AOC protests Nancy Pelosi

[Whispering 18,865]

41 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

We lost in 2016 with a moderate. We lost 1000 seats over the last decade with a moderate platform. We win with leftism and with charismatic politicians like AOC. We don't win by sucking up to massively unpopular leaders that should've stepped down a decade ago like Pelosi and Schumer. They need to get out of the way if they want the party to win.

We lost seats over the last decade because of whitelash, healthcare propaganda, gerrymandering and voter suppression. Whatever party is in the majority at the start of the decade will set the terms for the census, which has had a major impact on gerrymandering in the past. 

Democrats win with conservative Dems, moderates and far right candidates. It depends on the voters in each individual area. Many areas of the country are more moderate Democrats, and we need them too in the coalition to beat Trump in 2020. Pelosi and Schumer are not unpopular with the Democratic base. They have experience...and just won in the largest blue wave since Watergate. 

[ode 1,534]

51 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

We lost in 2016 with a moderate. We lost 1000 seats over the last decade with a moderate platform. We win with leftism and with charismatic politicians like AOC. We don't win by sucking up to massively unpopular leaders that should've stepped down a decade ago like Pelosi and Schumer. They need to get out of the way if they want the party to win.

We lost in 2016 because we ran Clinton, not a moderate.

The midterms show us that moderate candidates can win in purple or even red states/districts. (Look at Sinema, Rosen, Manchin, Tester...) Many of these candidates won as democrats in districts that Donald Trump carried in 2016, which means they won because independents and republicans voted for them over a conservative... I highly doubt this would have happened if they were progressive leftists--no matter how charismatic they may be. (Look at Beto O'Rourke, a better candidate than those moderates I mentioned in many ways--he lost, despite massively outshining and outraising those moderates.)

What electoral trends make you think a leftist candidate is the most viable route for the democratic 2020 candidate?

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

41 minutes ago, andy69em said:

We lost in 2016 because we ran Clinton, not a moderate.

The midterms show us that moderate candidates can win in purple or even red states/districts. (Look at Sinema, Rosen, Manchin, Tester...) Many of these candidates won as democrats in districts that Donald Trump carried in 2016, which means they won because independents and republicans voted for them over a conservative... I highly doubt this would have happened if they were progressive leftists--no matter how charismatic they may be. (Look at Beto O'Rourke, a better candidate than those moderates I mentioned in many ways--he lost, despite massively outshining and outraising those moderates.)

What electoral trends make you think a leftist candidate is the most viable route for the democratic 2020 candidate?

Hilary reminded the middle ground too much of Bill....so the far left was her only support.

[FATCAT 60,909]

6 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

I would support a left leader like her because she has s platform with issues that matter to America...

Pelosi is simply

"slay the right"

"Tax the rich(except liberal media)"

AND 

Smack Trump

You've been seeped in far-right talking points for too long. She literally just made an announcement that their first and biggest legislation they'll have on the docket is a sweeping Anti-Corruption bill. 

[FATCAT 60,909]

5 hours ago, andy69em said:

We lost in 2016 because we ran Clinton, not a moderate.

The midterms show us that moderate candidates can win in purple or even red states/districts. (Look at Sinema, Rosen, Manchin, Tester...) Many of these candidates won as democrats in districts that Donald Trump carried in 2016, which means they won because independents and republicans voted for them over a conservative... I highly doubt this would have happened if they were progressive leftists--no matter how charismatic they may be. (Look at Beto O'Rourke, a better candidate than those moderates I mentioned in many ways--he lost, despite massively outshining and outraising those moderates.)

What electoral trends make you think a leftist candidate is the most viable route for the democratic 2020 candidate?

I think we need someone who will support progressive ideas, or at the very least not oppose them, but strong on immigration. That could be the "moderate" that would win. No democrat is against strengthening our borders, but we have to go about it realistically and tactically. (and with compassion for asylum seekers)

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

54 minutes ago, andy69em said:

 I highly doubt this would have happened if they were progressive leftists--no matter how charismatic they may be. (Look at Beto O'Rourke, a better candidate than those moderates I mentioned in many ways--he lost, despite massively outshining and outraising those moderates.)

