monitoring the flow of political discussion from journalists, lefties, right wingers, etc.

so things im watching get hashed out all day prolly aint even on the radar to the general public lol.

it prolly looks like im just kicking up dust outta nowhere lol.

first off...i know you aint being snarky fam. you aint gotta say it! lol. we engage in genuine debate all the time (which i enjoy) and i appreciate the fact that you challenge me via intellectual...but not emotional...temperament.


>Are you referring to a specific candidate here?

nah im speaking moreso on a scorched earth campaign waged by some prominent sanders supporters (sirota, konst, etc). you would prolly have to be especially in-tuned to that world to get where im coming from lol.


>Sure. And the party should use that popularity.
>
>
>But, its okay to admit Obama the President didn't equal Obama
>the candidate.
>
>And learn from that. And address it.
>
>And I think that, as the primary goes on, the question of "how
>will you accomplish x when Obama couldn't?" is a fair
>question.
>
>
>
>I'm not saying its right or even smart to shit on Obama. But,
>if there are critiques to be made and/or questions to ask, we
>can't label that person 'progressive'

yeah i kinda addressed this in reply #216. theres an ongoing effort to portray obama as a republican in democrat clothing...rather than a democrat with a significant historical mantle in the party legacy. you would prolly have to be regular viewwers/spectators of the people im talking about to 'get it'.


>This is where I get lost on who you mean by
>'progressive'...because I don't think your generalization is
>fair.
>
>Are you talking about Bernie Bros?
>

i dont really use the term 'bernie bro'. to me...thats reserved for like the most cartoonishly stereotypical bernie supporters. and it also has an implicit undertone of misogyny/racism...which isnt necessary relevant to most points i bring up.

i mean 'progressives' like a brand identity and not specifically a political assortment. like the type to ride hard for members of their 'team' (eg- gabbard, ojeda, mello, etc) despite their history of anti-progressive stances on supposedly key issues in the progressive platform.

but those same folks will portray politicians like pelosi, obama, etc as oppositional to progressives when they have an objective track record thats more progressive than the 'progressive' team mates.

so their allegiance to the term 'progressive' clearly isnt strictly by policy. its basically synonymous with 'allies of bernie' to them.

and look...its ok to moderate, give people a pass, and not apply a fine-tooth comb to every issue. in fact...i suggest more progressives do it to get more people on board. but the hypocrisy is so blatant sometimes in terms of who the standards are applied to and who theyre not.


>Again, I'm not sure who are fighting here, specifically. And,
>who is the "politician like Obama" in this case? Beto?
>Kamala?
>
>Also, you just said "the true base of the party"...isn't that
>a divisive statement? How is that different than saying "true
>Democrat"?
>
>Both sides in this do it.


by 'politicians like obama' i mean people focused on building large electoral coalitions. people who understand political fluidity wins...being moderate here...progressive there...and fitting the form of your electorate. not adhering to some rote list of demands that narrow your viability to a lesser combination of constituencies.

i admit 'true base' was a bad choice of words. what i mean is the larger 'mainstream' part of the base (which is overwhelmingly center-left).

im gonna post something down below on how beto and harris quantifiably touch upon a larger proportion of democrats.



>Also...Reeq...are you saying Dems need to chase Republican
>votes in 2020? You seemingly have gone back and forth on
>that.
>
>And, anyway, that didn't work in 16.


not necessarily 'chase republican votes'...but if a large socially liberal and fiscally moderate suburb is open to voting for a democrat...why would you shun them because they dont want socialized healthcare?

if the entire industrial labor apparatus of a county/state wants to vote democratic but relies on fossil fuel jobs and pipeline construction to keep the dues coming in...why shun them because they arent on board with a complete green upheaval to their local economy?

people have a lot of opinions of why 'democrats lose'...but the most objectively assessable reason is embracing a platform that is increasingly becoming more civilly stringent (while republicans become ethnically more stringent lol).

democrats actually dominated in the south and held on to control of the house for *40 years* (and even did well up through the early 90s) in part because they found a way to form a coalition among black voters and actual racists via organized labor principles. a lil compromise/give-and-take to say the least lol.

democrats had their largest congressional representation in a generation via 2006 and 2008 largely because they let blue dogs do their thing and didnt apply a purity test to them. made crazy gains even in red states.

why contract the tent and limit your chances of obtaining power?

due to the diverse patchwork nature of liberal factions...democratic party politics is about *common* ground. not absolute/unconditional ground.

we should be using concentric circles. not polygons.


>Obviously more than one progressive won in 2018. It is your
>definition of 'progressive' that loses me.
>
>But, I hope you aren't claiming that progressive energy didn't
>deliver huge wins in 18.

i wasnt talking about winning. i was talking about gaining ground and actually taking back territory that republicans held. only 1 'progressive' candidate (backed by justicedems/ourrevolution/etc) won a previously republican seat. *1* out of 40 flipped congressional seats. the other 'progressives' won in already-blue contests.

iono mayne...how do you champion the persuasiveness of your argument when you struggle to amass converts in ideologically diverse terrain? feel me?



>How would that look? Because part of the issue is the party
>runs to the center too often.
>
>And how can these 'progressives' take a big tent approach,
>when they are told they aren't the "real base of the party"
>etc?

dems run to the center too often? elections are won in the center. its just that the center is shifting as older/whiter (more reliable) voters become more conservative. if younger voters voted at the same rates of oldheads than it wouldnt be as much of an issue. but dems need the center. they dont have a stable of backwards rural states/districts with disproportionate electoral power to anchor their political fortunes.

and 'progressives' can take a big tent approach by simply allowing moderation and not being political vegans. they conveniently do it with people like ojeda. why is it a sin to do it with people like hakeem jeffries?

just look at the winning coalitions of clinton, reagan, obama, etc. they didnt do it by catering to fine print. they appealed to the headline.