Does anyone really think that this or any democrat is not going to vote EXACTLY as Nancy Pelosi tells them to vote? Come on now. They may be 'different' to get elected , but they will vote the party line.
If Democrats voted "EXACTLY as Nancy Pelosi tells them to vote"
Trump would not be President.
Trump would not be President.
Of course Mr. Perez refuses to bad-name billionaires. They are all that is keeping the Democrats funded now. You think everyday working people are going to pour well over $20 million into one Congressional seat race?
If the people impacted by the Bernie supporter's attempted massacre or one of the next few start suing either the Party or the news media encouraging violence, the lawyers owing their loyalty to Democrats will be in a tight spot on whether to represent these plaintiffs or not. The Scalise family has a solid, provable case.
If the people impacted by the Bernie supporter's attempted massacre or one of the next few start suing either the Party or the news media encouraging violence, the lawyers owing their loyalty to Democrats will be in a tight spot on whether to represent these plaintiffs or not. The Scalise family has a solid, provable case.
All politics is local. What is so profound about this piece?
"the Democrats will need to nominate people more like Jon Ossoff than Bernie Sanders in the most competitive districts, which tend to be well-educated, traditionally Republican, affluent districts that backed Clinton over Sanders in the primary."
So education results in support for Milquetoasts? Or is it affluence that does it?
I suppose having wishy-washy Democrats is better than Ryan-McConnell clones, but it is definitely a severe compromise.
So education results in support for Milquetoasts? Or is it affluence that does it?
I suppose having wishy-washy Democrats is better than Ryan-McConnell clones, but it is definitely a severe compromise.
2
The capitalist Democrats were the only people the party even wanted to see come in the door until the 1990's. That pendulum is perhaps already swinging back the other way.
Nate, you need to fix the editing error right in the opening!
"discussed the Democrats’ strategy in coming elections after Jon Ossoff came fell just short of winning outright Tuesday in a House special election in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional"
"Came fell" is a new one on us!
"discussed the Democrats’ strategy in coming elections after Jon Ossoff came fell just short of winning outright Tuesday in a House special election in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional"
"Came fell" is a new one on us!
This should be a walk in the park for a party/movement with good political sense ("all politics is local") but the movement ideologues stand athwart the path. With the zeal of a medieval church prelate ("believe in every dogma without question or go to hell"), the hard left wants their purity of ideology to command all, even in so-called "flyover land".
There is such unease in the land over the crude and offensive occupant of the White House, his lack of depth and his trafficking in conspiracy and far -right memes. Yet, Dems still prefer to deal with boutique culture war issues, and not the much more important economic, employment and financial security issues. Add in affordable health care and a decent and available education for all. Finally a message on the environment that is nuanced and doesn't come across as green zealotry, but "we're all in this together for our kids and grandkids and compromise is not a dirty word"."
Nominate and support candidates who can win in districts where the left is a minority even if such candidates are only "pure" on the big economic justice, healthcare and tax issues, and "wrong" on the pelvic and gun issues. Otherwise start reading the part of our Constitution dealing with amendments and states calling a convention to do so. The GOP is a hairline away from total control of enough states to void or radically change large parts of the Bill of Rights. That's not a dystopian fantasy, left wing purists. It is reality.
There is such unease in the land over the crude and offensive occupant of the White House, his lack of depth and his trafficking in conspiracy and far -right memes. Yet, Dems still prefer to deal with boutique culture war issues, and not the much more important economic, employment and financial security issues. Add in affordable health care and a decent and available education for all. Finally a message on the environment that is nuanced and doesn't come across as green zealotry, but "we're all in this together for our kids and grandkids and compromise is not a dirty word"."
Nominate and support candidates who can win in districts where the left is a minority even if such candidates are only "pure" on the big economic justice, healthcare and tax issues, and "wrong" on the pelvic and gun issues. Otherwise start reading the part of our Constitution dealing with amendments and states calling a convention to do so. The GOP is a hairline away from total control of enough states to void or radically change large parts of the Bill of Rights. That's not a dystopian fantasy, left wing purists. It is reality.
1
Unworthy Servant: eloquently stated.
Tom Perez--mediocre, more of the same. Using dislike of Trump to elect mainline-"party" Democrats is not winning. Building a foundation of voters based on a progressive platform is the only future for a country worth living in; anything else is meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss politics. Playing election-to-election politics doesn't truly move the ball. It's being told voting to maintain the Democrat status quo is the best we can hope for--and that just isn't good enough.
