And I honestly can't call it at all.

My progressive friends tell me now is the time to be bold and push forward a bold progressive vision of how the country should be.

But I just don't see it. It just seems like living a whole different world than the white folks I work with and see around me all day.

I've also completely given up on the idea of personality-driven politics, that is, if we just got the RIGHT person in office, they will be able to fix it. I have a hard time thinking that Kamala Harris will be able to accomplish more than Barrack Obama did. I think the next Dem president can learn from Obama's mistakes and the mood and playing field has changed a bit, but I just really don't think it's a matter of the right person being in office to make Medicare for all, or gun control happens or fight mass incarceration, etc.

I've been thinking alot more about the boring stuff that needs to change to set the table for making the big stuff to happen. Redistricting, changes to voting and tax law. I've been thinking that ichanges to media consolidation laws could strengthen local ownership of newspaper and media outlets would have a major impact on politics (the nationalization of media and news outlets has had a terrible impact on voters and partisanship).

Anyway, I think we will have our answer in less than 2 years but its scary to think the wrong choice between these two choices could mean 4 more years of Trump.





**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

But I'm hoping the GOP screws up enough that we can get the White House & both houses of Congress. And if that cascades down the state level, some governorships and control of some state legislatures. Changes at the state & local level would be a huge help in moving along the boring (but important) stuff that you mention.

>RE: I know folks are focusing on the 2020 presidential election & I get that
> But I'm hoping the GOP screws up enough that we can get the
>White House & both houses of Congress. And if that cascades
>down the state level, some governorships and control of some
>state legislatures. Changes at the state & local level would
>be a huge help in moving along the boring (but important)
>stuff that you mention.

The Repugs have screwed up an awful fucking lot in the last 3 years. Shit, the last 20ish. And they keep finding ways to win (including cheating/gerrymandering/voter suppression, obviously). So I have absolutely *no* confidence that this will happen.

But I'm open to discussion about how it could.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

Their base will always be there, voting for them. But what the GOP melts down enough in the next 2 years to pull all the swing voters our way?

45 is already in a serious decline. I wouldn't be shocked if it continued into 2020. And what if we could tie the GOP directly to him and all of his failures?

I know, I know, I know...I'm really reaching (go go gadget arms).

I just wish I could share the optimism.

I mean everything you're saying makes sense. Polls #s plummeting and all that. Messaging will be important to tie everything *directly* to him. (It shouldn't take messaging, it's all so obvious ... but AmeriKKKA is racist and stupid and that's how we got Trump in the first place so ... I digress). Etc.

But I lost faith in all historical norms and institutions after 2016, specifically polls. Wish I hadn't.

But yea - naturally I hope you're onto something and it works.


> Their base will always be there, voting for them. But what
>the GOP melts down enough in the next 2 years to pull all the
>swing voters our way?
>
> 45 is already in a serious decline. I wouldn't be shocked if
>it continued into 2020. And what if we could tie the GOP
>directly to him and all of his failures?
>
> I know, I know, I know...I'm really reaching (go go gadget
>arms).

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

https://me.me/i/hillary-2016-michelle-2024-chelsea-malia-sasha-2032-2040-2048-3596907

Moderate is status quo and lacks energy. Hilary was moderate and look at how that turned out.

Dems need energy to contrast the negativity from Trump.

This guy brings something to the table that even Trump couldn't: the talent to bore folks into giving up on American Liberalism.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

stop pussy footing around things and trying to be centrist

stop being reactive to GOP tactics

stop trying to pretend that the country is not as progressive as it really is

stop trying to pretend that we are not ok

stop playing the same old political games in the new world (Obama started getting into this with use of metrics and targeting)

start be bold about positions

start developing an actual platform instead of being reactive to GOP tactics

start using MORE of a lean methodology with program development

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

Sounds like his plan is to appeal more towards republicans

_______________________________________

I could be wrong, and its risky as hell, but it seems like he'd appeal more to the mythical moderate republican.

