I would be more willing to buy the argument that the further we move to the left, economically speaking, the more we alienate centrist Dems, who we need to cater to instead, if we didn't have the Tea Party showing that every time the Republicans closer to the center make noise about ideas too far to the right being unacceptable they end up voting for the far right anyway. Every time I hear someone say the left getting its own Tea Party-esque coalition would be terrible, because of all the purity testing, I scratch my head. The Tea Party is winning elections all over the damn place.
Progressives might only be part of the Democratic coalition, and maybe even a minority, but we're big enough to help win elections, and we're starting to wake up to the fact that liberals need us as much as we need them. With that comes some expectations.
Income inequality is not race-agnostic, it affects POC disproportionately. It doesn't have to be an issue that divides our party. I would love for everybody to ride the wave together and start winning elections other than just the presidency every other time.
Or we can fight and go around in circles, the progressives being angry and frustrated about the fact there are so few people in power who care about how they act around big money and the signals that sends, the liberals exasperated that people who could help them win seem to care so much about this stuff.
The Tea Party can command such power because they can win their people elections. The geographic bias of the US system of government favours them and does not favour us (as in, the political Left).
The Senate is the simplest example of this. The Democrats need Senators from more conservative states to hold a majority. Just ... period. Hence they have a hold on federal politics in a way that more left-wing groups don't.
It doesn't help that the Far Left hates the Democratic Party and are mostly college students who don't turn out for elections.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I would be more willing to buy the argument that the further we move to the left, economically speaking, the more we alienate centrist Dems, who we need to cater to instead, if we didn't have the Tea Party showing that every time the Republicans closer to the center make noise about ideas too far to the right being unacceptable they end up voting for the far right anyway. Every time I hear someone say the left getting its own Tea Party-esque coalition would be terrible, because of all the purity testing, I scratch my head. The Tea Party is winning elections all over the damn place.
Progressives might only be part of the Democratic coalition, and maybe even a minority, but we're big enough to help win elections, and we're starting to wake up to the fact that liberals need us as much as we need them. With that comes some expectations.
Income inequality is not race-agnostic, it affects POC disproportionately. It doesn't have to be an issue that divides our party. I would love for everybody to ride the wave together and start winning elections other than just the presidency every other time.
Or we can fight and go around in circles, the progressives being angry and frustrated about the fact there are so few people in power who care about how they act around big money and the signals that sends, the liberals exasperated that people who could help them win seem to care so much about this stuff.
The TEA Party has an edge in that it was working with a culture the GOP spent literally decades shaping their views, they were professionally organized, and had access to Scrooge McDuck money via the Koch's. The left hasn't got any of that. Their purity testing has also made their party worse since it alienated the moderates and paved the way for the Trumpets to take over the party. Their victory was America's loss.
I'm not discussing the 2016 election.
But as far as I can tell, no progressive ideas have actually alienated moderates. Certainly not the idea that politicians shouldn't be in hock to Wall Street. I ask you to prove otherwise.
Two things alienated moderates since 1965:
1) The Democratic Party becoming the party of and for African-Americans. Atwater, Nixon, and Reagan so poisoned the well that now people believe that benefits Democrats are offering and benefits that Republicans are gutting are those that go to black people, and whites wouldn't get them/lose them respectively.
2) People crave order and don't like protest that disrupts their lives. Which is the point, but it alienated a significant group of people. Nixon and especially Reagan ran on attacking campus protesters. And it was extraordinarily popular.
Given the events of the last eight years, Stupid Nixon getting elected should have been more forseeable than it was for any of us.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I would be more willing to buy the argument that the further we move to the left, economically speaking, the more we alienate centrist Dems, who we need to cater to instead, if we didn't have the Tea Party showing that every time the Republicans closer to the center make noise about ideas too far to the right being unacceptable they end up voting for the far right anyway. Every time I hear someone say the left getting its own Tea Party-esque coalition would be terrible, because of all the purity testing, I scratch my head. The Tea Party is winning elections all over the damn place.
Progressives might only be part of the Democratic coalition, and maybe even a minority, but we're big enough to help win elections, and we're starting to wake up to the fact that liberals need us as much as we need them. With that comes some expectations.
Income inequality is not race-agnostic, it affects POC disproportionately. It doesn't have to be an issue that divides our party. I would love for everybody to ride the wave together and start winning elections other than just the presidency every other time.
Or we can fight and go around in circles, the progressives being angry and frustrated about the fact there are so few people in power who care about how they act around big money and the signals that sends, the liberals exasperated that people who could help them win seem to care so much about this stuff.
