re: Pelosi, I just don’t get it.
I hear she’s amazing at fundraising, but she has the on-screen charisma of a doorknob.
That said, the only things that Mitch McConnell seems to have working “for” him is being old, white, and cantankerous. I get that plays well with a certain base, but nobody seems to like the guy aside from those select few.
Paul Ryan has earned both the hatred of The Left as well as the “purists” on his own side of the aisle. At least he can speak without putting everyone to sleep, I guess.
Chuck Schurmer is likewise at least interesting to listen to, although he’s the leader with the least power in Congress.
The democrats need folks who aren’t a million years old.
Pelosi really did have poor charisma. She could take an issue I really cared about and make it sound super-boring in any interview.
That said, when she had control of the house, I admired her ability to whip the democrats into line. I didn’t used to pay attention to politics before 1994’s republican takeover of the house, but I heard it was hard to get dems lined up behind any bill. When she controlled the house from 2006-2010, she passed a lot of bills with almost no democratic dissenters. Most of the bills then died because either the Senate was republican controlled or filibustered by Republicans, but I always thought some of the bills she passed were exactly what America needed at the time. It’s just a shame that the democrats were so protective of the filibuster at that time.
Gingrich did the same thing. They actually passed every part of the contract with America except for term limits, which from a purely political perspective is amazing.
But he’s a piece of shit, and pretty toxic at this point, even after being out of politics for years.
The real thing is age, I think. The dems need younger folks like Booker or Kander, to actually create some kind of energy like Obama did.
The Dems need the youth vote, and young people don’t give even one fuck about voting for ancient desiccated corpses.
True. But it’s more common for Republicans to have party unity and vote along party lines. Back in 1992 I used to watch a lot of Rush Limbaugh on TV, where he would make fun of how Chelsea Clinton looked, and drill over and over again how party unity among Republicans was more important than anything, and how Rs who didn’t vote with other Rs were RINOs.
The democrats, on the other hand, are a much bigger tent, so it’s hard to corral all their various interests and get them on the same page.
Bernie Sanders would like to have a word with you.
Flipside: maybe guys who hold views abhorrent to one of the largest and most reliable Democratic voting blocs should reconsider whether or not they’re the best possible person to run for that party. If a candidate running down in Louisiana was willing to admit that blacks really are pretty “lazy and shiftless” to capture some of that vital “racist motherfucker” vote in LA, I kinda question how much of a useful progressive/good human being they are, and really doubt their value to the Democratic party. I mean, yes, in part because African Americans are one of our largest and most reliable voting blocs, but also, cuz, you know, they are people who probably don’t need to get shit on by the progressive side of the aisle as much as they are by the other end.
Like, hey, if you’re a shameless plutocrat who turns off the as-of-yet marginal “crazy wingnut Armando/Adam” wing of the Democratic party, you’re probably gonna be fine. But, on the other hand, if you manage to piss off, say, “all women who value autonomy,” maybe just maybe your inevitable loss is a little bit on you and your retarded, hateful fucking religion.
Yeah. Purity tests. That’s what we need.
And if that’s all you managed to glean from what I wrote, well, you’re merely confirming all I’ve learned about you on here :-)
I don’t know what that sentence means, so I’ll assume you agree with me!
Let me try to show you something.
I think Senator Bob Casey’s pro-life views are pretty terrible. They don’t fit with the mainsteam Democratic Party, and are anathema to a huge portion of the Democratic party base, i. e., women.
But here’s the thing: Bob Casey has said for years that his stance works for him in Western Pennsylvania, a heavily-Catholic and conservative Protestant region that he derives a ton of support from. And hey…he’s won two elections there. Hopefully he’ll win a third in 2018.
And so here’s the thing about Bob Casey. I’m horribly opposed to his views, being that they run against my personal beliefs especially. They also run against the party platform. But: Bob Casey also reliably voted to confirm Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and voted against Gorsuch. He has brought no pro-life legislation to committee, and he’s a strong and reliable vote on things like preserving healthcare and social programs. He’s outspoken in his defense of voting rights and civil rights and the need for criminal justice reform.