Beto lost by only 2.5% !!! That’s amazing in Texas. Imagine if he had been a bit more moderate, I think he could have won. 

Beto literally said he would vote to impeach Trump and lost by a small margin in Texas. Impressive. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

1 hour ago, FATCAT said:

You've been seeped in far-right talking points for too long. She literally just made an announcement that their first and biggest legislation they'll have on the docket is a sweeping Anti-Corruption bill. 

What does she call "corruption"?

[Othon 34,299]

3 hours ago, Whispering said:

We lost seats over the last decade because of whitelash, healthcare propaganda, gerrymandering and voter suppression. Whatever party is in the majority at the start of the decade will set the terms for the census, which has had a major impact on gerrymandering in the past. 

Democrats win with conservative Dems, moderates and far right candidates. It depends on the voters in each individual area. Many areas of the country are more moderate Democrats, and we need them too in the coalition to beat Trump in 2020. Pelosi and Schumer are not unpopular with the Democratic base. They have experience...and just won in the largest blue wave since Watergate. 

What are you talking about? Most Democrats have an unfavorable view of Pelosi, and her favorables overall are abysmal (23% positive): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/gallup-poll-top-four-congressional-leaders-viewed-negatively.html
 

Chuck Schumer barely fares any better: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/chuck_schumer_favorableunfavorable-6674.html

We didn't win seats in the midterms because of their leadership. We won seats despite their involvement with the party. Their polling numbers make that obvious. Now isn't the time to appoint conservative septuagenarians to positions of leadership. We have to move forward, not backward. I'm shocked to see this sort of argument from someone on a Gaga site.

We lost so many seats over the past decade because the Democratic base stopped turning out. They stopped turning out because center-right democrats turned them away, after refusing to hold any of the large banking executives accountable for destroying the economy and defrauding the public, decimating Black wealth in the process, participated and actively supported destroying the Middle East with the countless wars we're now involved in, killing untold numbers of innocent people, etc. etc. Poll after poll shows that the base thinks that the party elite is out of touch with what they want (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/democratic-party-out-of-touch-obama-wall-street-speech/524784/). Voter suppression and gerrymandering weren't invented in 2000. Republicans have been employing that tactic effectively for a century, especially over the last four decades. That excuse makes little to no sense. I can't imagine still believing that moderate, pro-war, austerity capitalists are more electable than leftists in 2018 (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/third-ways-centrism-is-dead-the-left-has-already-won-the-debate-over-the-democratic-party.html). 

3 hours ago, andy69em said:

We lost in 2016 because we ran Clinton, not a moderate.

The midterms show us that moderate candidates can win in purple or even red states/districts. (Look at Sinema, Rosen, Manchin, Tester...) Many of these candidates won as democrats in districts that Donald Trump carried in 2016, which means they won because independents and republicans voted for them over a conservative... I highly doubt this would have happened if they were progressive leftists--no matter how charismatic they may be. (Look at Beto O'Rourke, a better candidate than those moderates I mentioned in many ways--he lost, despite massively outshining and outraising those moderates.)

What electoral trends make you think a leftist candidate is the most viable route for the democratic 2020 candidate?

We lost because we ran Clinton AND because we ran a moderate.

The midterms showed us that Democratic base has been energized by Trump, not that they want center-right Republicans running in Democratic races. Beto outperformed Clinton by nearly 8 percentage points. How do you get from that that his being a progressive as opposed to a moderate was a hinderance rather than an asset? People were excited about him BECAUSE he was progressive and charismatic rather than just another mediocre, conservative Democrat. Poll after poll shows us that  the Democratic base is far to the left of the politicians who represent them (see above). All the evidence points to the need for a leftward shift.

