Rift in the Democratic Party

[*bfine32*]

Let's address the Donkey in the room. Do we think the ongoing Rift in the Democratic Party will help or hurt them?

We have the recent debates where front runner Joe Biden was painted to be out of touch by more than one opponent and we have the recent dust up with Pelosci concerning the Dems that voted against the Border Relief Bill:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/08/ocasio-cortez-omar-tlaib-respond-pelosi-criticism/1671204001/

Quote:"All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world," Pelosi said, according to Dowd. "But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got."

The response was swift.

"That public 'whatever' is called public sentiment," Ocasio-Cortez fired back on Twitter. "And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country."

IMO the in-fighting cannot help, but I could be wrong as it was successful in 2016.  

[Belsnickel]

For the presidential election, I don't think it will have too much of an impact. Trump is in the White House because lots of Democratic voters stayed home because they weren't excited by Clinton and they thought it was in the bag. If they learned their lesson from that, they will get behind the nominee come November 2020. If they didn't learn their lesson from that, then they deserve another four years of Trump.

I do think we will continue to see a schism in Congress, though, and I'm glad for it. I want varying ideas within the Democratic caucus. I want there to be a challenge to the leadership because without there is groupthink. Without it, we have nothing but party line voters and that is a terrible thing.

[*michaelsean*]

It's like four congresspeople and Twitter. Being a Twitter star is meaningless. Twitter does not tell you what their constituency thinks nor what the nation thinks.

[Yojimbo]

(07-08-2019, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: For the presidential election, I don't think it will have too much of an impact. Trump is in the White House because lots of Democratic voters stayed home because they weren't excited by Clinton and they thought it was in the bag. If they learned their lesson from that, they will get behind the nominee come November 2020. If they didn't learn their lesson from that, then they deserve another four years of Trump.

I do think we will continue to see a schism in Congress, though, and I'm glad for it. I want varying ideas within the Democratic caucus. I want there to be a challenge to the leadership because without there is groupthink. Without it, we have nothing but party line voters and that is a terrible thing.

That’s an easy pass the blame reason why Trump won. The biggest problem (not the only one) was he was able to flip enough blue collar workers that voted for Obama in those critical rust belt states. If too many voters “sat out”, how did Clinton still get 3 million more votes in the popular vote?

“We then examined each candidate’s base of support by respondents’ reported 2012 vote. The ANES data show that just over 13% of Trump’s voters backed Obama in 2012, while about 4% of Clinton’s support came from voters who voted for Romney in 2012.”

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/



Too many people focus on Republican and Democratic parties, while the largest voting block are neither of those. We need a system with more than two parties to truly represent the electorate.

[Goalpost]

Democrats have to somehow thread the needle. I think of the 40 seats they picked up in the last election, 35 came from moderate areas of the country. They want to talk far left, but Pelosi knows this could put moderate seats at risk.

[Belsnickel]

(07-08-2019, 03:01 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: That’s an easy pass the blame reason why Trump won. The biggest problem (not the only one) was he was able to flip enough blue collar workers that voted for Obama in those critical rust belt states. If too many voters “sat out”, how did Clinton still get 3 million more votes in the popular vote?

“We then examined each candidate’s base of support by respondents’ reported 2012 vote. The ANES data show that just over 13% of Trump’s voters backed Obama in 2012, while about 4% of Clinton’s support came from voters who voted for Romney in 2012.”

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

The reason they were able to flip those voters? Trump excited them and Clinton did not. Trump actually attacked Clinton from the left on some issues, particularly those that swayed those voters. Regardless, the reason people stayed home is the same we saw Obama-Trump voters: Clinton was not a candidate that excited the voter base. We're both talking about causes for the loss in 2016, and they both are a result of, in part, the same thing.

(07-08-2019, 03:01 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Too many people focus on Republican and Democratic parties, while the largest voting block are neither of those. We need a system with more than two parties to truly represent the electorate.

The majority are either Republican or Democrat, they just like to pretend they aren't. The majority reliably vote for one party over the other. I agree that we need more parties, but it will never happen as long as elections work the way they do in this country. Duverger's Law is holding true.

[CJD]

(07-08-2019, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The reason they were able to flip those voters? Trump excited them and Clinton did not. Trump actually attacked Clinton from the left on some issues, particularly those that swayed those voters. Regardless, the reason people stayed home is the same we saw Obama-Trump voters: Clinton was not a candidate that excited the voter base. We're both talking about causes for the loss in 2016, and they both are a result of, in part, the same thing.


The majority are either Republican or Democrat, they just like to pretend they aren't. The majority reliably vote for one party over the other. I agree that we need more parties, but it will never happen as long as elections work the way they do in this country. Duverger's Law is holding true.

Multiple parties would work perfectly if we had preferential voting. It would also allow the primaries to more appropriately determine the correct candidate.

For example, at the moment, the polls are something along the lines of Biden ~25%, Bernie ~15%, Warren ~15%, Harris ~15%.

