The Kavanaugh Hearing

ml1 said:
it's the height of lazy thinking when so-called "centrists" act as though most people vote a party line simply because someone has one party affiliation or another.  In this day and age, the two parties stand for very different agendas, with competing stances on a whole range of issues.  And the GOP in particular stands in lock step almost all of the time.  For all the hand-wringing by the likes of people such as Jeff Flake or Susan Collins, they almost always vote the party line.
So I don't vote Democratic out of mindless loyalty to my "team."  And I'm not "holding my nose" voting for Menendez this fall.  Bob Menendez is going to vote a particular way on the issues before the Senate, and it's going to be 180 degrees different than how Bob Hugin would vote.  I'll vote for Menendez knowing that he'll be supporting my POV on an array of issues.  
Frankly, I think the idea of chasing "centrism" is killing the Democratic Party.  A refusal to look at what both political parties are doing and decide which one better represents one's values isn't a virtue at all imho.

I assume this is directed at me, but I have said the exact opposite of what you are implying. 

I said that voting for a party, not the person, is the only voting behavior that makes sense, since the control of a legislative chamber is far more important than who your own Senator or Congressman is.  A Senator or Congress person could be a genuine centrist and upstanding person, but that politician doesn't operate alone and is going to be a vote to empower a Senate or House leadership whose views a voter may strongly dislike. 

A consistent, straight-ticket voter is someone who actually understands how the American politics works.  The rise in straight-ticket voting over the last few decades is just evidence that more Americans get it that voting for moderates doesn't make America any more likely to have moderate policies, more civility, or bipartisanship.  

Where I disagree with most of the people here is that I believe the two parties leaderships should come to the center for the good of the country.  

However, electorally, it is the Democrats who have a greater need to come to the center, since the US Senate has a strong bias in favor of the Republicans and the House has a smaller bias.  

I wish we could change the constitutional playing field, but since we can't, I think Democratic politicians have to adjust.

I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The so-called Center always moves. 

 I have started a thread to discuss these very issues.

Runner_Guy said:

ml1 said:
it's the height of lazy thinking when so-called "centrists" act as though most people vote a party line simply because someone has one party affiliation or another.  In this day and age, the two parties stand for very different agendas, with competing stances on a whole range of issues.  And the GOP in particular stands in lock step almost all of the time.  For all the hand-wringing by the likes of people such as Jeff Flake or Susan Collins, they almost always vote the party line.
So I don't vote Democratic out of mindless loyalty to my "team."  And I'm not "holding my nose" voting for Menendez this fall.  Bob Menendez is going to vote a particular way on the issues before the Senate, and it's going to be 180 degrees different than how Bob Hugin would vote.  I'll vote for Menendez knowing that he'll be supporting my POV on an array of issues.  
Frankly, I think the idea of chasing "centrism" is killing the Democratic Party.  A refusal to look at what both political parties are doing and decide which one better represents one's values isn't a virtue at all imho.

I assume this is directed at me, but I have said the exact opposite of what you are implying. 
I said that voting for a party, not the person, is the only voting behavior that makes sense, since the control of a legislative chamber is far more important than who your own Senator or Congressman is.  A Senator or Congress person could be a genuine centrist and upstanding person, but that politician doesn't operate alone and is going to be a vote to empower a Senate or House leadership whose views a voter may strongly dislike. 
A consistent, straight-ticket voter is someone who actually understands how the American politics works.  The rise in straight-ticket voting over the last few decades is just evidence that more Americans get it that voting for moderates doesn't make America any more likely to have moderate policies, more civility, or bipartisanship.  

Where I disagree with most of the people here is that I believe the two parties leaderships should come to the center for the good of the country.  
However, electorally, it is the Democrats who have a greater need to come to the center, since the US Senate has a strong bias in favor of the Republicans and the House has a smaller bias.  
I wish we could change the constitutional playing field, but since we can't, I think Democratic politicians have to adjust.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.  I was reacting more to the people who call this "tribalism" and act as though anyone who is partisan is doing it reflexively for their team.  Now I realize that it's clear you aren't one of those people.

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

"It is time for us, as Democrats, to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are," Holder told a crowd of campaign volunteers and candidates. "Michelle always says -- I love her; she and my wife are like, really tight, which always scares me and Barack -- but Michelle always says, 'When they go low, we go high.' No. When they go low, we kick 'em."

- Eric Holder  

I agree with him. Gloves off. 

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

Agree, but they shouldn't do it because of the polling, they should do it because it fits the Democratic party platform, and it is the right thing to do.

gerritn said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

Agree, but they shouldn't do it because of the polling, they should do it because it fits the Democratic party platform, and it is the right thing to do.