7
Ossoff is most definitely not a Progressive. He is Third Way all the way.
Harry Truman famously said voters are not stupid. Given a choice between a real Republican and a Republican-Lite they will pick the real thing every time. The Republican-Lite policies championed by the now underground Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintonites that helped birth and nurture it need to go away.
Mr Ossoff will lose the runoff as Republicans will fall in line and take whomever has an R next to their name. The election showed that for all the noise he barely outperformed Hillary Clinton who lost Georgia. The Republican bubble is real and Georgians like the Kool-Aid.
Republican-Lite brought us A GOP Congress and President Trump. The Clintons and their acolytes threw wage earning Americans under the bus in their rush to be "business friendly". The dividing line never mentioned in political discussions is between Salaried & Wage-based work. The people working in jobs with a contract that pay a salary live in a completely different world than those paid by the hour.
When Democrats stop pandering to that mythical creature called the "Middle Class" and start talking to working people they are not likely to see a reversal of fortunes. They also need to set Roe v Wade aside as a litmus test- many are not willing to fall on that sword and not just Conservatives.
Standing with Planned Parenthood is Electoral poison.
Harry Truman famously said voters are not stupid. Given a choice between a real Republican and a Republican-Lite they will pick the real thing every time. The Republican-Lite policies championed by the now underground Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintonites that helped birth and nurture it need to go away.
Mr Ossoff will lose the runoff as Republicans will fall in line and take whomever has an R next to their name. The election showed that for all the noise he barely outperformed Hillary Clinton who lost Georgia. The Republican bubble is real and Georgians like the Kool-Aid.
Republican-Lite brought us A GOP Congress and President Trump. The Clintons and their acolytes threw wage earning Americans under the bus in their rush to be "business friendly". The dividing line never mentioned in political discussions is between Salaried & Wage-based work. The people working in jobs with a contract that pay a salary live in a completely different world than those paid by the hour.
When Democrats stop pandering to that mythical creature called the "Middle Class" and start talking to working people they are not likely to see a reversal of fortunes. They also need to set Roe v Wade aside as a litmus test- many are not willing to fall on that sword and not just Conservatives.
Standing with Planned Parenthood is Electoral poison.
3
Adding to my post, if you want to learn how to win an election, and/or do great things watch the Spielberg LINCOLN movie.
Lincoln was able to get the 13th anti slavery amendment passed by skillfully getting radical total equality republicans and conservative free soil republicans and slave owning border state unionists to by and large support his amendment.
Lincoln was able to get the 13th anti slavery amendment passed by skillfully getting radical total equality republicans and conservative free soil republicans and slave owning border state unionists to by and large support his amendment.
1
I would like Nate Cohn and Toni Monkovic explain to us how many voters in that Florida district have been disenfranchised due to Republican voter suppression laws, aka "photo ID" laws. Were those voters to be free to vote as they are in, say, New York or Massachusetts, would Ossoff have likely won the seat with more than 50% of the vote?
For some reason, voting specialist Nate Cohn refuses to acknowledge how the Republicans' voter suppression efforts affect voting. Time for him to start explaining.
For some reason, voting specialist Nate Cohn refuses to acknowledge how the Republicans' voter suppression efforts affect voting. Time for him to start explaining.
5
Then people wonder why potential Democrats stay at home or vote for Third Party candidates. How did the pitch to disaffected Republicans work for HRC? Not so good. Before Democrats become Republicans to court a few more GOP voters, they ought to remember that voters will prefer the real thing (barring the kind of "break all the rules" candidate we saw in Trump). Why vote for a Democrat playing a Republican, when you can vote for a real one?
5
It worked great in Georgia's 6th. Hillary did better than any Democrat in recent memory ever has. Her strategy was tailor made for districts like that. College educated whites did switch from the GOP to the Dems this year--they just weren't efficiently located as far as the electoral college goes and there was a huge spike in non-college educated white vote--along with a big shift away from the Dems that sunk her in the rustbelt. Absolutely none of that is relevant in places like Orange County and the Atlanta Suburbs. Run an economic populist in rural Ohio and a neoliberal technocrat in suburban Atlanta. That's how you flip the house.
1
Hillary did not campaign as a Republican; SMUCK , as we say in NJ & NY.