The TEA Party has an edge in that it was working with a culture the GOP spent literally decades shaping their views, they were professionally organized, and had access to Scrooge McDuck money via the Koch's. The left hasn't got any of that. Their purity testing has also made their party worse since it alienated the moderates and paved the way for the Trumpets to take over the party. Their victory was America's loss.
I'm not discussing the 2016 election.
But as far as I can tell, no progressive ideas have actually alienated moderates. Certainly not the idea that politicians shouldn't be in hock to Wall Street. I ask you to prove otherwise.
Two things alienated moderates since 1965:
1) The Democratic Party becoming the party of and for African-Americans. Atwater, Nixon, and Reagan so poisoned the well that now people believe that benefits Democrats are offering and benefits that Republicans are gutting are those that go to black people, and whites wouldn't get them/lose them respectively.
2) People crave order and don't like protest that disrupts their lives. Which is the point, but it alienated a significant group of people. Nixon and especially Reagan ran on attacking campus protesters. And it was extraordinarily popular.
Given the events of the last eight years, Stupid Nixon getting elected should have been more forseeable than it was for any of us.
So your argument is that progressives should ignore inequality or racism?
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
No, the argument is that there is only so far we can go before the moderates completely balk.
I would be more willing to buy the argument that the further we move to the left, economically speaking, the more we alienate centrist Dems, who we need to cater to instead, if we didn't have the Tea Party showing that every time the Republicans closer to the center make noise about ideas too far to the right being unacceptable they end up voting for the far right anyway. Every time I hear someone say the left getting its own Tea Party-esque coalition would be terrible, because of all the purity testing, I scratch my head. The Tea Party is winning elections all over the damn place.
Progressives might only be part of the Democratic coalition, and maybe even a minority, but we're big enough to help win elections, and we're starting to wake up to the fact that liberals need us as much as we need them. With that comes some expectations.
Income inequality is not race-agnostic, it affects POC disproportionately. It doesn't have to be an issue that divides our party. I would love for everybody to ride the wave together and start winning elections other than just the presidency every other time.
Or we can fight and go around in circles, the progressives being angry and frustrated about the fact there are so few people in power who care about how they act around big money and the signals that sends, the liberals exasperated that people who could help them win seem to care so much about this stuff.
The TEA Party has an edge in that it was working with a culture the GOP spent literally decades shaping their views, they were professionally organized, and had access to Scrooge McDuck money via the Koch's. The left hasn't got any of that. Their purity testing has also made their party worse since it alienated the moderates and paved the way for the Trumpets to take over the party. Their victory was America's loss.
I'm not discussing the 2016 election.
But as far as I can tell, no progressive ideas have actually alienated moderates. Certainly not the idea that politicians shouldn't be in hock to Wall Street. I ask you to prove otherwise.
Two things alienated moderates since 1965:
1) The Democratic Party becoming the party of and for African-Americans. Atwater, Nixon, and Reagan so poisoned the well that now people believe that benefits Democrats are offering and benefits that Republicans are gutting are those that go to black people, and whites wouldn't get them/lose them respectively.
2) People crave order and don't like protest that disrupts their lives. Which is the point, but it alienated a significant group of people. Nixon and especially Reagan ran on attacking campus protesters. And it was extraordinarily popular.
Given the events of the last eight years, Stupid Nixon getting elected should have been more forseeable than it was for any of us.
So your argument is that progressives should ignore inequality or racism?
No, that's my moral line we shouldn't cross. It makes things difficult politically is my point.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"You silly leftists. Your concerns are merely optics and theater. We operate on a level of pure policy, above these trifling distractions.
Also, dear God please vote for us! We're getting destroyed out there."
Any person who's a leftist should be concerned about this, the Dems are the only mainstream party fighting for your causes. Dems getting destroyed means the right run this town.
That said, yes this particular issue with Obama is a distraction. No one is suggesting the matters in general being argued aren't necessary for the better of the party, where opinions differ is how hard the measures in correcting the damage should be. Remember, we're your allies - the real opposition is the GOP.
I would be more willing to buy the argument that the further we move to the left, economically speaking, the more we alienate centrist Dems, who we need to cater to instead, if we didn't have the Tea Party showing that every time the Republicans closer to the center make noise about ideas too far to the right being unacceptable they end up voting for the far right anyway. Every time I hear someone say the left getting its own Tea Party-esque coalition would be terrible, because of all the purity testing, I scratch my head. The Tea Party is winning elections all over the damn place.
Progressives might only be part of the Democratic coalition, and maybe even a minority, but we're big enough to help win elections, and we're starting to wake up to the fact that liberals need us as much as we need them. With that comes some expectations.