I just wish he'd go away already.

after hearing him talk...hes basically a blatantly anti-dem michael bloomberg.

dude was supposed to be running as some bipartisan unifier but its been less than a week and he has already let the cat out of the bag and started bashing dems almost exclusively.

'centrist' dems of the schultz variety (and not the doug jones variety) tend to be coastal plutocrats...who are socially liberal but still wanna hoard all of their money and extract resources from the federal government to prop up large corporations.

hes the type of 'independent centrist' that ran in kansas and ended up taking more votes away from the repub gov candidate than the dem.

historically...the people who have split dem votes have done it from the left of the left. nader, stein, etc. this dude isnt anywhere close to that. in fact...he is the complete opposite (anti-union, low taxes on the rich, etc).

the type of dem centrists he is trying to appeal to are generally well educated suburbanites who know the political ramifications of voting for a indie in a contested election (why bloomberg never ran as an indie). they are the same people who revolted against trump and the repub tax plan and wiped the repub party out of previous strongholds like orange county.

i dont see him appealing to them much and costing them a chance to knock trump out of power and restore some financial sanity in washington.



sidenote: they had some 'expert' from the boston globe on morning joe the other day laying out how michael bloomberg has the most likely path to a democratic nomination due to primary structure, potentially monopolizing the moderate subgroup of the dem electorate, and some such other shit. if you wanna know why the pundit class is so clueless when things like donald trump happen...its because they listen to people like that.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

At this point, I need politicians who can accomplish things. Ideals are great and all, but having high ideals means nothing if you're not passing laws and actually working towards changing shit versus constantly being on your soapbox preaching till you're blue in the face while nobody is listening.

Give me somebody who'll get *some* shit done versus somebody who's ideologically pure but unable to do jack shit in the real world cause they lack the ability to debase themselves with their lessors.

__________________________________________

I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

>Give me somebody who'll get *some* shit done versus somebody
>who's ideologically pure but unable to do jack shit in the
>real world cause they lack the ability to debase themselves
>with their lessors.
>

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

Moderates hold the center -- i.e. preserve the status-quo. If you're looking for someone to "get shit done" - you literally should be looking for candidates who aim to mold new consensus and challenging the business as usual order of the day.

Unless of course - you like the status-quo.

-->

a crazy, far left, marxist radical who wants to destroy the family and will force all white Christians into FEMA camps. Better try and nominate an actual Republican, just to be safe.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

We could run Ted Cruz and he would be called a lefty foreign socialist maggot.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

No reason not to at least run someone who wants to do something. Joe Biden's not going to make the GOP all of a sudden realize they've been unreasonable all these years.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

.

is absurd. You think the GOP has cared about what Democrats think of their candidates? No. And that's why they've been so successful. They haven't compromised their principles and often run and support candidates who are on the bold fringes of party normalcy.

The GOP may be toxic trash - but they certainly aren't afraid to fight for their principles.

The problem with many conventional Dems is that too often they don't really even know what their principles are - or don't have a passionate perspective this way or that way - they just want to be electable and play it safe. That hasn't worked out too well.

-->

since those scarcely populated states can represent with the same pull as Cali, NY, FL, Etc.

Plus gerrymandering and outside influence like citizens united.

I don't think we'll be able to become anywhere nears as progressive as say Canada until all of that is address.

Though I'm hopeful.

�If a fat guy falls in the woods and there is no one around to see it, do the trees laugh?

genuine, real, intellectually-honest, problem-solver. Someone who thinks for themself and is focused on finding solutions to concrete solvable problems, willing to work with "enemies" and opponents (foreign and domestic) and would be very very hesitant to get us roped into more foreign entanglements.