For the sake of spite, you can rally around a mediocre candidate and win for a short time. That's what the Republicans ended up doing. Or, for the sake of actually making a difference, you can rally around a candidate who you truly believe in and who will last long enough in office to make that difference. That's what Democrats used to do and should be doing now.
6
Translation: "We [Democrats] don't know what we're for, just what we're against - Trump!" Good luck with that.
5
So Sanders declines to identify as a Democrat but feels free to tell the Democratic party what to do. Got it.
3
Post Tuesday articles such as this one fail to provide some illuminating numbers.
The candidate against Price in November, Rodney Stooksbury (who may not actually exist since little can be found about him, and nothing about him surfaced during the special election apparently), spent 44,000 on his campaign and received 125,000 votes while Ossoff spent a ridiculously large multiple of that and got under 93,000 votes. This means that had Ossoff managed to corral just a teeny tiny larger percentage of this difference there would have been NO runoff in June. So, how did the Democrat party manage not to attract such a minor increment on Tuesday after spending almost 9million dollars?
I think this little fact deserves some additional commentary that goes
beyond the standard head nodding fluff about the demographics of the district, and the difference between the tally for the so-called POTUS and his opponent that suggested a district "ripe for flipping".
It seems to me to say an awful lot, most of it highly negative, about
the ability of the Democrat party to actually do door to door canvassing and systematic voter reach out. What did it spend so much money on precisely? How does one not qualify this spending as a ridiculously unimaginative waste of resources?
Please explain.
If Ossoff intends to run the same type of message free media oriented campaign, he may need some help from the so-called one with yet
more cretinous tweets, stupid policy proposals, etc etc.
The candidate against Price in November, Rodney Stooksbury (who may not actually exist since little can be found about him, and nothing about him surfaced during the special election apparently), spent 44,000 on his campaign and received 125,000 votes while Ossoff spent a ridiculously large multiple of that and got under 93,000 votes. This means that had Ossoff managed to corral just a teeny tiny larger percentage of this difference there would have been NO runoff in June. So, how did the Democrat party manage not to attract such a minor increment on Tuesday after spending almost 9million dollars?
I think this little fact deserves some additional commentary that goes
beyond the standard head nodding fluff about the demographics of the district, and the difference between the tally for the so-called POTUS and his opponent that suggested a district "ripe for flipping".
It seems to me to say an awful lot, most of it highly negative, about
the ability of the Democrat party to actually do door to door canvassing and systematic voter reach out. What did it spend so much money on precisely? How does one not qualify this spending as a ridiculously unimaginative waste of resources?
Please explain.
If Ossoff intends to run the same type of message free media oriented campaign, he may need some help from the so-called one with yet
more cretinous tweets, stupid policy proposals, etc etc.
3
What, specifically, was the "different" plan Ossoff had for the Georgia 6th district? All I saw was same old boilerplate, uninspired announcement of fighting waste and abuse and working with Congress to bring jobs... All we can reasonably expect a freshman congressman with little business experience and a largely irrelevant college degree to do in Congress is follow the party line. Especially in the monetized political experience these days when our elected representatives seem to have re-election funding as a main focus of their work shortly after being sworn in, we have to expect there will be puppet behavior.
Ossoff is now running against someone who has had experience in Georgia politics and has, perhaps, more understanding of how to work around the system.
It will be interesting.
I've seen some Democrat party negative ads on TV, but thankfully my phone has had a little respite and no campaign mail as of Friday.
Ossoff is now running against someone who has had experience in Georgia politics and has, perhaps, more understanding of how to work around the system.
It will be interesting.
I've seen some Democrat party negative ads on TV, but thankfully my phone has had a little respite and no campaign mail as of Friday.
2
Right. He's running against a woman who destroyed the Komen organization fighting breast cancer, got busted disenfranchising the minority vote by kicking them off the voting lists, and wasn't born or raised in Georgia. Sounds like a flop.
4
Democrats need to start the discussion on basic income. Set it at 17K a year for every citizen beginning on their 18th birthday, and $4000 a year each for your first two children. Roll Social Security into it (up the amount to 17K for those who get less, pay the extra on top for those who get more). Eliminate food stamps, pell grants, ss disability, SSI, etc and all the administrative costs that go with them. Tax income, capital gains and inheritance taxes progressively (although at different rates) and add 3 more top brackets 41% for over a million, 44% for over 15 million and 46% for over 30 billion.
