|
I know I go extra sometimes, but what I'm saying is really no different.
You got Reeq in here saying they are failing. The only more loyal Dem in here, off the top, is you.
>It's not an even playing field. In fact, their game is
>different from our game. They can do shit that we can't.
I dunno. I think its not level, at least partially, because Dems don't make it level. Plenty of people are checked out and think there is no/little difference between the parties.
Most Dem politicians, particularly in leadership positions, seemingly just want to go back to norms. Those "norms" are gone.
The Dem party has been getting fucked, pretty consistently, by the GOP since the 80s- at least the 90s. Even during the very brief time since then when Dems had actual power, they stucks to norms.
2009-2011 could have created a generation of loyal Democrats in the same way that FDR did. They cared more about how things "looked" than what things accomplished.
>
>People who could be convinced to vote D are inherently more
>finicky than people who can be convinced to vote R. Take
>yourself as an example. Consider how little it takes for you
>to DESPISE a Democrat. Even a front-runner.
Who do I despise? Biden? I think Biden would lose the general. If I thought he could win, I would have a different tune. But my main beef with Biden is I think he loses the general. I wonder if a VP pick could help...but I feel a lot less confident in Biden than Beto or even fucking Mayor Pete.
I get what you're saying though. Dems need to cast a wide net.
The problem, though, is I think they often miss people who don't see a difference between the two parties. Are those people ignorant? Sure.
Doesn't mean their votes don't count though.
I think Dems "wide net" could include pretty much anyone making less than $250k a year and isn't a religious zealot. I really do think the potential is there...but by playing to norms I think a lot of people stay home rather than vote.
And look, I get this is my opinion. I also see the danger in going too far left on stuff like free college and M4A. I do.
But I don't think fighting for what is right, showing you actually believe what you say (like Trump obstructed justice, or members of W admin lied, etc) is moving too far left. It shows you actually have back bone.
It's too easy for
>us to forget that there are a lot of other Democrats out there
>who will just as readily turn against a candidate because
>they're TOO activist, TOO progressive. It's a dynamic that's
>gone on for decades. Democrats have just learned, from ample
>experience, that they have to be cautious and hope there isn't
>a fight at the dinner table.
But see, this is where Dems lose in my opinion. Is Trump terrible or not? Did he obstruct justice, or not?
Dems want to half attack him. If they DONT impeach, Trump will flip that on them. "You hear Joe/Bernie/Kamala/whoever talk about Mueller? If the democrats were so convinced I'm guilty, why didn't they impeach?" I can see the tweets and debate talk.
Etc.
I'm not saying Dems should die on a M4A hill or something.
I'm saying if Trump obstructed justice, if Dems believe that, they better ACT like they believe it.
Or, I guess, shut up and move on.
>
>I've already said I think impeachment is probably the right
>thing to do. But I'm not gonna pretend there aren't ENORMOUS
>political risks in it.
>
For individual purple districts? Maybe.
But I dont think impeachment "inspires" Trump's base anymore than they already are. I don't think anything moves that needle either way.
Like I've said, I think there are political risks too, at this point, in NOT impeaching.
If they don't, the "witch hunt" narrative certainly looks more plausible to people not paying close attention.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