But that ability to work across the aisle and come to their own views doesnt mean i want someone who is satisfied with status quo or scared of "socialism". I dont want a mole for the prison or military industrial complex. I dont want a pro-choice neocon. Etc

The country needs RADICAL changes economically, environmentally, socially, etc. But we dont need more divisiveness and partisanship. We have to find a way to get beyond the left-right divide in a progressive way if at all possible. Win ppl over to good ideas.

and a moderate lost in 2016.

ain't no time for no punk smooth shit.

go hard and go honest.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

I love AOC but she is the bronx. She can say whatever and she would be find back home. Which is how it should be. The politicians from the liberal states should lob liberal shots because they have the cover to do so and help move everyone left.

But AOC can't win West Virginia. That dude from West Va has to win West Va.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Warren is national. Sanders is national.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

progressives dont even make up the majority of the democratic party so they def dont make up the majority of americans (unfortunately).

progressive power is overwhelmingly clustered into a few areas. northeast, west coast, minnesota, and colorado.

presidential elections are increasingly decided by a handful of states and none of them are progressive bastions. in fact...many of them are trending redder (oh, fl, ia, etc).

picking candidates that dont appeal to voters all across the nation...especially in crucial electoral college states...is political suicide.

are progressive candidates with pockets of heat.

and moderate candidates with no heat.

and Kamala.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

as much as i would love a super lefty as president...they tend to only appeal to urban metros and benandjerryland.

we gotta think/vote strategic.

theres a playbook to winning elections in this country. lets learn them routes.

the most popular car in america is the ford f series. 2nd is the chevy silverado. 3rd is the the ram pickup.

sometimes our biggest mistake is thinking who we aspire to be will prevail over who we really are.

it might be better for either side to put forth more moderate candidates for head of state. Send the revolutionaries to the legislative branch, lol.

This is because whenever one side wins an election, there tends to be a 'backlash' and minimizing the polarity of that backlash is less traumatic for all involved.

In the US, there's a natural check-and-balance built into congressional representation (eg. it's bicameral, frequent election cycles in the lower house, etc) and progressives are actually quite empowered there by the ability to put forth legislation. It's on them to try and win support from the rest of the chamber to have it pass.

But head of state is one person with super high visibility. Better for that person to be stable and not crazy, embarassing, authoritarian, etc to a large segment of the population or the international community, imo.

and Republicans keep responding with nuttier and nuttier candidates.

The swing goes from moderate liberal to hard right, not hard left to hard right.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

hot sauce in their purse and a beyonce CD.

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.

they've been "putting out moderates" in the sense of Dems who are Republican-lite on the issues, but who are still highly divisive and hyper-partisan and alienate the avg person on the other side (where i used terms like "snobby, elite, etc").

My point is that there's different kinds of "moderate"

There's ppl who are more progressive on the issues but less divisive with the people (and able to work with opponents for everyone's benefit)

And then theres the ppl who are basically republicans w/ a twist (my "pro-choice" quip) but thrive on the grandtsanding finger-wagging mudslinging nonsense that makes for a terrible leader.

-->

it's almost like: Exactly! That's what's happened in response to MODERATELY left-wing heads of state, can you imagine the backlash to a true progressive? lol. All I'm proposing is that a 'swing' exists.

Another thing to note too, is that I think in the case of Obama.. he is a special case. Because while he was fairly moderate politically, the fact that a black man was elected Head of State obviously activated hard-right members of US society with the reality that 'the country' must be moving in a more progressive direction, which would explain how/why a racist, sexist, proto-dictator resonated with so many people (unfortunately).

But then, equally important is the impact that 45s racism and sexism has had on the country.. which responded by electing the most diverse congress in American history and potentially the first woman (or even woman of color!) for President. We should admit that this too is a 'backlash', even if its a backlash we like.

I'm not trying to advocate for yielding to hard-right elements of society, though. Just to resist the convenience of shrugging them off as old, dying off, ineffective, etc and remaining vigilant of the damage/loss they can cause to people's lives. We saw in Charlottesville there is a young, renewed, and politically active contingent keeping hard-right political leanings alive and modernizing them. I personally suspect that moderate heads of state are more stable for a democracy and that motivating an engaged electorate to spur change through Congress is a better strategy, but it's also possible that people could simply just brace for backlashes if electing more politically extreme candidates for the highest office.