This should appeal to Libertarians because it lets individual decide how to allocate resources, it should appeal to republicans because it drastically cuts the 'size' of government - so many less government employees needed. It should appeal to those who think that government handouts prevent people from working - because it is true that if you are getting supplemental funds that will then end if you get a job, there is not much incentive to work. This $17K comes to you regardless of whether you work or not. It also would be a huge asset to those who need to stay home to care for elderly parents or children. It would allow for some people to do so which opens up the job market for others who want to work. Lastly it should appeal to democrats because it pretty much eliminates extreme poverty, and helps to 'level the playing field'.
This should appeal to Libertarians because it lets individual decide how to allocate resources, it should appeal to republicans because it drastically cuts the 'size' of government - so many less government employees needed. It should appeal to those who think that government handouts prevent people from working - because it is true that if you are getting supplemental funds that will then end if you get a job, there is not much incentive to work. This $17K comes to you regardless of whether you work or not. It also would be a huge asset to those who need to stay home to care for elderly parents or children. It would allow for some people to do so which opens up the job market for others who want to work. Lastly it should appeal to democrats because it pretty much eliminates extreme poverty, and helps to 'level the playing field'.
7
If the dems want to win in this district or any district there is a simple solution.
Don't run a identity obsessed, extremely liberal social program candidacy like Hillary did.
Dems don't have to give up on progressive issues like some of the above but to stress it as the mainstay of her campaign did her in.
Stick with progressive issues but also put at the top issues critical to moderate republicans and democrats like rust belt jobs going overseas, wall street running the country, not getting into foreign wars, affordable, quality health care etc. etc.
Don't run a identity obsessed, extremely liberal social program candidacy like Hillary did.
Dems don't have to give up on progressive issues like some of the above but to stress it as the mainstay of her campaign did her in.
Stick with progressive issues but also put at the top issues critical to moderate republicans and democrats like rust belt jobs going overseas, wall street running the country, not getting into foreign wars, affordable, quality health care etc. etc.
9
The disparate Democratic interest groups need to coalesce around candidates. There isn't enough unity of purpose. Each group (environmental, guns rights, women's rights, civil rights, animal rights, education, seniors, etc.) tends to focus too much on its agenda and goals and forgets to join forces and speak with a singular, if less specific, voice. Republicans come together as they did in supporting the nomination of Trump and then of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Democrats need to heed that practice and worry about the details after electing Democratic candidates. To some extent that's what happened in 2016; some groups took the my way or the highway approach and Dems lost. I suspect 95% of Democrats would gladly take dealing with Hillary as President to dealing with Trump. No matter their particular cause, Hillary was more likely to support it than Trump.
8
The rise of alternative media has made Cohn's and Monkovic's advice to D candidates (to lie about their positions) almost impossible to successfully execute: ("Toni: He wants babies and puppies to grow up to be healthy and for skies to be sunny. Nate: This is probably a tactic that a lot of Democrats will adopt in traditionally conservative, well-educated districts where Trump struggled in November.")
Voters in, "conservative, well-educated districts", already understand (or will be made aware during the general election) that to rise in the D party, all elected D's must espouse, support and vote for democratic socialist programs.
Voters in, "conservative, well-educated districts", already understand (or will be made aware during the general election) that to rise in the D party, all elected D's must espouse, support and vote for democratic socialist programs.
Out here in rural flyover country, it is the Democrat Farm Labor party in some states. The problem is the Democrat party of the coasts and metropolitan areas that is in control of the party and they pay no attention or support, not even lip service, to the needs of the party in the interior, let alone think alike on various issues. Just one example. Gun issues are a non issue for any politician out here but local Republican candidates paint all DFL candidates as supporting the national Democratic position.
8
I doubt that people in "rural flyover country" or the "DFL" are really in support of ANY of the Republicker positions, or opposed to the liberal Democratic positions.
The problem is that Goebbels "big lie" policy really does work and the Democrats have done a woefully inadequate job of countering it. Republickers stand up and repeat the most absurd things with a straight face and pretty soon even they believe the nonsense.
It's time to say that the basic Democratic principals dating back to leaders like Robert Wagner (I, II, and II), Franklin Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, the Kennedys, and LBJ were valid yesterday, are valid today, and will be valid tomorrow.
Anybody who puts in a day's work in this country deserves a day's wages.
Anybody who lives in this country has the right to be safe at home, on the street or crossing the border -- from criminal activity from private citizens or government employees, including police.