Under our current system, Biden wins the primary if those numbers hold. But the people who vote for Warren or Harris would almost certainly vote for Bernie (And Bernie supporters for either of them) before Biden (assuming the driving force for voting is policy, which it isn't always). So that's 45% who would rather not have Biden vs 25% who would, yet Biden would win that primary.

Preferential voting would solve that problem, which would mean you don't have to wring your hands about whether the progressives are splitting themselves right down the middle to Biden's advantage, and just vote for who you believe is the best candidate. If your candidate doesn't win, your vote still counts for something.

It would also allow other parties because, again, you could vote for whoever you most identify with but, in the event that they aren't relevant, your vote can still prevent the person you least identify with.

I honestly have no idea why the US hasn't adopted it yet. At least for Presidential Primaries and Elections...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-08-2019, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's address the Donkey in the room. Do we think the ongoing Rift in the Democratic Party will help or hurt them?

We have the recent debates where front runner Joe Biden was painted to be out of touch by more than one opponent and we have the recent dust up with Pelosci concerning the Dems that voted against the Border Relief Bill:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/08/ocasio-cortez-omar-tlaib-respond-pelosi-criticism/1671204001/


IMO the in-fighting cannot help, but I could be wrong as it was successful in 2016.  

"A little rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing"
Thomas Jefferson

I don't know the exact quote, just going off memory.

Rebellion in a party happens quite a bit in the Republican party. Newt in the 90's, the Tea Party, the guy who ran against Bush and Clinton in 92 and we now have Trump. Democrats are long overdue for a rebellion except their rebellion is going the wrong way. But, this little rebellion may help define who they are and eventually, the party will be lock step once again.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-08-2019, 04:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: "A little rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing"
Thomas Jefferson

I don't know the exact quote, just going off memory.

Rebellion in a party happens quite a bit in the Republican party. Newt in the 90's, the Tea Party, the guy who ran against Bush and Clinton in 92 and we now have Trump. Democrats are long overdue for a rebellion except their rebellion is going the wrong way. But, this little rebellion may help define who they are and eventually, the party will be lock step once again.

OK that's not even close. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-08-2019, 04:05 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I honestly have no idea why the US hasn't adopted [ranked choice voting] yet. At least for Presidential Primaries and Elections...

Because elections are the purview of the states, constitutionally speaking, and because those elected make the rules instead of those doing the electing. So, first, you have over 50 different political entities doing their own thing. In addition to that, the elected officials make the rules for elections in most places. They want to hold onto power, and ranked choice voting, or other possibilities (such as ending partisan gerrymandering) reduce their power and their ability to hold onto it. More democracy takes power away from elected officials, so their inclination is to favor less democratic policies.

[Belsnickel]

(07-08-2019, 04:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: "A little rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing"
Thomas Jefferson

I don't know the exact quote, just going off memory.

Rebellion in a party happens quite a bit in the Republican party. Newt in the 90's, the Tea Party, the guy who ran against Bush and Clinton in 92 and we now have Trump. Democrats are long overdue for a rebellion except their rebellion is going the wrong way. But, this little rebellion may help define who they are and eventually, the party will be lock step once again.

Well, the Democrats have been moving to the right, economically speaking, for decades. They would be unrecognizable to the pre-Carter Democrats. So it's only natural that as a new generation starts trying to wrestle the leadership from the outgoing one that they will shift to the left on these issues.

[Yojimbo]

(07-08-2019, 04:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because elections are the purview of the states, constitutionally speaking, and because those elected make the rules instead of those doing the electing. So, first, you have over 50 different political entities doing their own thing. In addition to that, the elected officials make the rules for elections in most places. They want to hold onto power, and ranked choice voting, or other possibilities (such as ending partisan gerrymandering) reduce their power and their ability to hold onto it. More democracy takes power away from elected officials, so their inclination is to favor less democratic policies.

Bingo!

[6andcounting]

(07-08-2019, 03:18 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Democrats have to somehow thread the needle. I think of the 40 seats they picked up in the last election, 35 came from moderate areas of the country.  They want to talk far left, but Pelosi knows this could put moderate seats at risk.

I think a lot of these newbies are taking what they said to their district that got them elected and saying it to the nation. You can't blame them, because it literally worked for them, but those same things don't get you elected in other districts and don't get you election in a general national election. Pelosi knows what paths will win the Dems the WH in 2020 - the question is can they execute on it. Right now the majority of their party doesn't seem to be on that path. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2019, 08:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I think a lot of these newbies are taking what they said to their district that got them elected and saying it to the nation. You can't blame them, because it literally worked for them, but those same things don't get you elected in other districts and don't get you election in a general national election. Pelosi knows what paths will win the Dems the WH in 2020 - the question is can they execute on it. Right now the majority of their party doesn't seem to be on that path. 

This is the most salient takeaway from the current situation.  Far left Dems from utterly safe districts don't appear to comprehend the need for a more moderate approach in most of the country.  The freshman class has gotten way too much attention way to quickly and appear to have a very overrated opinion of their abilities and place in Congress.  It won't take much to swing the House right back to the GOP and several of the freshman class seem to be working their hardest to achieve this.