That would be nice, but doing the right thing doesn't get a person elected.  Doing something that would be popular is more likely to get someone elected.

ml1 said:

gerritn said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

Agree, but they shouldn't do it because of the polling, they should do it because it fits the Democratic party platform, and it is the right thing to do.

That would be nice, but doing the right thing doesn't get a person elected.  Doing something that would be popular is more likely to get someone elected.

 When something “popular” is also the “right thing” we have a win-win situation. 

My thesaurus points out: “ synonymous of popular — big, crowd-pleasing, faddish, fashionable, happening, vogue, voguish, hot, in,etc. 

so much in our society today seems to be “popular” -tattoos, shaved heads on men, purple hair, potty mouths, shoes designed to hobble women, etc. etc

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

I disagree that the Democrats have been "moving right for decades."  

Although Obama often talked about national unity in 2008, Obama ran well to the left of Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton on social and economic issues.  Hillary Clinton ran to the left of Obama on everything except for the use of the US military and I think she eschewed the symbolic centrism of previous Democratic nominees.  

If the Democrats were near the median voter I don't think the Democratic Party would be at its weakest point in decades in the House, governorships, and state legislatures.  If the Democrats were nearer the median voter, Hillary Clinton would have gotten more than 48% of the vote against a moral monstrosity who ran an inept, less well-funded campaign.  Although her 2.7 point win in the popular vote is substantial, Hillary Clinton actually got a slightly lower percentage of the vote than Al Gore did in 2000, despite there being a weaker Green Party challenge in 2016.

I hope I am not getting repetitive, but the actual electorate isn't the same body that is polled by polling companies.  The electorate is whomever votes, and it changes dramatically from midterm election to presidential election.  The electorate is also filtered through Senate malapportionment and the electoral college, so a more accurate poll of what voters think would have to give extra weight to people who live in Wyoming and Montana and then discount the opinions of people who live in California and New York. 

Also, if both parties emphasize an strategy of energizing the base (and big donors), the parties will become even more polarized, anti-partisanship will increase, and public policy will whiplash between right and left.  I don't see that as good for the country.

Runner_Guy said:

Although Obama often talked about national unity in 2008, Obama ran well to the left of Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton on social and economic issues.  

Obama also won twice, unlike 2/3 of those.

And Hillary is not left of Obama.

mtierney said:

so much in our society today seems to be “popular” -tattoos, shaved heads on men, purple hair, potty mouths, shoes designed to hobble women, etc. etc
 

 Tattoos do seem to be popular. I hate them. Shaved heads on men are somewhat popular but I have shed enough hair naturally so as to think it somewhat odd. I don't think purple hair is especially popular. But all these are just fads which come and go.

The term "potty mouth" is very old fashioned and "bad" words are still censored on TV.

Women have been wearing high heel shoes for 100 years.

Runner_Guy said:

The electorate is whomever votes, and it changes dramatically from midterm election to presidential election.

 Doesn’t the mutability of turnout for any election undermine the idea of the “median voter” as some kind of benchmark?

dave23 said:

And Hillary is not left of Obama.

 But the Hyde Amendment.

dave23 said:

Runner_Guy said:Although Obama often talked about national unity in 2008, Obama ran well to the left of Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton on social and economic issues.  

Obama also won twice, unlike 2/3 of those.
And Hillary is not left of Obama.

 The World moves forward and "left" and "right" are flexible concepts.

A supporter of same-sex marriage in 1992 was a "far left"radical. An opponent of same-sex marriage in 2018 is a "far right" reactionary. I could give many other examples.

This thread is supposed to be about Kavanaugh. Here is the latest.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/roberts-kavanaugh-supreme-court-892055

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

 If you're taking the long view, ie. decades meaning many decades rather than a few, I dont necessarily disagree that the Democrats have been moving right. 

But I disagree that it hasn't been effective. Clinton and Obama were fairly centrist and they each had 8 years in the White House. They were a lot more successful than folks like Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, and George McGovern, who came before them and were considerably further left. 

Lost said: 

“Women have been wearing high heel shoes for 100 years.”

Maybe that explains a lot   

Back in the day, only hookers wore 6” stilleto pumps - the ante is upped with sandals.

Runner_Guy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

I disagree that the Democrats have been "moving right for decades."  

 how can you deny that the Democratic Party has been moving right for decades?  Richard Nixon for jeebus' sake was more liberal than most Democrats today.  He was the guy who proposed the creation of the EPA, and universal health insurance.  There was a time when Paul Wellstone was a fairly mainstream figure in the party.  Nowadays he'd be on the left fringe with Bernie Sanders.