Anybody who lives in this country deserves a decent place to live -- with proper heat, running hot and cold water, and without vermin infestation.
The Second Amendment, like all parts of the Constitution, is absolute. It must be balanced against other rights. Whatever the literal text says, there is no right to build or possess an atomic bomb in your garage. What those limits are certainly must be debated, but all must recognize that they exist.
Is there any Democrat who would not support these positions?
The problem is that Goebbels "big lie" policy really does work and the Democrats have done a woefully inadequate job of countering it. Republickers stand up and repeat the most absurd things with a straight face and pretty soon even they believe the nonsense.
It's time to say that the basic Democratic principals dating back to leaders like Robert Wagner (I, II, and II), Franklin Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, the Kennedys, and LBJ were valid yesterday, are valid today, and will be valid tomorrow.
Anybody who puts in a day's work in this country deserves a day's wages.
Anybody who lives in this country has the right to be safe at home, on the street or crossing the border -- from criminal activity from private citizens or government employees, including police.
Anybody who lives in this country deserves a decent place to live -- with proper heat, running hot and cold water, and without vermin infestation.
The Second Amendment, like all parts of the Constitution, is absolute. It must be balanced against other rights. Whatever the literal text says, there is no right to build or possess an atomic bomb in your garage. What those limits are certainly must be debated, but all must recognize that they exist.
Is there any Democrat who would not support these positions?
4
One thing I've seen very little discussion of is how to use the energized base in contestable districts. I don't see much evidence that Democrats are asking local supporters to knock on doors, or getting strong supporters to travel to contested districts.
Instead, I just get a barrage of requests for funds, to buy ads or pay professional canvassers.
Engaging the base in this way would be better than hiring pros. When people see other regular people motivated enough to come speak to them about an upcoming election, that is effective. It also helps keep the base focused and engaged.
Instead, I just get a barrage of requests for funds, to buy ads or pay professional canvassers.
Engaging the base in this way would be better than hiring pros. When people see other regular people motivated enough to come speak to them about an upcoming election, that is effective. It also helps keep the base focused and engaged.
14
I think it has to come from local movements. In Florida, it's happening with a group that's determined to make sure Florida is blue in 2018. They're asking people to do more than they bargained for, actually. They want time-intensive volunteers.
3
Yep, I get emails from the Dems every day ostensibly asking what I think. I rarely read the messages, but as I recall, I would get to answer some yes/no question that was rigged to get the desired response, and then when I clicked (at first in foolish hope of being asked to elaborate in actual sentences), I was hit for money at a time when I just didn't have any and the Clinton campaign was rolling in dough.
Nothing short of gardens shears clipping off my joints one by one could induce me to vote for a Republican, but I don't feel engaged by my own party, and they aren't using the interconnectivity of media to match people with tasks they would willingly do—or to find out what people really want and how we ordinary people really talk about issues. And by "ordinary people," I don't mean finding the least informed, most resentful uneducated inhabitants of coal country and thinking they somehow represent the concerns of most Americans in the vast middle.
Nothing short of gardens shears clipping off my joints one by one could induce me to vote for a Republican, but I don't feel engaged by my own party, and they aren't using the interconnectivity of media to match people with tasks they would willingly do—or to find out what people really want and how we ordinary people really talk about issues. And by "ordinary people," I don't mean finding the least informed, most resentful uneducated inhabitants of coal country and thinking they somehow represent the concerns of most Americans in the vast middle.
6
In Georgia 06 the Ossoff canvassers are volunteers, unlike the 90 paid operatives that the RNC sent in late March.
Somewhere Tip O'Neill is smiling. All politics is local. This is still true.
13
Sanders has been a great Advocate but now is the time for him to leave the stage. I cringe when I see him now- let Ossoff run his own campaign -- he does not want the extreme FAR Left on his side- Ossoff is the new generation-- it's time we let the new generation to ever-so-gently take over! It makes me a proud Democrat to watch Ossoff on television.
23
The leftmost wing of the Democratic party isn't "far left". Sanders is a New Deal liberal and so are like-minded Democrats such as myself.
Ossoff wouldn't appeal to me if he were running in my district but he's not. If he can win over enough Romney-lovers in GA06 to win the seat then more power to him. Even if we don't see eye to eye on everything there are issues where we'll be able to work together. In that regard he'd be a huge upgrade over Price.
(Here's how we move forward: Upgrade from right-wing Republicans to conservative Democrats where right-wingers hold seats and to Sanders/Warren liberals where milquetoast Dems hold seats.)