Same goes for John Tester in Montana and Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. I disagree with both of them fairly frequently on a lot of policy issues, and find that both hold views that run counter to positions I hold dear. But They also serve as a very useful means to an end and that shouldn’t be dismissed either.
Oh, and worth noting: even with Senators like Casey, Heitkamp, and Tester, the Democratic Party is far more left and progressive now than it was 10 years ago, and almost unrecognizeably liberal and progressive compared to what it was when Clinton took office in 1992.
How is that being measured?
So a question then. If you always must vote for the least terrible candidate, how do you ever convince the Democratic party to change anything (lets assume there is something the democratic party supports that you don’t like)? Any objection you make or question you raise is instantly countered with “purity test!” or "Don’t Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good.’
So seriously, how do you change the democratic party? This is NOT a long term strategy, it is a short term strategy and people are starting to become tired of hearing it every time.
Also, lets abandon the fake sexism accusations please. It is 100% possible to not support Pelosi or Clinton and not be sexist. When you blanket accuse everyone who disagrees with a female candidate of being sexist it lessens us all. And before someone mentions it, obviously there is sexism and people vote against female candidates because they are sexist, but when someone makes a statement about how sexism is common on the left too, i am 99% sure they are not talking about that.
It is also extremely funny how this only applies to certain politicians. I never saw anyone accusing democrats attacking Elizabeth Warren as being sexist. You would almost think it was only the Democratic establishment using this to attack dissenters.
I think to meanigfully look at it you probably need to separate social issues (LGBT rights, criminal justice reform) from economic ones. Even on issues where they drag their feet, like get fully on board legalizing pot already, and for the love of god make criminal justice a centerpiece, they have certainly moved left.
Economically it is a far tougher sell. That, in many ways you can argue they have moved right. Also they’ve been far less effective at forcing their agenda than Republicans, which leads to this perception, regardless of accuracy, that the party has moved right. Because the right wing agenda is getting all the ink, and is making the progress at the national level.
As for Pelosi? Her presiding over the decimation of the House Democrats is a mark against her.
Damn right. It’s never the time to openly push for gay marriage (until the Supreme Court invalidates the argument). Let’s not speak up too loudly about criminal justice until things get so bad there are mass demonstrations. Single payer? Let’s instead attack anyone for suggesting it without a detailed legislative bill instead of looking at how it works in other countries and asking what we can do here to make our system work more like that. The banks tanked the global economy and people are out for blood? Let’s be nice to all those executives and not actually punish them and push only the bare minimum reform needed to prevent them from cratering the economy again.
Pew Research is a good place to start.
EDIT: gah. That’s supposed to be bigger. The left side is the Democratic party over the last 16 years, showing in blue democrats who are liberal, in yellow moderates, and red conservatives.
The right side is the Republican Party.
Nancy Pelosi is 77. She’s gonna step aside anyway, if not sooner then later. I agree that age is a valid argument against her.
I’d also make that same argument about Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders too.
Yes, you nailed it here. There is a certain pragmatism that is required to get those voters. Same goes for eastern PA as well, in the coal region in the northeast.
Here’s the thing… Those folks there? They don’t have your beliefs. They are different from you. But there is stuff which you agree on and can work together on.
If you want to get their support, you need to put up a candidate like Casey. You can’t put up some ultra left wing guy, because you’re just gonna lose. And if you refuse to support moderate democrats who hold views you don’t like, based on your disagreement with them, then you are going to have your ideas marginalized.
The GOP deals with this pretty well, although I think to some degree it’s gone so far as to become a problem. You’ll have folks who will absolutely DETEST folks like Romney in the primaries, saying he’s just a RINO blah blah blah. Then the general election comes around, and they love them more than anything.
It’s not fake. The amount of times I’ve heard about charisma for Pelosi, Clinton and Waters is certainly not on par with some of the old, barely functioning looking male members. The women are held to impossible standards, and you can’t ignore that. Any woman is going to be demonized by the GOP for not being perfect in someway. That’s not reasonable.