Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[senorsheep]

The Republicans are not dissolving into an internal war like the Democrats are.

Are you sure about that? Trump's election is the result of the GOP civil war. It was The Rebels vs. The Empire, and The Rebels won. The Empire is not going to just fall in line behind The Rebels. They will, uh... strike back. The GOP in 2017 is an uneasy alliance between the establishment and the Trump brigade, and I don't think it's going to take long for the war to be reignited once the honeymoon is over.

I don't think the Democrats need to to shift left to win the presidency next time around. Just muzzle the identity politics and PC nonsense, and run a candidate who doesn't contradict everything they claim to stand for.

[Redbirds Fan]

Are you sure about that? Trump's election is the result of the GOP civil war. It was The Rebels vs. The Empire, and The Rebels won. The Empire is not going to just fall in line behind The Rebels. They will, uh... strike back. The GOP in 2017 is an uneasy alliance between the establishment and the Trump brigade, and I don't think it's going to take long for the war to be reignited once the honeymoon is over.

I don't think the Democrats need to to shift left to win the presidency next time around. Just muzzle the identity politics and PC nonsense, and run a candidate who doesn't contradict everything they claim to stand for.

I'll have what he's having.

[revo]

I think we've found our candidate:

(CNN)President Donald Trump's 2016 victory may have been Oprah Winfrey's aha moment, as the talk show icon is now signaling she may be open to a presidential bid.

Asked whether she may be able to break the glass ceiling to be elected president, Winfrey smiled.

"I actually never thought that that was — I never considered the conversation even a possibility. I just thought, oh, oh," she said in a conversation with billionaire David Rubenstein on Bloomberg's "The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/oprah-presidential-run/index.html

[Redbirds Fan]

I agree with this. But if not "shifting left" means we get essentially the same policies as we've had from Democrats the last 25 years how much better do we expect the results to be ? And the results after the last 8 years were a Trump presidency. I would hope that winning back the presidency isn't the only goal of the party.

I don't think winning the Presidency is the only goal of the Party, but it has to be one of the major goals. And over time, Democrats have won with moderate candidates who appealed to voters who shared historically Democratic values. Since 1960, Democrats have elected Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill Clinton and Obama.

During that same period, Democrats lost when running candidates who were generally considered to be left of moderate...including Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. (Whether Hillary was a socialist stooge or a capitalist running-dog lackey depends mostly upon who you are talking to.)

I also don't think we, as a Party, have had the some policies over the past 25 years, and I would be happy to debate that proposition with anyone caring to take that side. 1991-2016 for $200, Alex?

[The Feral Slasher]

I don't think winning the Presidency is the only goal of the Party, but it has to be one of the major goals. And over time, Democrats have won with moderate candidates who appealed to voters who shared historically Democratic values. Since 1960, Democrats have elected Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill Clinton and Obama.

During that same period, Democrats lost when running candidates who were generally considered to be left of moderate...including Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. (Whether Hillary was a socialist stooge or a capitalist running-dog lackey depends mostly upon who you are talking to.)

I also don't think we, as a Party, have had the some policies over the past 25 years, and I would be happy to debate that proposition with anyone caring to take that side. 1991-2016 for $200, Alex?

Yeah and I'd be happy to bet that Kennedy and Johnson have nothing to do with the current political climate either. I was just going in to delete this post when I saw your response. I think my post was an obvious question that Democrats would want to think about...but I know exactly where the discussion will go on this board. So I'll just say you are right...Democrats haven't had the same policies over the past 25 years and leave it at that.

[Redbirds Fan]

Yeah and I'd be happy to bet that Kennedy and Johnson have nothing to do with the current political climate either. I was just going in to delete this post when I saw your response. I think my post was an obvious question that Democrats would want to think about...but I know exactly where the discussion will go on this board. So I'll just say you are right...Democrats haven't had the same policies over the past 25 years and leave it at that.

I accept your apology.

[baldgriff]

Famous Quote:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Is Kennedy rolling over in his grave?

[Redbirds Fan]

Famous Quote:

"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Is Kennedy rolling over in his grave?

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

Yes.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I don't think winning the Presidency is the only goal of the Party, but it has to be one of the major goals. And over time, Democrats have won with moderate candidates who appealed to voters who shared historically Democratic values. Since 1960, Democrats have elected Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bill Clinton and Obama.

During that same period, Democrats lost when running candidates who were generally considered to be left of moderate...including Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. (Whether Hillary was a socialist stooge or a capitalist running-dog lackey depends mostly upon who you are talking to.)

I also don't think we, as a Party, have had the some policies over the past 25 years, and I would be happy to debate that proposition with anyone caring to take that side. 1991-2016 for $200, Alex?

I think most things change over the course of 25 years, so your wager isn't much of a reach. I'd also point out that each of the "moderate and elected" democrats was to the left of his predecessor and that though some of those who failed were indeed farther left than mainstream, not all were including Hillary who was pretty much the same as Obama (more to the left on some issues and more to the right on others.) but definitely NOT a farther to the left candidate and SHE failed to get elected, so your assertion that Democrats lose when they too far Left is really just your opinion and not rooted in fact. Obama's entire 2008 campaign was a huge jump to the left in what he promised, now he did prove to be a centrist, but he campaigned to the Left.

Finally to Kennedy--I'll leave you with this:


"A man does what he must—in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures—and that is the basis of all human morality."

[chancellor]

GITH - your point about each of the Dem presidents being more to the left than his predecessor is interesting. I'd disagree, insofar as I don't think LBJ was to the left of Kennedy, nor Carter overall to the Left of LBJ. But it'd be an interesting discussion

[GwynnInTheHall]

GITH - your point about each of the Dem presidents being more to the left than his predecessor is interesting. I'd disagree, insofar as I don't think LBJ was to the left of Kennedy, nor Carter overall to the Left of LBJ. But it'd be an interesting discussion

I wasn't including LBJ as he really never had to campaign on his own merits, but rather rode the wave of sentiment surrounding Kennedy's assassination into office.

I do believe we could make a case for each of the others being to the left.


Edit: We were talking about their platforms when they were campaigning, not once they were in office.

[The Feral Slasher]

Agree or Disagree ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-voters_us_58c1ac90e4b054a0ea68fa17

“The truth is, and I think anyone who objectively assesses the situation has to appreciate, that the model the Democrats have followed for the last 10 to 20 years has been an ultimate failure,” Sanders said in an interview with The Huffington Post from his Senate office in Washington.


“That’s just the objective evidence. We are taking on a right-wing extremist party whose agenda is opposed time after time and on issue after issue by the vast majority of the American people. Yet we have lost the White House, the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, almost two-thirds of the governors’ chairs and close to 900 legislative seats across this country. How can anyone not conclude that the Democratic agenda and approach has been a failure?”

[The Feral Slasher]

This one is good too

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659

[GwynnInTheHall]

Ill wait for the Democrats to respond before chiming in..........

[The Feral Slasher]

Ill wait for the Democrats to respond before chiming in..........

Don't hold your breath, LOL. Honestly we know how the discussion will go if anyone actually reads them and responds...while I think the articles were good it is sort of pointless for me to post them. But it's a slow Saturday !