Ossoff wouldn't appeal to me if he were running in my district but he's not. If he can win over enough Romney-lovers in GA06 to win the seat then more power to him. Even if we don't see eye to eye on everything there are issues where we'll be able to work together. In that regard he'd be a huge upgrade over Price.
(Here's how we move forward: Upgrade from right-wing Republicans to conservative Democrats where right-wingers hold seats and to Sanders/Warren liberals where milquetoast Dems hold seats.)
34
Mainly agree Chris...Ossoff is a unknown factor but Bernie isn't. You are right. Bernie did not run a identity obsessed, far left social issues campaign.
Although he is a progressive, he also stressed issues close to moderate republicans and democrats like rust belt jobs going overseas, wall street running the country, a new foreign entanglement every year, no quality affordable health care etc. etc.
Although he is a progressive, he also stressed issues close to moderate republicans and democrats like rust belt jobs going overseas, wall street running the country, a new foreign entanglement every year, no quality affordable health care etc. etc.
3
The problem for you is Mr Ossoff is asking for votes in Georgia, not Massachusetts. As a person born in the North who lives in the South- including Georgia for a while- let me explain things.
Down here even the Democrats are for the most part socially conservative and drawing a bright line with the Feminists that owned the Hillary Clinton Campaign is pure political poison. Abortion is a non-starter, even Bill had to shade his position on it a generation ago. Most down here are not comfortable with abortion as a common and regular thing.
Guns are not only common in much of the South, they are a cultural touchstone even among those who do not own firearms. If you espouse Brady Campaign language down here you are already conceding the election in all but the Bluest urban districts.
If the Democrats want to become a national party again they need to get back to championing working people and inclusion. Not rabid feminism like Ms Clinton's crowd. Take a look at the results from November by county and then observe the red everywhere. That is what Identity Politics will get you in America.
It's the economy, just like in 1992.
Down here even the Democrats are for the most part socially conservative and drawing a bright line with the Feminists that owned the Hillary Clinton Campaign is pure political poison. Abortion is a non-starter, even Bill had to shade his position on it a generation ago. Most down here are not comfortable with abortion as a common and regular thing.
Guns are not only common in much of the South, they are a cultural touchstone even among those who do not own firearms. If you espouse Brady Campaign language down here you are already conceding the election in all but the Bluest urban districts.
If the Democrats want to become a national party again they need to get back to championing working people and inclusion. Not rabid feminism like Ms Clinton's crowd. Take a look at the results from November by county and then observe the red everywhere. That is what Identity Politics will get you in America.
It's the economy, just like in 1992.
2
Looking at how much money was spent campaigning on this race is heartbreaking when I consider how many other things this money could have been put toward. Already, they've spent over $14 million, and who knows how much will be spent before the runoff. $20 million? $25 million?
$20 million is almost enough to build a new school, a new hospital, or to put toward much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements in this small district of under 700,000 people.
This is the story across America, billions of dollars that go toward campaigns instead of actually doing something notable for the community.
People across the country are jobless, homeless, starving, unable to pay medical and other bills, unable to afford basic necessities. And all the while, we keep throwing our money into the arena of rich man fighting another for the power to waste our money. Where is that getting us?
We need publicly funded campaigns, with limits on spending, and also limits on the junk mail, robocalls, and TV ads. We need politicians who will stop focusing all their efforts on image and who will focus on plans that help us.
$20 million is almost enough to build a new school, a new hospital, or to put toward much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements in this small district of under 700,000 people.
This is the story across America, billions of dollars that go toward campaigns instead of actually doing something notable for the community.
People across the country are jobless, homeless, starving, unable to pay medical and other bills, unable to afford basic necessities. And all the while, we keep throwing our money into the arena of rich man fighting another for the power to waste our money. Where is that getting us?
We need publicly funded campaigns, with limits on spending, and also limits on the junk mail, robocalls, and TV ads. We need politicians who will stop focusing all their efforts on image and who will focus on plans that help us.
32
The money did not vanish into thin air. Someone did some work to earn it, and is now able to spend it. The most frivolous activities keep the economy humming along.
5
This is the new "poster child" race as to why election reform is needed, but will not come until and unless Citizens United is overturned.
