Democrats don’t need “moderates” to win
Hi Dem “moderate” & fuck you. We don’t need your kind, or conservatives who don’t like Trump to win elections.
Jeet Heer at The Nation, explains why Democrats don’t need and shouldn’t pander to people like David Brooks who claim the party needs to appeal to conservatives:
The best thing about Brooks’s column is his frank use of the first person singular. Although he makes gestures to other hypothetical moderate voters, he is candid that the question is whether the Democrats will nominate someone “I can vote for.” This “I” is honest, since Brooks is speaking for a tiny faction, Never Trump conservatives, who twice demonstrated in 2016 that they were a powerless rump minority in the real world of politics. Never Trump conservatives failed to stop Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination. They then failed to mobilize a sufficient number of voters to support Hillary Clinton and keep Trump from his Electoral College victory. Yet the humiliation of these defeats has done nothing to hamper their self-confidence in offering political advice.
Although minuscule in numbers, Never Trump conservatives have an enormously outsize voice in the American mainstream media. They beloved by mainstream outlets that want to present a balanced editorial voice, but are also horror stricken by Trump’s vulgarity and corruption. Besides Brooks, the New York Times op-ed page has two other conservatives who are mortified by Trump, if not always Trumpism: Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat.
Via Daily Kos
Sorry but not accurate. Radicals never win nationally and never have. We used this whole we don’t need the white working class in 2016 and it blew up in our face. I don’t ever Remember folks like Mondale or Humphrey’s having success. Moreover in the primary process nationally they get rejected Clinton bear sanders. Kerry beat dean. Gore beat Bradley. Clinton beat Jackson etc. want me to keep going? Oh yes moderates won the house for dems not districts like aoc where my pet rock would of won as a Democrat. They won by running on moderate platforms and if you think you are Gona lose the suburbs and elect a democrat then you are a dumb as a Sussex county republican.
Self-identified “moderates” all end up voting Republican or third party anyway. “Moderate” means “Trump is maybe a little over the top, but the Democrat is not an option because (insert latest right-wing smear).”
@Lurker the tell is your use of the word “radical” to describe the Democratic field of candidates. As always, projection. Trump is the culmination and logical outcome of decades of Republican radicalism.
If you want to get back to the center – see that little dot way over to your left? That’s the center – start heading for it now, it’s going to be a long way back.
What an idiot. He can’t even fully understand his own comment.
“Clinton bear(sic) sanders (and lost). Kerry beat dean (and lost). Gore beat Bradley (and lost).’
That’s not accurate either @puck. Moderates voted for Obama. Obama was a moderate. Radical is telling people they can’t have the insurance they want. Medicare for all in its truest form would wipe out the Democratic Party. Having free college for rich kids paid on the backs of union kids who don’t go to college is insane. Saying there can be no restrictions on abortion is again insane. It’s popular among a small insulated portion of the party loud on social media. It’s is a fact that 48 percent of the party still identifies as moderate or conservative but hey want to get rid of them life in the permanent minority of politics.
The people like leftist ideas. The Democratic party does not.
Well said. Pandering to idiots and assholes like Lurker is a tried and true way to drive down voter participation and lose elections.
“Radical is telling people they can’t have the insurance they want.”
“The insurance they want” is almost always employer-supplied, because employers can write off the expense; individuals can’t. If the write-off were ended, so would employer-provided insurance, and nobody would ever complain about “the insurance they want” again.
In very blue Washington state, the voters were asked, twice, by Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) to approve significant — and increasing — carbon emissions taxes on industry, and climate change scores big on polls of Democrats among voter concerns.
Yet when the voters realized that this liberal program was going to cost them, personally, money, they voted against it, by a landslide margin. It’s all well and good to oppose climate change . . . as long as we don’t have to don something really radical and pay for it.
And now the various Democratic candidates are pushing forgiveness of student loan debt and “free” college, whatever that means. Sounds great, doesn’t it, right up until the voters realize that those proposals are going to cost them more money. Forgiving student loan debt would be taxing American workers, 2/3 of whom do not have college degrees, to provide a benefit for their bosses. “Free” college will be providing a benefit for the people who are going to become the bosses of working families’ children, all at a cost to the taxpayers.
