Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

angrychair

(8,700 posts)
Mon Oct 16, 2017, 08:53 PM Oct 2017

We could lose to trump for being to liberal

So says Sen Dick Durbin.

I say if we lose to trump for any reason in 2020 than we have no reason to exist as a political party.

So you could lose it by being too liberal?" asked the host.
"You can," Durbin said.
"I think you can overdo it. We have to really appeal to that sensible center.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/politics/kfile-dick-durbin-sunday-radio-interview/index.html
64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We could lose to trump for being to liberal (Original Post) angrychair Oct 2017 OP
Vote like your life depended on it. yortsed snacilbuper Oct 2017 #1
It literally does onecaliberal Oct 2017 #2
+1000000000 angrychair Oct 2017 #5
we are the F(*#&$ sensible center. they are insane. bullimiami Oct 2017 #3
Also +1000000000 angrychair Oct 2017 #6
Can overdo what? Does he mean fighting for basic human rights and dignity for ALL people... InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2017 #4
Also +1000000000 angrychair Oct 2017 #7
Huh? Whu? BigmanPigman Oct 2017 #8
He's right fallout87 Oct 2017 #9
And of course, there will always be the nutbags who assert that it's better that a Republican Aristus Oct 2017 #10
Democrats have been appealing to the "sensible center" for as long as I can remember. Garrett78 Oct 2017 #11
Ya think? zipplewrath Oct 2017 #27
The media doesn't help. Voter suppression doesn't help. Garrett78 Oct 2017 #39
The dems have ignored hate radio for over three decades & still do. CrispyQ Oct 2017 #54
Obama is just an icon for the entire party in this cartoon. CrispyQ Oct 2017 #52
Go down with Dan Oct 2017 #12
No. Nominate the most progressive candidate who can actually WIN. pnwmom Oct 2017 #14
No, that is a bad idea. You put out your best winning pitch...because if Trump gets Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #35
George McGovern, a wonderful liberal, lost 49 states to Richard Nixon. pnwmom Oct 2017 #13
Or Walter Mondale, another liberal, got pasted by Reagan. Blue_true Oct 2017 #15
And they keep harkening back to FDR, but if FDR WERE running they'd be screaming pnwmom Oct 2017 #16
Im not debating flavors of Democrat angrychair Oct 2017 #20
Seriously angrychair Oct 2017 #21
No but you don't repeat the mistakes which involved running really liberal candidates when the Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #34
I did not say any of those things. Blue_true Oct 2017 #40
Explain Dubya (or, at least how it was close enough for him to steal). HughBeaumont Oct 2017 #56
The far left attacked Gore like rabid dogs. Blue_true Oct 2017 #57
No. *Democrats* attacked him for bringing PTL pal Lieberturd on the ticket. HughBeaumont Oct 2017 #63
The far left are clueless idiots. Blue_true Oct 2017 #64
We have pretty much go back and forth for the last 70 years, TexasBushwhacker Oct 2017 #41
They're still pushing that "McGovern Lost By Being Too Liberal" myth, mostly because it's useful.... LongTomH Oct 2017 #51
Yep angrychair Oct 2017 #55
Many ways to lose to an incumbent Awsi Dooger Oct 2017 #17
It is possible. Willie Pep Oct 2017 #18
Look at it this way rock Oct 2017 #19
Hey Dick: There IS no "sensible center" . . . hatrack Oct 2017 #22
The sensible center? I read here at DU the "sensible centrist" label is an insult. nt m-lekktor Oct 2017 #23
An eagle can't fly on two right wings. lagomorph777 Oct 2017 #24
So does the fact the top of the ticket got 3 million more votes mountain grammy Oct 2017 #25
he is why we lose. MFM008 Oct 2017 #26
Obama did not run as a liberal...he just didn't. The county is center left at best. We can run on Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #31
Too often the "sensible center" means not drawing distinctions BeyondGeography Oct 2017 #28
That is a great strategy especially medicaid and medicare...also social security. Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #32
Are three spellings of two, too and to two many? MineralMan Oct 2017 #29
The whole issue right now within the party Beearewhyain Oct 2017 #30
It feels way more like the 90's than the 60's Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #33
Too Liberal???? WiffenPoof Oct 2017 #36
Why cant we be secretly liberal, but present a moderate front, similar to repubs unitedwethrive Oct 2017 #37
Democrats have been presenting and acting as moderates for decades. Garrett78 Oct 2017 #42
He needs to be more specific. I have no idea what he's saying. what stance is too liberal? JCanete Oct 2017 #38
One wonders what he even means by "centrist." Garrett78 Oct 2017 #43
yeah, disappointing to hear this from him. nt JCanete Oct 2017 #44
'18 Democratic ads frankly need to say Get off your lazy butt, put away the cell phone for 30 min's Divine Discontent Oct 2017 #45
Fortunately the majority of Democrats are moderates. Lil Missy Oct 2017 #46
And yet, one can't be "too conservative", why is this? ck4829 Oct 2017 #47
It works because the country at its core is presently conservative...maybe conservative left but Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #49
So angrychair Oct 2017 #50
I am deadset against sacrficing social justice for any reason. Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #58
I agree angrychair Oct 2017 #60
Really? What's the alternative? Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #48
Another corporatist neoliberal trying to save his donor base Fiendish Thingy Oct 2017 #53
Basic facts of politics. You need to win the center to win the election. 50% + wins. L. Coyote Oct 2017 #59
Ok angrychair Oct 2017 #61
Women? LGBTQ? People of color? Poor? YES, these people are centrists too. L. Coyote Oct 2017 #62