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

is able to connect with (or at least not alienate) the "other side" on a human level, while maintaining a commitment to some of the more radical structural stuff and problem-solving we need to start doing asap.

A lot of ppl in liberal bubbles really underestimate how much love Bernie was getting from staunch rural working class lifelong republicans. He was able to conmect with them, he didnt point the finger at them, and ppl were getting open to some of his points. I had a Cruz-loving coworker in 2016 who said several of her Cruz friends told her they're voting for Bernie if its Trump vs Bernie. But they hated Hillary, so they voted Trump.

We need a leader who connects to ppl on both sides, but he/she doesn't have to be a moderate republican-lite on the issues.

>I had a Cruz-loving coworker in 2016 who
>said several of her Cruz friends told her they're voting for
>Bernie if its Trump vs Bernie. But they hated Hillary, so they
>voted Trump.

They said it about Obama, back when it looked like Hillary was a lock for the nomination. That Barack Obama, he's a good, principled man, who is unfortunately getting steamrolled by The Clinton Machine. While I don't agree with all of his ideas, he seems like he is a fundamentally decent man. Then he shocked everyone by winning the nomination, and Republicans were totally cool with him.

Same thing totally would've happened with Bernie, he would've won a shitload of GOP votes and Senate Republicans would approve all of his judges, since the only reason they didn't with so many of Obama's is because he got Too Elite. They're definitely not playing you.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

Because they said as much back then.

If that was NOT the case, then it means that all of the "he's a good man who I happen to disagree with on some things, but I could still support someone like that" coming from Republicans is all bullshit.

Are you saying you DON'T believe that a bunch of Ted Cruz fans wouldn't have voted for Bernie Sanders?

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

But they aren't. When one party completely ditches the idea of procedural norms, it makes no sense to keep upholding them just for the sake of appearances.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

The GOP have pushed the country so far right that true leftists in the federal gov't might be the only counter to all of that. I want more representatives like Ocasio-Cortez in Congress.

---------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

dems going further left has historically led to dems (especially whites without a college education) fleeing the party. just look at the south, midwest, and rust belt/appalachia.

as recently as 2011...there were 2 dem senators in north dakota. alabama had a majority dem state house. west virginia had a majority dem state house through 2013. a dem governor through 2016 (elected in 2012).

but dems embracing issues like gay marriage, black lives matter, no fossil fuels, etc cost them dearly just about everywhere but liberal coastal states.

dems arent even competitive on a statewide level anymore in places like missouri, kentucky, ohio, and louisiana because the party has gone 'too far left' for those states. those states are trending *hard* right.

the repub party...on the other hand...is more authoritarian so they follow the party top down. just look at their evolution on guns, climate change, russia, etc. those were all brought about by special interest groups, donors, etc. the republican base moves along with the party.

so in this case there isnt an equal and opposite reaction.

I had a debate with a friend not too long ago where I basically laid out why I, a left-winger, couldn't support any major left-wing movements just yet. They aren't making the case on the benefits of their platform to enough Americans. All of their discussions sound so academic, like they just copy and pasted whatever their favorite professor said.

Not only that, I'm hoping the younger groups learn the power of compromise. Work with Democrats. Work with Republicans. Stop holing up in college towns and go to rural America, the Midwest, the South.
---------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

>All of their discussions sound so academic, like they just
>copy and pasted whatever their favorite professor said.

thinking smart/right = effective/appealing.

Who were on a clock the minute Obama got into office. You weren't going to see a bunch of Blue Dogs keep their seats under any kind of Democratic presidency regardless of what they did or didn't do in Obama's first two years.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

>Who were on a clock the minute Obama got into office. You
>weren't going to see a bunch of Blue Dogs keep their seats
>under any kind of Democratic presidency regardless of what
>they did or didn't do in Obama's first two years.

it wasnt always like this. blue dogs held down clinton and took it to bush. the dem senate leader before harry reid was from south dakota lol.

the fact we view them as a transient property now speaks to the trend i was highlighting.