Medicare for All? I’m convinced that anyone who advocates that has never actually been on Medicare! After 45 years of paying Medicare taxes, I am still charged $134 a month for Parts A & B, and since A & B only cover 80%, I have to buy private Medicare supplemental insurance, for $130.61 per month, and I didn’t buy Part D, because I’m not on any prescription medications.
All of the liberal programs which you love and see as good things will take money out of the taxpayers’ pockets, and rather than persuade the voters that yes, their taxes will increase but that they will be better off for it, the candidates are all telling the voters that no, it won’t be the voters who have to pay for all of this stuff, but someone else will, the rich or those evil ol’ corporations. That’s as ridiculous as thinking that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.
I visited this fine site mainly to see what you were thinking about New Castle County’s own Joe Biden and the busing flap with Kamala Harris. Senator Harris is now fudging on her busing position, even though she smacked Mr Biden pretty good with it, because maybe, just maybe, she realized that advocating forced busing isn’t exactly a winning issue.
We had our daughters in parochial school before we ever moved to Delaware, so that was our natural choice. Then we got to see, first hand, how jam packed Corpus Christi School was, no lunchroom, thirty-three kids to a class and there were still children turned away. Padua Academy, where our older daughter would have gone had we stayed, had a waiting list, though apparently anyone who applied to St Mark’s was admitted. NCCo isn’t that big a place, but it was supporting four diocesan high schools, plus two — or was it three? — non-diocesan high schools, plus a scad of non-Catholic private schools, much of it due to how the people, how the voters, reacted to the busing orders.
Yet this is what Senator Harris is helping the voters see as a radical idea. Good luck with that!
All those parochial schools were there before busing.
You will find lots of private schools in Mississippi and Alabama, too.
Your argument is “people are bigoted and selfish.”
Thanks, but we already knew.
Gee Dana, you are not much of a bigot are you? At least you are true to your convictions. Thanks for your wisdom. The GOP will be glad to hear from you.
Well, Mr Lefty, I wasn’t in New Castle County when you guys practically destroyed the public schools after the forced busing order; y’all did that before I got there.
Do you believe that forced busing is a good idea? And, the obvious question: when it was in force, did it work?
What was the real purpose of busing? The idea was that young people would grow up associating with all races, and that this would lead, eventually, to racially integrated neighborhoods, as blacks and whites and everybody else was simply used to each other. My good friend Hube tells me that the suburbs are a bit more integrated now — when we left Hockessin, there were virtually no blacks living there at all — but that the city itself is very heavily minority.
New York City, very politically liberal and very heavily “cosmopolitan,” has the most segregated public school system in the country, because neighborhoods in NYC remain heavily segregated. We were able to use busing to force students together, but, Alas! the choice of where to buy a house and live is not subject to government control, and the public have chosen mostly segregated living patterns.
“We all” didn’t do that. The DuPont Co. did that, lending its lawyers to the court case because it didn’t want to get stuck with the bill for supporting the Wilmington school system as other firms left the city.
People who opposed it didn’t oppose it because they knew it wouldn’t work. They opposed it because they didn’t want their kids going to school with black kids, pure and simple. And once the schools were desegregated — necessary because red-lining, not natural inclination, kept neighborhoods all-white instead of mostly white — taxpayers stopped supporting those schools.
Your argument is that, people being impure, the Democratic Party should follow suit. If everybody thought that way, there would be no need for a Democratic Party. We could all just be ass-sucking Republicans.
PS: My Hockessin next-door neighbors are black, and they were living there when I moved in 20 years ago.
Dana is showing himself to be a Joe Biden Republican, lol Dana.
Dang Dana, are you for real or just a Russian troll.
https://youtu.be/S3RHnKYNvx8
Smooth evasion.
“The doing of them will not cost anybody anything.”