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,122 posts)
4. Can overdo what? Does he mean fighting for basic human rights and dignity for ALL people...
Mon Oct 16, 2017, 09:09 PM
Oct 2017

especially those who are barely scraping by, if that, those going to bed hungry at night, those without a roof over their heads or living in crime-infested areas, those who don't have lobbyists looking after THEIR interests, giving them a "voice" to help improve their lives? I don't think you can EVER overdo that!!.

 

fallout87

(819 posts)
9. He's right
Mon Oct 16, 2017, 11:26 PM
Oct 2017

There is a far left fringe that the RW media is portraying as the entire left. It scares people to the right. We need to be careful

Aristus

(66,386 posts)
10. And of course, there will always be the nutbags who assert that it's better that a Republican
Mon Oct 16, 2017, 11:54 PM
Oct 2017

get in than the "wrong" Democrat.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
11. Democrats have been appealing to the "sensible center" for as long as I can remember.
Mon Oct 16, 2017, 11:57 PM
Oct 2017

Republicans have the White House, the US House, the US Senate, a vast majority of governorships and a vast majority of state legislative bodies.

Gee, perhaps the strategy employed these past several decades isn't working.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
39. The media doesn't help. Voter suppression doesn't help.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 03:22 PM
Oct 2017

But the party must accept the bulk of the blame for being in such an incredibly weak position. For one thing, they don't make a stink about media consolidation or race-based voter suppression. Instead, they let Republicans control the narrative and are on the defensive as the GOP beats the "liberal media" drum and talks about voter fraud.

And let's be honest, Dems are beholden to many of the same interests as the GOP. Goldman, JP Morgan, etc.

CrispyQ

(36,478 posts)
54. The dems have ignored hate radio for over three decades & still do.
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 10:40 AM
Oct 2017

Everyday, Limbaugh & his ilk tell their audience that liberals are bad & the cause of all their problems. Liberal is a great code word, cuz it covers all the protected groups that they hate - blacks, Hispanics, gays, uppity women. The dems have not been a true opposition party for many years, & no one is doing a GD thing about our compromised electoral process. I won't be surprised when the Con wins 2020 with 97% of the popular vote. And I won't even go into my non-political friends, who were so fired up for the women's march & the scientist's march, but now, a few months later, don't have time for so much as a phone call to Cory Gardner about the ACA. I tell them, weekly calls & emails are more effective than a once-every-six-months march, but to no avail. Everyday the Con is in office I have a little less hope that we'll get our country back.

Dan

(3,568 posts)
12. Go down with
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 12:45 AM
Oct 2017

Your best pitch... and if that is being liberal, then so be it.

If America wants Trump II - then so be it.

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
14. No. Nominate the most progressive candidate who can actually WIN.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 12:51 AM
Oct 2017

We accomplish nothing by losing.

Demsrule86

(68,586 posts)
35. No, that is a bad idea. You put out your best winning pitch...because if Trump gets
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:19 PM
Oct 2017

eight more years to appoint justices, we are sunk, and it won't matter who wins after that. This is a crucial election...we have to aim for where the people are...and all indications are center left.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
15. Or Walter Mondale, another liberal, got pasted by Reagan.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:06 AM
Oct 2017

I wanted to throw up when Reagan won by a humiliating margin. After Reagan's soul crushing win, the Democratic Party basically went into the tank until Clinton rescued it in 92.