The Democratic party on a national level is to the left of where a lot of these people were, so any D president (could've been Hillary, could've been Biden, whoever) was going to require them to either break with their party leadership or take some votes that were going to cost them in their home district. Even if they would have taken Rahm's advice and scaled back the ACA to basically a slightly expanded SCHIP program, it still would've cost them because it was a mostly untenable alliance between a more progressive party whose legislators were coming from largely more conservative districts.

It's not really feasible right today to put together a Blue Dog coalition made up of legislators from R+ districts and enact any sort of genuinely progressive legislation. Fortunately, the current Dem caucus in the house seems pretty united (though once we're at the part where passing legislation that the President will actually sign happens, we may see some divisions.) But I doubt it will be anything as bad as Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu holding the ACA hostage every other week.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

are quite necessary before anything truly progressive occurs on a federal level from the White House. A candidate can be as progressive as they want to be as a candidate, but there's too many big monied impediments to get truly progressive actions passed on a federal level from the White House.

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

It worked before and everyone can get behind it.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

hr1.
https://twitter.com/StandUpAmerica/status/1089940440357486594

national voting holiday, automatic voter registration, dark money disclosure and regulation, increased regulation/oversight of lobbyists, small donor matching system to amplify the influence of actual people over corps/pacs, end partisan gerrymandering, etc.

basically an entire democracy-restoring wishlist.

republicans are already attacking it as democratic party power grab lol.
https://mobile.twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1090369625320243201

apparently ensuring more americans are actually allowed to exercise their legal right to vote would lead to more victories for democrats.

thanks for saying the quiet part out loud.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/427364-some-dems-float-idea-of-primary-challenge-for-ocasio-cortez

There is a real push from within DNC ranks to primary AOC. They are already going to primary Tulsi in Hawaii - and it seems like the new tactic is try to excise any non-conformist progressive dem that challenges the conventional Pelosi-Schumer leadership.

This is essentially the dumbest thing the Democrats could do. The Millennials will soon be the largest voting bloc in the country - and they are markedly different from their older party loyalists. They are less partisan, more progressive, and increasingly skeptical of traditional leadership. The notion that you would try to alienate this gigantic demographic instead of sprinting to court them is a tactical error of unfathomable proportion.

-->

is that fair game? it doesnt go both ways?

she came to washington on the back of organizations like justicedems...whose mission was to primary dem incumbents. if aoc...as a sitting congresswoman...still supports that organization and even actively works to primary her fellow caucus members...then why shouldnt she have a target on her back as well?

personally i dont think primarying incumbent democrats is productive unless its someone actively blocking or watering down dem legislation (tulsi has actually been this person in the past but doesnt seem to be one for now).

so i dont condone primarying either one. and the *dnc* is not supporting a primary against either one (we have to be careful/precise with the language).

the official dnc didnt even support a primary against tulsi when she was conservative. in fact she had a position on the committee. the dnc...just like the rnc...tends to support incumbents.

tulsi is being challenged by a member of the state party who is actually a lifelong progressive. and he is being supported by progressive organizations like dailykos (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/24/1828955/-Tulsi-Gabbard-s-values-are-out-of-step-but-we-have-a-much-better-progressive-choice-in-Kai-Kahele). all of this is routine and above board.

if people support aoc primarying dems to install more progressives...shouldnt those same folks support gabbard being primaried by someone with a stronger progressive pedigree who has the support of grassroots organizations?

those same folks did just support ayanna pressley primarying a dem incumbent progressive caucus member with one of the most progressive voting records in congress.