1
This entire discussion illustrates the Dems dilemma: it argues about how the Dems should APPEAR, and how to shape-shift from one arena to another - like a chameleon: all things to all men. It is this appearance of ridiculous plasticity and duplicity instead of conviction that lost them the last election.
How about a solid platform to get jobs for the middle class, to redirect job loss due to automation and outsourcing, and some convincing candidates??
How about a solid platform to get jobs for the middle class, to redirect job loss due to automation and outsourcing, and some convincing candidates??
17
What Democratic candidates have you found convincing - looking back over the past couple decades as well as recent election cycles?
For me, Sanders and Warren have been convincing in recent years, Sherrod Brown too. I can't think of many headline Dems who impressed me during the Obama, Bush, and Clinton years though. Looking back a couple decades: Jerry Brown in 92, Tom Harkin in the 80s and 90s, and Paul Wellstone were good ones. MT Gov Steve Bullock seems pretty solid and Brian Schweitzer seemed pretty decent too. I generally liked Biden. That's my quick take. Yours?
For me, Sanders and Warren have been convincing in recent years, Sherrod Brown too. I can't think of many headline Dems who impressed me during the Obama, Bush, and Clinton years though. Looking back a couple decades: Jerry Brown in 92, Tom Harkin in the 80s and 90s, and Paul Wellstone were good ones. MT Gov Steve Bullock seems pretty solid and Brian Schweitzer seemed pretty decent too. I generally liked Biden. That's my quick take. Yours?
4
The democrats had a solid platform in 2016.
5
"Shape shifting and duplicity" were the very essence of the Trump campaign, and it didn't seem to hurt. Unfair!
I agree with Nate's conclusion that "the Democrats will need to nominate people more like Jon Ossoff than Bernie Sanders." I just wrote the DSCC to let them know that I'll stop sending them money if they send me one more email touting the wonders of Bernie Sanders. Sanders isn't a Democrat, only supports Democrats who support him, and doesn't represent the values I care about, particularly equal rights for women and people of color. Bernie may destroy the Democratic Party if it continues to hold him up as though he is its leader.
30
I completely agree with you. I think Sanders wants to destroy the Democratic party and make it a party of himself. The similarity of ego to Trump is upsetting. Sanders will not stoop to becoming a Democrat, the Democrats must bow to him.
Bernie Sanders' concentration is on his Our Revolution (group/party?). He has confirmed he is not a Democrat - no need, he doesn't have to be one. But the Democratic Party has plans to tout his progressive principles, which are too narrow for a big tent concept which is traditionally Democratic. And Nate Cohn is right - we need candidates like Jon Orsoff - he's bright, young, and holds sound, sensible views.
Bernie in the end is for Bernie, and people in the Party didn't want to rock the boat by pointing out that he was another factor in Hillary's loss. He expected people to decide at the last minute that he should be the nominee (erroneously insisting that only he could win). Because of his wrongheaded ideas, he didn't come out for Hillary until the last minute, having many followers remain "his" rather than convincing them to support Hillary. He then lost control of many of them, some of whom becoming totally unhinged and refusing to vote for anyone. Bernie couldn't have won, cannot win, and doesn’t get it. He was under the radar in the race, and the GOP never seriously went after him. There’s lots to find, and in the end he was and is a much weaker candidate than Hillary. He never gave his strong support for Hillary (as she gave Obama), and this made a difference. Yes, he is not really a Democrat, but finds it convenient to caucus with them and to try to take over the party. His far left position is not the winning strategy the Dems need to become the dominant party again. If Osoff wins, I believe that could be a good thing for our country and for the Dems because he has moderate views, and it could signal more moderation in other races. But we need to get rid of Citizens United and try to get more sanity into our electoral system; fixing the gerrymandering would be a good start as well. After all, for now, our country is being run by a overbearing minority.
It's too soon to formulate a campaign strategy for 2018, because the results on Congress and the Presidency must at this stage be graded as 'incomplete', but trying to run on anger alone is a negative and regressive tactic. Because, not everyone is angry. Americans are going about their everyday lives, and shaking their heads at the mess in Washington, just as they always do. I think the media centers on the east coast think the whole country is steaming mad, because they are, and that is a mistake. In this, the new DNC Chairman's moderate stance is correct. If the Congress and President Trump continue to bumble along, and fail to energize the economy as they have promised, and don't enact some of their big reforms, like tax reform, or reforming the ACA, there will be plenty to run on in 2018 without resorting to the trendy anti-Trump sloganeering that delights the establishment press.
12