An election literally just happened. Right now we’re as far away from the next midterm election as we ever will be. The couple of special elections were never going to be won by democrats.
When the hell are Democrats supposed to convene and argue out the various parts of its platform if not right now?
Never basically. You’re just supposed to vote for whomever your betters put in front of you and not question it, because to do so is a purity test which leads to Trump (or Bush, or Ivanka, etc etc).
Scare tactics like this against people wanting reform never change. We probably shouldn’t question President Trump while the terrorist threat remains either.
Yes it seems that now virulent tribalism is the way to go. That accomplishes exactly nothing. Except to continue the status quo. The Republicans keep what they have. The Democrats continue to be weak and useless.
Republicans are very good at being pragmatic when picking candidates and voting, and being ideologues once they assume power.
Democrats are really good at being ideologues when picking candidates and voting (or not) and being pragmatists once elected.
I’m just saying that I’d be OK if we Democrats could be a little more pragmatic in the build up, even though I understand it ain’t what the jackass party does well.
It’s just a matter of prioritizing, which the Democrats have proven they are incapable of. The Republicans aren’t so much as pragmatic as they only present a minimum of topics they care about and people can easily get behind these.
Democrats OTOH, will bring out 17 different things we should all care about and the voters just give up trying to figure out what is important and in some cases, the odds that 3-4 of those 17 different topics might be something they aren’t behind 100%.
So maybe you are right - they need to be pragmatic in what topics they want to get behind and give up White Knighting all the problems for everyone.
If I could trust Democrats to reliably rubber stamp whatever batshit leftist thing future-president Stalinbot 4000 proposed once they got into office, I’d care a lot less who we nominated.
Ok can I talk local politics for a moment?
Right now there’s a city council campaign starting up. The 2 candidates are this guy who is a hardcore Republican, the kind that calls people libtards on facebook. I’ve argued with him in political threads in our town’s Facebook page. He’s a moron and a douche. But, his platform is not terrible. He wants to invest in the local theater (Tom Brady and Gisele saw a show there last month incognito), hire more DPW workers, bring businesses into our craptacular main square, and so on. Nothing about immigrants or building a wall.
The other candidate is a batshit crazy liberal busybody. She believes airplanes from Logan are making her kids sick (because of the noise). She injects herself into other people’s events and tries to take them over, then tries to get them shut down if she’s turned away. She’s also a huge complainer and unemployed.
Like, this is why people hate Democrats. I suppose the other liberals are too busy working and being normal to run for city council.
That just sounds like you live in a heavily sorted area. To be the opposite of everyone else often means you have to be willing to be an outcast, and that often means someone with little social skills, political capital, or economic prominence. The wise and well reasoned outcast is an understandably rare thing.
All this means that the pool from which to draw opposition opponents in heavily sorted areas tends to be both narrow and shallow.
You could… run yourself. As a moderate.
This and This:
Are not related simply because you have an especially poor candidate running under one ticket.
On a local front, most of ours just run unopposed.
While it is a great weakness, it is also a great strength.
Democrats might not be able to get their base roaring mad with just “They want to take your guns and bibles!” but they have broader appeal. Generally a lot of those priorities are shared by a large percentage of democrats, even if the order of priority tends to differ.
I would argue that one of the problems that the modern democratic party is facing is that the country is well down the path of losing trust in them even attempting to deal with some of those 17 (made up number of course) different important democratic issues you talk about.
The alternative is for the Democratic party to split apart.
In general I agree with you, but in marketing terms, when you’re trying to get people elected, so many people need a simple, dumbed down message.
From my perspective, the other way is just a slow integration of many ethnicities reaching the critical mass that has made the coasts such a liberal bastion. The coasts see so many different races and we work alongside so many, that it’s become normal. We’re not driven by fear of the unknown.
From the perspective of a moderate (republican? I don’t even know any more), I say this…
This is the guy who needs to be the face of the Democratic party moving forward. This guy can have broad appeal across the board.
Taking responsibility would be great, but since Trump has never done that his entire life, I doubt he’s going to start now.
The Democrats symbol is a mule, because that’s the other animal that just stands there while you beat it.
heh
Bill Maher is so funny. Has he said anything else funny in the last couple days? Gotta keep up.
Dunno if you are being serious or not, but I’d avoid looking for anything Maher currently.
I agree, linking Maher right now is a bad idea generally.
Did I miss something?