Moderates don't excite the Democratic base and they don't win over Republicans. Republicans won't ever vote for a Democrat. They weren't the ones voting for the candidates you mentioned; more Democrats turned out to vote because of Trump. Republicans have shown us that they won't vote for our candidates over and over again over the past decade. We now have dozens of socialists in office all across the country.  Socialist Carter Lee won in Virginia after adopting the approach I'm talking about: (https://newrepublic.com/article/145727/socialist-beat-one-virginias-powerful-republicans). A socialist became mayor of Jackson, Mississippi on a socialist platform: (https://www.thenation.com/article/is-this-the-most-radical-mayor-in-america/) This is the way we win. Tepid, third-way austerity destroyed the party. Real leftism is the way forward, electorally and ideologically.

Look at what happened in the UK: Labour adopted a pro-worker, socialist platform and turnout exploded, especially among the young. Labour outperformed literally every expectation and nearly destroyed the Tory government all in one day. Theresa May is on the ropes and her cabinet has been in disarray for a year. If the Democrats adopt that approach, move leftward, give working people and young people something to vote for instead of continuing to adopt the losing strategy of pandering to racist, white wealthy people in the suburbs that are never going to vote for them anyway, we'll win. 

[Dukttape 1,437]

11 hours ago, Reginald said:

Gimme the 100% renewable energy that I love

Turn the lights out 

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

7 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

What are you talking about? Most Democrats have an unfavorable view of Pelosi, and her favorables overall are abysmal (23% positive): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/gallup-poll-top-four-congressional-leaders-viewed-negatively.html
 

Chuck Schumer barely fares any better: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/chuck_schumer_favorableunfavorable-6674.html

We didn't win seats in the midterms because of their leadership. We won seats despite their involvement with the party. Their polling numbers make that obvious. Now isn't the time to appoint conservative septuagenarians to positions of leadership. We have to move forward, not backward. I'm shocked to see this sort of argument from someone on a Gaga site.

We lost so many seats over the past decade because the Democratic base stopped turning out. They stopped turning out because center-right democrats turned them away, after refusing to hold any of the large banking executives accountable for destroying the economy and defrauding the public, decimating Black wealth in the process, participated and actively supported destroying the Middle East with the countless wars we're now involved in, killing untold numbers of innocent people, etc. etc. Poll after poll shows that the base thinks that the party elite is out of touch with what they want (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/democratic-party-out-of-touch-obama-wall-street-speech/524784/). Voter suppression and gerrymandering weren't invented in 2000. Republicans have been employing that tactic effectively for a century, especially over the last four decades. That excuse makes little to no sense. I can't imagine still believing that moderate, pro-war, austerity capitalists are more electable than leftists in 2018 (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/third-ways-centrism-is-dead-the-left-has-already-won-the-debate-over-the-democratic-party.html). 

We lost because we ran Clinton AND because we ran a moderate.

The midterms showed us that Democratic base has been energized by Trump, not that they want center-right Republicans running in Democratic races. Beto outperformed Clinton by nearly 8 percentage points. How do you get from that that his being a progressive as opposed to a moderate was a hinderance rather than an asset? People were excited about him BECAUSE he was progressive and charismatic rather than just another mediocre, conservative Democrat. Poll after poll shows us that  the Democratic base is far to the left of the politicians who represent them (see above). All the evidence points to the need for a leftward shift.

Moderates don't excite the Democratic base and they don't win over Republicans. Republicans won't ever vote for a Democrat. They weren't the ones voting for the candidates you mentioned; more Democrats turned out to vote because of Trump. Republicans have shown us that they won't vote for our candidates over and over again over the past decade. We now have dozens of socialists in office all across the country.  Socialist Carter Lee won in Virginia after adopting the approach I'm talking about: (https://newrepublic.com/article/145727/socialist-beat-one-virginias-powerful-republicans). A socialist became mayor of Jackson, Mississippi on a socialist platform: (https://www.thenation.com/article/is-this-the-most-radical-mayor-in-america/) This is the way we win. Tepid, third-way austerity destroyed the party. Real leftism is the way forward, electorally and ideologically.