Oh yeah, I forgot the wonderful liberal Dukakis getting pasted by Poppa in 88.

The far left people are always attacking winners but ignore that everytime one of their "naturals" become our nominee, we get our butts kicked.

I prefer someone that appeals strongly to the left and the center. Where I live 54,000 voters are Independent. Since my rep is a tea party republican and represents the political extreme, it would seem reasonable to guess if those 54,000 haven't changed to republican, they are open to a strong message from our side. A far left person WILL NOT win my area unless we have another Great Depression with a republican leading the country, which we may in fact get with Trump, but why hope for a soul crushing event to win when we can win and make change without trauma

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
16. And they keep harkening back to FDR, but if FDR WERE running they'd be screaming
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:25 AM
Oct 2017

that he's an oligarch with a secret plan to enrich himself and there's no way that he'd be planning to help the average person.

angrychair

(8,700 posts)
20. Im not debating flavors of Democrat
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 09:20 AM
Oct 2017

Or regional appeal. I’m talking about the fact that if we as a Party field a presidential candidate that loses to a narcissistic, xenophobic racist rapist like trump, twice, than we may not be what this country wants anymore or be the Party we think we are.


Losing because of manipulation of the system by Russia and trump once is on them, losing it twice because of manipulation of the system is on us.

More importantly I can’t imagine how trump stays in office one term without destroying the country or going to jail. Every day he stays in office fundamentally changes how the system works and how we see ourselves and how we are seen, so dramatically that we lose ourselves to his madness and our way forward becomes that much more complicated.



angrychair

(8,700 posts)
21. Seriously
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:20 PM
Oct 2017

This analogy is tired and false. I’m not here to argue which flavor of Democrat is best but these type of comparisons are being made without context.

This isn’t 1972 or 1984 or 1988 and more importantly their failures were unique to them and their choices and their specific time in history.

By the logic you presented than why should we do anything that didn’t work before?

Since we couldn’t get legalized gay marriage in 1984 than we should have never tried again? Because a failure in 1984 means it will be a failure 33 years later because that isn’t what America wants?
That wasn’t true was it?

Because Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton couldn’t get healthcare in the 90’s than we should just give up because that isn’t what America wants?
That wasn’t true was it?

So, again, it’s not about a specific type of candidate but I do not think we should try to say that just because a particular viewpoint or ideology didn’t work once that that makes the case it will never work.

Demsrule86

(68,586 posts)
34. No but you don't repeat the mistakes which involved running really liberal candidates when the
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:16 PM
Oct 2017

country had moved right. You have to look at the situation realistically...the states are very telling...more GOP governors than Dems...now if the population is wanting a liberal message and policy...why is that?

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
40. I did not say any of those things.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 08:57 PM
Oct 2017

The progress that you claimed I claimed that we should not try to pursue again came ALL under two center-left Presidents. Running far left candidates, except for Hillary, which is a special case, got republicans elected and progress set back by at least a half decade. I dread how far back Trump will set the country and progress of all type.

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
56. Explain Dubya (or, at least how it was close enough for him to steal).
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 11:47 AM
Oct 2017

Because Gore/Lieberturd was not even remotely a "far left" candidacy.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
57. The far left attacked Gore like rabid dogs.
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 07:04 PM
Oct 2017

I guess you never heard of a prick called Ralph Nader.

FAIL!!!!!! On your part.

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
63. No. *Democrats* attacked him for bringing PTL pal Lieberturd on the ticket.
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 09:18 PM
Oct 2017

Which, in turn, moved him away from the Clinton positives and dragged the candidacy to the center-right . . . . fueling the "both parties are the same" argument (which would normally have no basis in fact unless your VP agrees with Dick Cheney on things), lessening enthusiasm for a guy who really needed it against a popular Republican brand name. Add to the fact that Bewsh had a ton of plants in all the right places and voila - close enough to steal.

You people alllllllllllways want to blame this "all powerful far left" for the failures of the uncharismatic milquetoasts and weather vanes that are elevated as the would-be standard. "My Party, Right or Wrong" is cultish behavior that allows one to never look in a mirror. Well, grab one, because you can't blame Republican victories by the truckload since 2010 on this mythical "all powerful far left".