What's wrong is when outside money and interest comes in to support a primary but the idea that incumbents should not be challenged is bad for democracy.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

make you spend a lot of money you could normally stockpile for the general, expose you to attacks your general opponent could pick up, alienate some potential voters, etc.

there have been instances of people raising a shitload of dough and putting themselves in good position for the general. but then getting a primary challenge and losing in the general because their resources were depleted and stretched.

but this isnt really just about primaries in general. this is about people in congress supporting primaries against their caucus mates.

its like an nba player actively trying to get a teammate traded. im sure you can see the issues there.

>is that fair game? it doesnt go both ways?

It does - but at some point as an organization you have to be strategic and decide how you want to push your brand. Is it smart for the DNC to continue to back candidates like Crowley and thwart the undeniable new/young energy that AOC infuses into the party? I'd argue it's so foolish that it's laughable.

>so i dont condone primarying either one. and the *dnc* is not
>supporting a primary against either one (we have to be
>careful/precise with the language).

The DNC acts covertly when they maneuver in primaries. Here in NH, the state party infrastructure (in lockstep with the DNC) pushed Chris Pappas in CD1 (while appearing to be neutral on the surface). There are many things that the DNC can do to support its chose candidate behind the scenes (donor $ funneling, prime media features, curated debates, organizing PR/endorsements etc..)

After the 2016 primary, you can't seriously claim that the DNC doesn't have bias towards certain candidates/incumbents. DNC operatives are at work in every congressional district - which isn't a problem in itself - except when the result ices out new energy and progressive momentum.

>tulsi is being challenged by a member of the state party who
>is actually a lifelong progressive. and he is being supported
>by progressive organizations like dailykos
>(https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/24/1828955/-Tulsi-Gabbard-s-values-are-out-of-step-but-we-have-a-much-better-progressive-choice-in-Kai-Kahele).
> all of this is routine and above board.

God the dailykos again lol. But I love how now we are having progressive purity tests. How quickly things have changed. Tulsi was warned in 2016 by Hillary and DNC operatives that there would be consequences - and they are making good on that promise:

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/14/wikileaks-gabbard-received-spiteful-email-from-fundraisers-over-sanders-support/

>if people support aoc primarying dems to install more
>progressives...shouldnt those same folks support gabbard being
>primaried by someone with a stronger progressive pedigree who
>has the support of grassroots organizations?

Of course - but let's just not be naive and say that there aren't forces within the DNC that want to oust Gabbard.




-->

The most "moderate" Democrat is still 10000x better than NAY Republican.

I'm to the left of most mainstream Democratic candidates and I support any/all that can ACTUALLY win.

The Republics lie/cheat their way in losing the popular vote (happened TWICE in the last 19 years) but technically winning office - and then steer the congress/senate/country HARD RIGHT.

Howard Schultz is a putz, so is Bloomberg and they each be a BILLION times better than Trump.

Vote Democratic for local representative, congress, senate, and president. Once those can align we can steer harder to the left.

Or don't and wind up with 2 - possibly 4 more right wing lunatics on the supreme court.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

>Vote Democratic for local representative, congress, senate,
>and president. Once those can align we can steer harder to the
>left.
>
>Or don't and wind up with 2 - possibly 4 more right wing
>lunatics on the supreme court.

gop couldnt drive hard right without first capturing state power and excluding likely opposition from voting, killing ethics/campaign finance oversight, gerrymandering to artificially inflate their power/majority, etc.

while dems focus on changing policy to win elections...repubs focus on changing actual elections.

before dems can even begin to think about passing any policy...we have to focus on changing actual elections and tilting the balance of access back to likely dem voters to put us in a better position to accrue power at all levels. fortunately...voting rights are part of the dem state and national mantle now (automatic voter registration, nonpartisan redistricting, felon re-enfranchisement, etc).

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1089613347434188800

Who responded to the survey, how were the questions worded, etc?

Also, when was it done? I could see recent buzz about M4A and free college skew these results if it was done recently.


