A Strategy for The Left?

LOST said:
What do people think?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/10/rashida-tlaib-michigan-progressive-democrats-219346

 Democrats socialists will win in very few districts.  They don't represent the way forward in the short-term.


Being a Democratic Socialist was not the main point. It was being a pragmatist and strong advocate and activist for constituents that got her elected.

In some districts a candidate can get elected because she is a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat and in other districts such a candidate can win despite being such.


tjohn said:


LOST said:
What do people think?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/10/rashida-tlaib-michigan-progressive-democrats-219346
 Democrats socialists will win in very few districts.  They don't represent the way forward in the short-term.

 Actually, not true.  People overwhelmingly support the Democratic Socialist platform of Medicare-for-All, free college, a living wage, etc.   The issue is people are just getting to know them and since they don't take corporate contributions, they are at a financial disadvantage.  It's not going to be an overnight takeover. Also, the mainstream media is often against them and try to make them look like a flash in the pan. 



LOST said:
What do people think?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/10/rashida-tlaib-michigan-progressive-democrats-219346

 I watched her in an interview and liked her delivery, it was upbeat and pleasant. More then ever I think  people want a hopeful message delivered with a smile and easy confidence. Its the way I see  Ocasio Cortez and Elizabeth Warren as a contrast to the Trumpian scowl and anger. I'm assuming many of us want to chose from a menu that offers a selection of progressive and centrist values. Same with a candidate's policies. She went door to door as did Ocasio - Cortez and connected with people. I may not agree with every position of every candidate but if they can convince me that they are thoughtful and reasonable, I'm open to listening.


An attractive relatable candidate will win regardless of how far left of center or smack in the middle.

Thus our problem. We think it’s all about shades of progressive stances. 



annielou said:
An attractive relatable candidate will win regardless of how far left of center or smack in the middle.
Thus our problem. We think it’s all about shades of progressive stances. 


 Agreed. And different candidates will appeal to the voters in different districts.

I wish we could have more participation in this discussion rather than those that just seem to be the same arguments back and forth.


annielou said:
An attractive relatable candidate will win regardless of how far left of center or smack in the middle.
Thus our problem. We think it’s all about shades of progressive stances. 


 Hope you are right when it comes to Cynthia Nixon versus Andrew Cuomo.  Cause she is way better looking and more relatable than him, with his massive money and establishment endorsements. 


So is Michael Avenatti really running? There's a debate I'd like to see. If we are going on appeal alone...


Great ideas aside, is it actually possible for someone who is not connected to the power-elite in the Dem party to get the party's presidential nomination?   Or, is the "old guard" going to make sure that the nominee is someone from within their ranks?  We know the DNC closed the loophole that allowed Bernie to seek the nomination by mandating that the nominee be someone from within the party who endorses the party platform. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/391459-dnc-panel-adopts-rule-requiring-candidates-to-run-serve-as-a-democrat  Of course, it is their right to do so and it prevents an outsider (e.g. Bernie) from hijacking the party.  But, does it also send a subtle message that they don't want "undocumented political immigrants" who want to maintain their independence or assert their values/interests in their party?   


nan said:


tjohn said:

LOST said:
What do people think?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/10/rashida-tlaib-michigan-progressive-democrats-219346
 Democrats socialists will win in very few districts.  They don't represent the way forward in the short-term.
 Actually, not true.  People overwhelmingly support the Democratic Socialist platform of Medicare-for-All, free college, a living wage, etc.   The issue is people are just getting to know them and since they don't take corporate contributions, they are at a financial disadvantage.  It's not going to be an overnight takeover. Also, the mainstream media is often against them and try to make them look like a flash in the pan. 

Like Ben Jealous who's going to be a sure win in Maryland, especially because Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 to 1 in that state and the BLUE wave.

Oh, snap ---

Republican leads Democrat by Double Digits

 


This is from Ross Douthat’s column today in the NYT:


“Fortunately for the G.O.P. there is an obvious and morally superior alternative, which is to return to Trende’s original insight, recognize that Trump’s populist rhetoric as well as his race-baiting helped win the white Midwest, and instead of a white strategy pursue a populist strategy shorn of white-identity appeals. Keep the infrastructure promises and drop the birther forays; pursue E-Verify but forgo the child-separating cruelties; be tough on China but stop vilifying black athletes; embrace nationalism but stiff-arm Confederate nostalgia.“


I think it’s a winning strategy for the GOP — but I doubt they will adopt it. 


Sweetsnuggles said:
This is from Ross Douthat’s column today in the NYT:


“Fortunately for the G.O.P. there is an obvious and morally superior alternative, which is to return to Trende’s original insight, recognize that Trump’s populist rhetoric as well as his race-baiting helped win the white Midwest, and instead of a white strategy pursue a populist strategy shorn of white-identity appeals. Keep the infrastructure promises and drop the birther forays; pursue E-Verify but forgo the child-separating cruelties; be tough on China but stop vilifying black athletes; embrace nationalism but stiff-arm Confederate nostalgia.“


I think it’s a winning strategy for the GOP — but I doubt they will adopt it. 

I don't think it's a winning strategy. The R's need the racist vote to win, (racists gotta vote for someone) so they will have to appeal to them in such a way as to be clear but not too obvious. Though with Trump leading the charge, it can't get much more obvious than it is now.


drummerboy said:


Sweetsnuggles said:
This is from Ross Douthat’s column today in the NYT:


“Fortunately for the G.O.P. there is an obvious and morally superior alternative, which is to return to Trende’s original insight, recognize that Trump’s populist rhetoric as well as his race-baiting helped win the white Midwest, and instead of a white strategy pursue a populist strategy shorn of white-identity appeals. Keep the infrastructure promises and drop the birther forays; pursue E-Verify but forgo the child-separating cruelties; be tough on China but stop vilifying black athletes; embrace nationalism but stiff-arm Confederate nostalgia.“


I think it’s a winning strategy for the GOP — but I doubt they will adopt it. 
I don't think it's a winning strategy. The R's need the racist vote to win, (racists gotta vote for someone) so they will have to appeal to them in such a way as to be clear but not too obvious. Though with Trump leading the charge, it can't get much more obvious than it is now.

 The R's have the racist vote locked up.  It's not like racists are going to suddenly repent and vote democratic.  Douthat's proposed strategy would make it more palatable for independents to support the GOP.  


Add more flags, then, and the racists will line up... don’t worry too much about that. 


Trump is a racist. Bernie will give up single-payer before Trump gives up race-baiting.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.