Spare me the childish "fail". Holy SHIT, that's immature.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
64. The far left are clueless idiots.
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 09:39 PM
Oct 2017

I want to get away from any chance that we need them for margins, they are clueless and unreliable. Take that any way you want, I don't give a damn.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,196 posts)
41. We have pretty much go back and forth for the last 70 years,
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 10:04 PM
Oct 2017

Republican to Democrat with 8 year terms. The only exceptions were the single terms of Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. It's just damn hard to beat an incumbent. Honestly, I think the reason Clinton did as well as she did was because Trump was just so awful. I don't think she could have beat Cruz. Not because she's less qualified (obviously) but just because, as a country, we tend to go back and forth between the parties. I just hope we're able to make Trump a one term president.

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
51. They're still pushing that "McGovern Lost By Being Too Liberal" myth, mostly because it's useful....
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 10:17 AM
Oct 2017

.......even though it's has been disputed over and over again. Consider these excerpts from the New Republic article: What Democrats Still Don’t Get About George McGovern:

But the Democrats’ fear of McGovernism is misplaced. McGovern didn’t lose because he was too far to the left. He lost because he was facing a popular incumbent presiding over a booming economy. Moreover, the Democrats’ belief that they need to steer clear of McGovernism, assuming it was ever correct, now looks increasingly misguided. With each passing decade, the types of voters drawn to McGovern’s 1972 campaign have become a larger and larger share of the American electorate, while the issues championed by McGovern have become more and more salient.

Instead of looking at Bernie Sanders and seeing George McGovern, Democrats should reconsider McGovern himself: He should have become the party’s Barry Goldwater. Lyndon Johnson’s 22-point rout of Goldwater in 1964 was, in many ways, a mirror image of McGovern’s defeat at the hands of Nixon eight years later. Indeed, in heaping skepticism on Sanders’s candidacy, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow compared the Vermont senator to both infamous losers.

But such simple comparisons miss a key difference between McGovern’s loss and Goldwater’s loss. The GOP’s response to Goldwater’s landslide defeat couldn’t have been more different from the Democrats’ reaction to McGovern’s. Whereas the Democrats shifted away from McGovernism towards tepid centrism, Republicans ultimately embraced Goldwater’s radical conservatism, paving the way for Ronald Reagan’s eight Goldwater-esque years in the White House. Most importantly, the parties’ divergent responses to sweeping defeat at the ballot box explain a great deal about the state of American politics today, especially the Democrats’ inability to effectively counter either the expanding extremism of the GOP or the increasing economic inequality and persistent racism that Republicans’ Goldwater-tinged radicalism has facilitated.

Further down in the article:

As McGovern barreled toward the nomination, leading Democrats’ attacks became more desperate. Anti-McGovern Democrats staged an “Anybody But McGovern” movement at the convention. When that failed, some pledged that they would not campaign for him and might even support Nixon. A Democrat even handed Republicans their best attack line: “The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot,” an unnamed Democratic senator told the press. Hugh Scott, the GOP’s Senate minority leader, transformed the quote into “the three A’s: Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion” and a golden political slur was born. (Ironically, the unnamed Democratic senator who had originated the line was none other than Eagleton, though McGovern didn’t know it at the time.)


Read the whole article: https://newrepublic.com/article/130737/democrats-still-dont-get-george-mcgovern

I'll be away from the computer most of the day, so I won't be able to reply to criticisms until late this afternoon; sorry 'bout that!
 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
17. Many ways to lose to an incumbent
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:28 AM
Oct 2017

I don't assume anything in that setting. The situational advantage is massive toward Trump in 2020. We need candidate vs candidate to overcome it.

Willie Pep

(841 posts)
18. It is possible.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 03:18 AM
Oct 2017

Although for the presidency things get messy since there are also a lot of factors like personality and perception. I think Elizabeth Warren would be a great president but I could see her getting tagged with the "shrill liberal woman" label and losing like Hillary did because the media eats that stuff up to promote a horse race and what better way to do that than to trade in sexist stereotypes that get people riled up.

For Senate, House and state races that get much less media attention it all depends on which area of the country we are talking about. In some areas a true blue liberal could win without much problem. In other areas we should probably run Blue Dog candidates.

rock

(13,218 posts)
19. Look at it this way
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 09:18 AM
Oct 2017

Could we be so liberal that we would loose to a pile of shit? And remember, a pile of shit would be a better choice than Trump! So, I don't think so.

hatrack

(59,587 posts)
22. Hey Dick: There IS no "sensible center" . . .
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:24 PM
Oct 2017

There's:

1. The tattered, smoking remains of a center;

2. A sensible and substantial Left;

3. A tiny group of loonies way out on their left;

4. A big pustulent, seething, paranoid bag of dog shit on the right.

mountain grammy

(26,623 posts)
25. So does the fact the top of the ticket got 3 million more votes
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:40 PM
Oct 2017

doesn't count? The fact that 46% of voters didn't (or couldn't) vote doesn't count?