I think it needs to be more precise than "run a moderate" in my opinion.


Dems win when they have an engaging candidate with a message. The best play for the Presidency and the party in general is continue to make the difference between the two parties VERY clear- which even I (lol) think they have been doing a pretty good job at lately.

I do think it would be a huge mistake to just run against Trump and essentially say "lets go back to the Obama days" because, even though the Obama days were so much better, that isn't a winning message. Especially in the rust belt.

Campaign finance reform, expansion of voting rights/access/convenience, progress on healthcare costs, addressing climate change, expanding social security, etc.

In other words, go progressive on specific issues. But maybe not to the point of "insurance industry? nah, fuck all that" lol...something more well thought out.

Joe Biden/Colin Peterson 2020: Build The Wall, But For Good Reasons

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

>Joe Biden/Colin Peterson 2020: Build The Wall, But For Good
>Reasons

Build The Wall, but with 100% recycled material

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

from listening to part of his morning Joe interview. It's literally the first time I've ever heard him speak.

Colossally unlikable, up his own ass with nothing to really say except whine about Trump being terrible and Democrats being so far left, and the typical Republican spiel about how we can't afford government handouts (but without using the word handout, because, independent)

Then Mika or Joe asked him some a goofy gotcha question about if he knows how much a box of cheerios cost, which he couldn't answer but went on about growing up in the projects.

Another question about who his favorite republican and democratic presidents were. he gave the stock answers of FDR and Reagan and proceeded to suck off Reagan as guys like him always do, but doesn't actually give any actual reasons for Reagan's greatness other than some rehearsed anecdote about how he always wore his coat in the oval office. Because that's what's important to Americans. Reagan wore a jacket.

Fuck that guy.

and reagan was jacket-less in the oval office all the time.
https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/01/reagan-no-jacket.jpg
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-jacket-oval-office/

i watched that same interview and dude is an absolute asswipe.

the longer he continues to talk...the more he is going to get ripped apart. im sure he got a few 'aleppo's on deck.

i can only imagine the hissy fit he had from obama putting his feet up on the desk. he probably had dinner with the home depot guy over it.

he only said FDR because of WWII. it's the safe answer but it's doubtful he knows anything about him except that and polio. that's why he immediately drooled over Reagan. "I just came from the Reagan libraray" lolol

>and reagan was jacket-less in the oval office all the time.
>https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/01/reagan-no-jacket.jpg
>https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-jacket-oval-office/
>
>i watched that same interview and dude is an absolute
>asswipe.
>
>the longer he continues to talk...the more he is going to get
>ripped apart. im sure he got a few 'aleppo's on deck.

I laughed.

They need to bring that dude to every rally and interview to scream on dude.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/29/howard-schultz-denies-a-2020-run-as-independent-could-re-elect-trump


and he also looks like a president of a bankrupt EU country

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Because the president who passed the largest expansion of the welfare state and social programs in American history and was HIGHLY partisan is not the role model I'd expect from a guy whose sole beliefs seem to be "I don't want to pay taxes" and "People should Reach Across The Aisle and Be Civil."

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

'a 70% marginal top tax rate and medicare for all are unamerican'.

also: 'i love the president who imposed a 90+% marginal top tax rate and wanted to socialize medicine'.

its crazy how being rich in one field lets you treat everything else like an entry level job.

the press completely skipped over asking how he was qualified and went straight to asking what he would do once he got hired.

during this country's greatest challenge. and how too many politicians divide us when we need to come together. that's pretty much exactly what he'll say.

i seriously doubt he's even aware of how FDR represents everything he's bitching about.

if someone brought it up, he'd pivot back to WWII and united us, and maybe he wore a jacket too.

>Because the president who passed the largest expansion of the
>welfare state and social programs in American history and was
>HIGHLY partisan is not the role model I'd expect from a guy
>whose sole beliefs seem to be "I don't want to pay taxes" and
>"People should Reach Across The Aisle and Be Civil."