LOST said:

dave23 said:

Runner_Guy said:Although Obama often talked about national unity in 2008, Obama ran well to the left of Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton on social and economic issues.  

Obama also won twice, unlike 2/3 of those.
And Hillary is not left of Obama.

 The World moves forward and "left" and "right" are flexible concepts.
A supporter of same-sex marriage in 1992 was a "far left"radical. An opponent of same-sex marriage in 2018 is a "far right" reactionary. I could give many other examples.

 I will admit I'm not considering social issues.  I'm talking about economic issues like health care, minimum wage, financial regulation, cost of higher education, support for unions, etc.

mtierney said:
Lost said: 
“Women have been wearing high heel shoes for 100 years.”
Maybe that explains a lot   
Back in the day, only hookers wore 6” stilleto pumps - the ante is upped with sandals.

I think it's absurd that we live in a world with tremendous economic uncertainty for a lot of Americans, we're still fighting 2 costly foreign wars, racism, xenophobia, misogyny and bigotry are on the rise, and you think high heels and saying "***" on TV are the country's biggest problems.

Grrr

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-agree-confirm-more-trump-232801416.html

ml1 said:

mtierney said:
Lost said: 
“Women have been wearing high heel shoes for 100 years.”
Maybe that explains a lot   
Back in the day, only hookers wore 6” stilleto pumps - the ante is upped with sandals.

I think it's absurd that we live in a world with tremendous economic uncertainty for a lot of Americans, we're still fighting 2 costly foreign wars, racism, xenophobia, misogyny and bigotry are on the rise, and you think high heels and saying "***" on TV are the country's biggest problems.

Psst, do not tell anyone, but she is trolling us. In fact, mtierney is probably a fat russian guy named Boris who is working for the GRU. They are a 3rd world country, but they sure know how to rile us.

ml1 said:

Runner_Guy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
I'm just amazed that anyone thinks that the Democratic party is too far left and needs to move to the right (which is where the center is)

The Democrats have been moving right for decades, and it hasn't been effective for them.  They might want to look at the polling on affordable college, minimum wage, affordable health care, etc. and recalibrate themselves leftward where the popular policy ideas are.

I disagree that the Democrats have been "moving right for decades."  

 how can you deny that the Democratic Party has been moving right for decades?  Richard Nixon for jeebus' sake was more liberal than most Democrats today.  He was the guy who proposed the creation of the EPA, and universal health insurance.  There was a time when Paul Wellstone was a fairly mainstream figure in the party.  Nowadays he'd be on the left fringe with Bernie Sanders.

 Yeah, I didn't read pass that sentence.

I don't think it's a question of "moving left" or "moving right". It's a question of the efficacy and popularity of certain issues.

Run on 

• Medicare for All
• $15 minimum wage
• Repeal/replace the tax cut and instead pay for infrastructure rebuilding
• Appoint judges that favor the consumer over the corporation

I think that this would appeal to very many voters who might otherwise consider themselves (borderline) conservative or independent.

was watching an interview with Ginsburg on the youtube.

She just does not look well.

Robert_Casotto said:
was watching an interview with Ginsburg on the youtube.


She just does not look well.

I rebuke that thought in the name of evething that is Holy. Long live RBG. 

Plank RBG Plank!

Morganna said:
Plank RBG Plank!

I love this pic. Though I’m still a bit salty that she didn’t offer to retire when Obama still had a Senate Majority. I mean I get it’s her prerogative to serve for life but this current situation can’t be doing her blood pressure any favors. 

Viva RBG!!! 

gerritn said:

ml1 said:

mtierney said:
Lost said: 
“Women have been wearing high heel shoes for 100 years.”
Maybe that explains a lot   
Back in the day, only hookers wore 6” stilleto pumps - the ante is upped with sandals.

I think it's absurd that we live in a world with tremendous economic uncertainty for a lot of Americans, we're still fighting 2 costly foreign wars, racism, xenophobia, misogyny and bigotry are on the rise, and you think high heels and saying "***" on TV are the country's biggest problems.

Psst, do not tell anyone, but she is trolling us. In fact, mtierney is probably a fat russian guy named Boris who is working for the GRU. They are a 3rd world country, but they sure know how to rile us.

 Wrong on all counts! I am not fat, not male, not Russian, retired, and not a troll.

Here is another assumption busted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/sunday-review/conservative-women-trump-kavanaugh.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times