No, I don't agree with Dick Durbin. Extreme politics will always be with us. We need to get more people involved and engaged to fill out he center.

Demsrule86

(68,586 posts)
31. Obama did not run as a liberal...he just didn't. The county is center left at best. We can run on
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:11 PM
Oct 2017

job creation, the ACA, saving social security and Medicare...I think birth control too,also ending the useless wars...but UBI and single payer and true far far left issues will be demonized and sink us...

BeyondGeography

(39,374 posts)
28. Too often the "sensible center" means not drawing distinctions
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:47 PM
Oct 2017

And talking about our "Republican friends." Rather than fretting about being too liberal (and, yes, any new social benefits that require tax hikes across the population ARE a political problem), we should focus on the extremism of our opponents and finally develop lines of attack for all of our candidates that expose Republican fantasy ideology for what it is.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
29. Are three spellings of two, too and to two many?
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 01:54 PM
Oct 2017

How does a guy know which one to use or is it too hard. Maybe there should just be two. JK

Beearewhyain

(600 posts)
30. The whole issue right now within the party
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:01 PM
Oct 2017

Is that we have a very large contingent that thinks we should be fighting as if the political landscape and corresponding attitudes have remained unchanged since the 1990's. It's not the 90's.

WiffenPoof

(2,404 posts)
36. Too Liberal????
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:19 PM
Oct 2017

As far as I'm concerned, we are not liberal enough! I'm an FDR Democrat (you would call me a Progressive). All I have to do is recall the huge numbers of people that turned out for Bernie Sanders to know that this country (at least a large number of them) are ready for the original tenets of the Democratic Party...the Party of the People!

-P

unitedwethrive

(1,997 posts)
37. Why cant we be secretly liberal, but present a moderate front, similar to repubs
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 02:21 PM
Oct 2017

who present as being for the working class but are secretly for the rich?

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
42. Democrats have been presenting and acting as moderates for decades.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 11:29 PM
Oct 2017

And look where it's gotten us. Republicans have the White House, the US House, the US Senate, a majority of governorships, a vast majority of state legislative bodies, etc.

Republicans control the narrative, while Democrats are constantly on the defensive. Instead of talking about media consolidation in the hands of giant corporations, Democrats are defending against "liberal media" claims. Instead of forcefully opposing race-based voter suppression, Democrats are refuting claims of "widespread voter fraud."

I realize that criticizing Dems is a touchy subject around here, but who can argue that the strategy/approach of the last several decades is working? The Democratic Party is in an incredibly weak position, in spite of the opposition being batshit insane. Something has to change.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
38. He needs to be more specific. I have no idea what he's saying. what stance is too liberal?
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 03:02 PM
Oct 2017

Being liberal is not the problem. Selling it is, and that goes to a lack of will, and an apologetic posture among our own politicians, who say shit like, well... like this.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
43. One wonders what he even means by "centrist."
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 11:33 PM
Oct 2017

Because if Durbin thinks the Democratic Party (NAFTA, crime bill, era of big government is over, drones, welfare "reform," etc.) is in danger of being too "liberal," I'd hate to know what he considers to be a "centrist" position.

Divine Discontent

(21,056 posts)
45. '18 Democratic ads frankly need to say Get off your lazy butt, put away the cell phone for 30 min's
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 01:32 AM
Oct 2017

and GO VOTE!!!! Otherwise, the GOP wins midterms as usual. The ads need to be about doing your duty to vote for your well-being and about Donald Trump being pathetic and awful as president (if he's not impeached by them, and he really hopefully will be...)

http://www.cafepress.com/ImpeachTrump

ck4829

(35,077 posts)
47. And yet, one can't be "too conservative", why is this?
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 04:57 AM
Oct 2017

Want to turn the US into a theocracy? You're still conservative.

Want universal healthcare or are you planning to declare you are a Muslim if the government ever plans on rolling out some sort of registry? Just a tad bit unreasonable.

We know this is how this is framed. The framers of this aren't our allies and no doubt we'll be under attack from them in the coming days as well.

