay marriage or same sex toilets or whatever other crap they cook up to appease the population, rather than focus on real substantive change that improves the lives of the many, and not the few.[/QUOTE] So neither side wants to help the many (aside from the single payer healthcare push) yet wants to pretend to.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52572843]I will never support universal health care when it comes at the cost of increased taxes for everyone and an increased national deficit.[/QUOTE] And in one fell swoop you've pretty much earned a "yeah, fuck you and everything you stand for buddy" response from everyone in the middle and lower class who isn't pretending to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;52572128]If Democrats dropped the gun control shit they'd win both Congress and the Presidency in a landslide. That's it, change nothing else.[/QUOTE] It's not that easy, but it'd be a boost. They have nothing to lose by dropping gun control. They'll get more voters from the other side, and most anti-gun will still vote for them because there isn't an other option anyway.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52573348]most anti-gun will still vote for them because there isn't an other option anyway.[/QUOTE] Well, there are Greens, I guess.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.