>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.
>

Word, okay makes sense.

>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.

Yeah me too man. You've helped me look at some things differently. I put the "no snark" thing cuz sometimes I do come off snarky when I don't mean it lol

>
>
>>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.

Okay, I'm not. I couldn't tell you who specifically supported Bernie, etc so I might see some of their shit and not even make the connection.

>
>
>>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'.


Well, maybe I don't get the extent of it. But I do get that there was/is disappointment with Obama's presidency. Even if it is unfair or uninformed, its still a feeling some folks have.

And like I said, even if you want to attribute all of the disappointment to him being stopped in his tracks by the GOP, its still a fair question to ask of each candidate.

Assuming Dems win in 2020, I hope they (and we) learn and not repeat 2010.


Either way, I agree that trying to tie a Dem candidate to Obama as a negative is not smart.

Whoever wins the primary, I hope Obama and his team are heavily involved because of his a)popularity and b)ability to win elections.


>
>
>>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.

Okay, got it. I should have said Bernie supporters.


>
>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.

I wasn't really in on the Bernie thing in 2016, so I'm just now noticing this with Tulsi- folks giving her mad passes on stuff that I imagine that they will not give to other candidates.

That said, I think both sides of this argument do it to an extent.





>
>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.


Right. Like I said up above, if we are going to give Tulsi props for her growth/ability to change, then we have to do the same for say Gillibrand.
>
>
>>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.
>

Okay that makes sense in general terms- do you think Beto is that, then?


>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).

This is where I disagree more. A lot of people don't vote. Too many. And I really believe that if Dems were bold with their message, and worked on branding that message, they would be successful.

In other words, I think they often leave votes on the table by not effectively appealing to non voters.


>
>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?

Yes politics is local, so in that sense it probably often makes sense to run a blue dog or whatever (even then I'd want to know what the party has done to register new voters)...

But on a national level? Lets be bold. Lets run a candidate with progressive ideas who can sell them and explain to that county what can replace those fossil fuel jobs.


>
>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.

Honest question, so what is the plan here? What replaces unions as they continue to lose power?


>
>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?

Fair by I am also worried about including young people in that tent.

I've mentioned here the 12-14 year old white kid in a MAGA hat at Target...scared the shit out of me.

That tent should appeal to non-voters, new voters, and should definitely appeal more to a 12 year old kid.


>
>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.

Did you just drop geometry on me? Man, I can't run with that lol lol

>
>
>>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.

Again, I think they also need non-voters and young people.

I'm still salty about the "she'll pick up moderate Republicans in PA" type logic...

And my local Dem candidate in a RED district who canvassed registered Republicans...losing strategy.


>
>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.
>

Is it possible you underrate how much of an outsider Obama was considered? How many young people volunteered and voted etc?