Demsrule86

(68,586 posts)
49. It works because the country at its core is presently conservative...maybe conservative left but
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 05:40 AM
Oct 2017

that is it. The GOP through talk radio and Fox have pretty much convinced people of supply economics. Even examples like Kansas and Indiana don't deter this insanity. We play on their turf. Look at the elections...Since 1976, we have had three Democratic Presidents...three. There was 12 years of Republicans before Clinton. He ran as the third way because that is the only way you win in 1992. It is sad for me because I had hoped we would be further along with our progressive agenda...but damn, we will be lucky to save what we have at this point. We must win in 18 and 20 ...we lose the courts and it is game over.

I don't think a 'true' progressive can win...but someone like Sherrod Brown maybe with Joe Kennedy the III as a VP (good for a win in eight years to pick someone young) can win. But if we run candidates who run on UBI, free college tuition and single payer, we are going to lose. If we run candidates that split our electorate by demanding we emphasize economic justice over social justice, we are going to lose. If we have a primary and some progressives refuse to accept the outcome and vote for the Democratic nominee, we are going to lose. (The Greens should just...well you know fuck off) This is where we are today in 2017 with at least three more years of some Republican in office as president.

We are facing thousands dying without healthcare ,( we lose healthcare, I predict we won't have for anything for years.) another economy crushing GOP tax plan where the poor are targeted, a sexual predator in the White House another war(possibly several) and the madman that is Trump could actually launch nuclear weapons against Korea and blow up the world ...pretty dark time. And the only hope is to beat the murderous Republicans in 18 and 20. Every single progressive should be concerned with that and that alone.

angrychair

(8,700 posts)
50. So
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 09:58 AM
Oct 2017

Women or LGBTQ or people of color are just going to to have to understand that to swing that middle-right vote a little more our way, women’s healthcare may have to take a hit and they will just have to live with not having birth control through their insurance or your gay co-worker is going to have just live with having no legal rights when they are harassed at work for being gay. We have to squeeze out some more votes and throwing non-whites males and women and LGBTQ under the bus to get it doesn’t mean we are just republican-lite because we will be nice about it say “sorry”.

I’m not saying we should go full “everything is free” society either because nothing is free, that is the lie that conservatives say about Democrats but when do we draw the line at what it means to be a Democrat or republican? Do we just keep re-drawing that line dynamically, as needed, to get that vote?
If we have no Party planks or throw them to the side when it’s not convenient, than are we really in it to help each other or just for the power and to have that (d) at the end of a name?

angrychair

(8,700 posts)
60. I agree
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 07:36 PM
Oct 2017

But Medicare for all or some sort of comprehensive medical insurance, for all Americans, is social justice.

Tuition free occupational education, 2-year education and reduced 4-year education is social justice.

Equal pay for equal work is social justice.

Healthcare, insurance and adoption and child visitation rights for LGBTQ couples or divorced couples is social justice.

The problem is not what it’s called or what it does, it’s having the strength of character and conviction that it’s the fight thing to do.

We need to stop listening to republicans and start listening to each other.



Demsrule86

(68,586 posts)
48. Really? What's the alternative?
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 05:23 AM
Oct 2017

Those who contributed to the last loss would love to attack the Democratic Party and blame them, but they should look in the mirror...many were duped by the Russians and have only themselves to blame. If you are Democratic, you vote Democratic period. There is no such thing as a 'protest' vote...because what that really means is a vote for the Republicans.

angrychair

(8,700 posts)
61. Ok
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 07:54 PM
Oct 2017

So for those that believe as Mr. Durbin does, who gets sacrificed to bring in that center/center-right vote in then?

Women?

LGBTQ?

People of color?

Poor?

Someone has to be sacrificed. As I’ve said before:
“Compromise is great as long as you aren’t the one being compromised.”

Where do we draw that line? At what point are we meeting them more than half way? When does that more than halfway mark become the new halfway mark that we have to meet next time?

I get we cannot expect everything all I once and I more than aware these things cost money.

I also know that having a population that is covered by healthcare, has all its citizens treated equally under the law and has access to free or reduced cost occupational or college education, is a more stable and money earning, tax paying, society that helps that nation prosper.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
62. Women? LGBTQ? People of color? Poor? YES, these people are centrists too.
Wed Oct 18, 2017, 08:07 PM
Oct 2017

And some of them are flaming dumpster fans.

It isn't a compromise to do what is best for the nation. What percentage of the people are these: Women? LGBTQ? People of color? Poor?

Two of those groups are over 50% of the people, and all totaled they are over 60%. You can seriously think the Dems are sacrificing 60% of the people to win 50+ % of the vote.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We could lose to trump fo...