Income inequality is not race-agnostic, it affects POC disproportionately. It doesn't have to be an issue that divides our party. I would love for everybody to ride the wave together and start winning elections other than just the presidency every other time.
Or we can fight and go around in circles, the progressives being angry and frustrated about the fact there are so few people in power who care about how they act around big money and the signals that sends, the liberals exasperated that people who could help them win seem to care so much about this stuff.
The TEA Party has an edge in that it was working with a culture the GOP spent literally decades shaping their views, they were professionally organized, and had access to Scrooge McDuck money via the Koch's. The left hasn't got any of that. Their purity testing has also made their party worse since it alienated the moderates and paved the way for the Trumpets to take over the party. Their victory was America's loss.
Why do you think its leftists who have alienated moderates?
I would be more willing to buy the argument that the further we move to the left, economically speaking, the more we alienate centrist Dems, who we need to cater to instead, if we didn't have the Tea Party showing that every time the Republicans closer to the center make noise about ideas too far to the right being unacceptable they end up voting for the far right anyway. Every time I hear someone say the left getting its own Tea Party-esque coalition would be terrible, because of all the purity testing, I scratch my head. The Tea Party is winning elections all over the damn place.
Progressives might only be part of the Democratic coalition, and maybe even a minority, but we're big enough to help win elections, and we're starting to wake up to the fact that liberals need us as much as we need them. With that comes some expectations.
Income inequality is not race-agnostic, it affects POC disproportionately. It doesn't have to be an issue that divides our party. I would love for everybody to ride the wave together and start winning elections other than just the presidency every other time.
Or we can fight and go around in circles, the progressives being angry and frustrated about the fact there are so few people in power who care about how they act around big money and the signals that sends, the liberals exasperated that people who could help them win seem to care so much about this stuff.
The TEA Party has an edge in that it was working with a culture the GOP spent literally decades shaping their views, they were professionally organized, and had access to Scrooge McDuck money via the Koch's. The left hasn't got any of that. Their purity testing has also made their party worse since it alienated the moderates and paved the way for the Trumpets to take over the party. Their victory was America's loss.
I'm not discussing the 2016 election.
But as far as I can tell, no progressive ideas have actually alienated moderates. Certainly not the idea that politicians shouldn't be in hock to Wall Street. I ask you to prove otherwise.
Two things alienated moderates since 1965:
1) The Democratic Party becoming the party of and for African-Americans. Atwater, Nixon, and Reagan so poisoned the well that now people believe that benefits Democrats are offering and benefits that Republicans are gutting are those that go to black people, and whites wouldn't get them/lose them respectively.
2) People crave order and don't like protest that disrupts their lives. Which is the point, but it alienated a significant group of people. Nixon and especially Reagan ran on attacking campus protesters. And it was extraordinarily popular.
Given the events of the last eight years, Stupid Nixon getting elected should have been more forseeable than it was for any of us.
Alternatively, people stopped feeling the Democrats had much of anything to offer them after literally decades of triangulating and waffling.
Posts
The Tea Party can command such power because they can win their people elections. The geographic bias of the US system of government favours them and does not favour us (as in, the political Left).
The Senate is the simplest example of this. The Democrats need Senators from more conservative states to hold a majority. Just ... period. Hence they have a hold on federal politics in a way that more left-wing groups don't.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Two things alienated moderates since 1965:
1) The Democratic Party becoming the party of and for African-Americans. Atwater, Nixon, and Reagan so poisoned the well that now people believe that benefits Democrats are offering and benefits that Republicans are gutting are those that go to black people, and whites wouldn't get them/lose them respectively.
2) People crave order and don't like protest that disrupts their lives. Which is the point, but it alienated a significant group of people. Nixon and especially Reagan ran on attacking campus protesters. And it was extraordinarily popular.
Given the events of the last eight years, Stupid Nixon getting elected should have been more forseeable than it was for any of us.
So your argument is that progressives should ignore inequality or racism?
No, that's my moral line we shouldn't cross. It makes things difficult politically is my point.
Any person who's a leftist should be concerned about this, the Dems are the only mainstream party fighting for your causes. Dems getting destroyed means the right run this town.
That said, yes this particular issue with Obama is a distraction. No one is suggesting the matters in general being argued aren't necessary for the better of the party, where opinions differ is how hard the measures in correcting the damage should be. Remember, we're your allies - the real opposition is the GOP.
Why do you think its leftists who have alienated moderates?
Alternatively, people stopped feeling the Democrats had much of anything to offer them after literally decades of triangulating and waffling.