Look at what happened in the UK: Labour adopted a pro-worker, socialist platform and turnout exploded, especially among the young. Labour outperformed literally every expectation and nearly destroyed the Tory government all in one day. Theresa May is on the ropes and her cabinet has been in disarray for a year. If the Democrats adopt that approach, move leftward, give working people and young people something to vote for instead of continuing to adopt the losing strategy of pandering to racist, white wealthy people in the suburbs that are never going to vote for them anyway, we'll win. 

Interesting read. I used to think this way but now I’m not so sure. 

I feel like it’s a mix of both moderate and progressive candidates that we need. At the local level.... Bernie Sanders couldn’t beat Clinton despite him branding himself as a Democratic socialist. 

[Reginald 13,841]

2 minutes ago, Dukttape said:

Turn the lights out 

 !!!!!!!! 

[Othon 34,299]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Interesting read. I used to think this way but now I’m not so sure. 

I feel like it’s a mix of both moderate and progressive candidates that we need. At the local level.... Bernie Sanders couldn’t beat Clinton despite him branding himself as a Democratic socialist. 

Bernie Sanders was dismissed as a joke and ended up taking nearly half of the Democratic delegates while running as a virtual unknown with zero name recognition and against one of the most well-known politicians in the world (important because name recognition is the second thing people consider behind party affiliation) in addition to the entire Democratic party apparatus, which actively worked against him and in favor of Clinton. He had to overcome every roadblock imaginable and massively outperformed every expectation, closing a 60 point gap in the national polling. His campaign is proof that leftism is popular and and can win, not an indictment of leftism. 

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

1 minute ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Bernie Sanders was dismissed as a joke and ended up taking nearly half of the Democratic delegates while running as a virtual unknown with zero name recognition and against one of the most well-known politicians in the world (important because name recognition is the second thing people consider behind party affiliation) in addition to the entire Democratic party apparatus, which actively worked against him and in favor of Clinton. He had to overcome every roadblock imaginable and massively outperformed every expectation, closing a 60 point gap in the national polling. His campaign is proof that leftism is popular and and can win, not an indictment of leftism. 

Yes, he outperformed. 

Do you think another Bernie Sanders should be our candidate in 2020? What if we’re wrong? 

Can we risk handing Trump another term? 

Many Democrats who unseated Republicans in the House are moderates. 

[Othon 34,299]

10 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Yes, he outperformed. 

Do you think another Bernie Sanders should be our candidate in 2020? What if we’re wrong? 

Can we risk handing Trump another term? 

Many Democrats who unseated Republicans in the House are moderates. 

I don't think Bernie himself should be the candidate, but someone charismatic with his platform definitely should be, and I think that is pretty clear given how Bernie outperformed Clinton in general election polling by over 10 points (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-poll-bernie-sanders-trump_us_58260f7ee4b0c4b63b0c6928) and is currently the most popular active politician in the country by a mile. I haven't settled on a candidate yet, but I've been considering it since the day Clinton won the primary, when the left told the party that they were going to lose to Trump with their candidate and platform (and were right). Leftism wins over independents (who Bernie was ridiculously popular with) who don't trust corrupt politicians in the abstract, ergo Democrats that back Wall Street (e.g. moderates). We risk handing Trump another term by running a third-way moderate like Clinton. We crush him with a leftist. 2016 discredited the moderate approach beyond reconciliation.

Many of the Democratic candidates that unseated Republicans did so because 1) those are the only Democrats that the party apparatus ever gets behind and provides emphatic funding for (because they're not in line with the base and want to elevate candidates that think like they do) and 2) because of the increased turnout resulting from anti-Trump sentiment. They didn't win because they're moderates. They won despite that fact.

[giskardsb 12,565]

Beto O'Rourke is going to be the guy in 2020, he's the only one that can take on Trump and will call him out on his BS instead of just letting Trump talk over him.  Hillary was horrible in the debates.