[NATI BENGALS]

woohoo

Getting in line for a busted ass two party system lets the busted ass two party system exist.

Republicans have sold their souls to support a reality tv show host conman serial sexual assaulter. Letting straight up racists and bigots act as team captains.

Give me the people not getting in line for the bullshit. And by wanting something different I am not saying I am dumb enough to want a giant carnival barker/clown with multiple bankruptcies, failed businesses, who lost more money than anyone in America, and made more money ripping unsuspecting Americans off than I will make in my life. I want different. But I have standards.

I didn't want Nancy to be speaker. Like a sheep I "understood" the move after it happened. But acting like a piece of rotten core could fix the blight was dumb from the get go. She has proven my gut 100% right.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 12:09 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: woohoo

Getting in line for a busted ass two party system lets the busted ass two party system exist.

Republicans have sold their souls to support a reality tv show host conman serial sexual assaulter. Letting straight up racists and bigots act as team captains.

Give me the people not getting in line for the bullshit. And by wanting something different I am not saying I am dumb enough to want a giant carnival barker/clown with multiple bankruptcies, failed businesses, who lost more money than anyone in America, and made more money ripping unsuspecting Americans off than I will make in my life. I want different. But I have standards.

I didn't want Nancy to be speaker. Like a sheep I "understood" the move after it happened. But acting like a piece of rotten core could fix the blight was dumb from the get go. She has proven my gut 100% right.

I say this only to hopefully provoke introspection on your part; this statement makes you sound way more like a sheeple than anything else expressed in this thread.  Hating trump is not a position and it sure as hell isn't original.  I suppose we could call this the Colbert/Oliver/Noah position.

[hollodero]

(07-08-2019, 08:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the most salient takeaway from the current situation.  Far left Dems from utterly safe districts don't appear to comprehend the need for a more moderate approach in most of the country.

But can't similar things be said about some GOP congressmen? Enbattled swing districts also do not need the extremes of a freedom caucus or (other example) a Steve King, and yet those folk, from equally safe red districts, do their thing.
That's actually one of the few things I find pretty cool about the US system... not so much Steve King, but in general, that congressmen stay individuals with individual ideas fitting their individual district. E.g. in my country everyone's position in parliament is exactly on party line, and that's not such a good thing.

(07-09-2019, 12:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hating trump is not a position

Why not? I think it is. I'd even argue it's a reasonable position.
I definitely wouldn't say one needs to hate him as a decent person (so please no one get me wrong); but there are valid reasons for a decent person to hate his indecency and/or his ignorance, his narcissism or all those other things often mentioned. I think that's perfectly legit.

[treee]

The Democratic message had become stale and the progressive wing of the party dormant. What has happened since the recession has been an ideological renaissance of the need for keeping the capital holders in check. And to compel them to contribute to our society in a fair manner (the society which they benifited from in the creation of their monied empires). That is the premise from which all democrats agree on and are being returned to.

[CJD]

(07-08-2019, 04:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because elections are the purview of the states, constitutionally speaking, and because those elected make the rules instead of those doing the electing. So, first, you have over 50 different political entities doing their own thing. In addition to that, the elected officials make the rules for elections in most places. They want to hold onto power, and ranked choice voting, or other possibilities (such as ending partisan gerrymandering) reduce their power and their ability to hold onto it. More democracy takes power away from elected officials, so their inclination is to favor less democratic policies.

That's frustrating.... How do you fix the system if the people who make the rules don't want the rules to be fixed?

[Belsnickel]

(07-09-2019, 05:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: But can't similar things be said about some GOP congressmen? Enbattled swing districts also do not need the extremes of a freedom caucus or (other example) a Steve King, and yet those folk, from equally safe red districts, do their thing.
That's actually one of the few things I find pretty cool about the US system... not so much Steve King, but in general, that congressmen stay individuals with individual ideas fitting their individual district. E.g. in my country everyone's position in parliament is exactly on party line, and that's not such a good thing.

As much as I (and others around here) rail against the two-party system, this is a product of that very thing. With a two-party system, both major parties have to be "big tents" and accepting of a wide range of ideas. Parties in this country also have very little power (contrary to what most people think). Sure, elected officials that were on the ballot with a D or an R tend to caucus together in the legislature, but they are just the largest caucuses, nothing more. There is no formal infrastructure for the parties in Congress. Out political parties have the sole purpose of getting people elected whereas parties in Europe tend to have a more hands on approach in the government.

Our current system has its pros and cons, for sure.

(07-09-2019, 08:13 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That's frustrating.... How do you fix the system if the people who make the rules don't want the rules to be fixed?

What needs to happen is that in states that allow for citizen referendums there needs to be an effort to get it on the ballot. Not every state has that option. Virginia, for example, is a state where we have to rely on the General Assembly. But if enough states do what Maine did, then there will be a pressure wave for other states.