What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Democratic Party needs a full reboot (1 Viewer)

ShamrockPride said:
You got the wrong guy bub. I was asking a legit question. There was never any laughing or emoji I posted.

Might wanna get your posters straight next time, especially when one is asking a real question for real discussion. I thought that's what Joe and everyone else here wanted. Guess not you.

Also, I'd be interested in how you came to your post here. Did you actually read my post, or did you just see "maybe I missed your joke" in whoknew's reply and just assumed the worst?
Click to expand...
To be fair, your question was really, REALLY... silly.   

As if an Art History degree just requires you to look at pictures.  

I can easily see how someone thought you weren't being serious or feigning ignorance.  

 
cockroach said:
To be fair, your question was really, REALLY... silly.   

As if an Art History degree just requires you to look at pictures.  

I can easily see how someone thought you weren't being serious or feigning ignorance.  
Click to expand...
I did make the mistake of just passing over the history part of it. I just read "art". In a historical context, I understand how books and historical analysis of art is beneficial.

My perspective on the whole thing is that art, music, etc., existed well before any any educational institutions existed. They will exist (granted humans make it that far), after a collapse of society and those institutions vanish. Part of the human condition is to create, and to have a channel with which to express emotions. That will never change as long as we exist.

But again, I get the value of putting it into a semi-condensed degree program focusing on history and analysis through the different eras for those who are truly interested in it.

 
This would be item 1 for Dems.  

Set up a commission of economic minds to figure out how to make ACA work.  That is midterm point 1.  They can state:

-They are already working on it

-That they need Dems in seats to make it g to a vote 

-That R's obviously don't want to fix it or they would have

If they actually did it, every Dem could run on it.

Point 2 - a viable border security plan

Sounds like a winner

 
The Dude said:
This would be item 1 for Dems.  

Set up a commission of economic minds to figure out how to make ACA work.  That is midterm point 1.  They can state:

-They are already working on it

-That they need Dems in seats to make it g to a vote 

-That R's obviously don't want to fix it or they would have

If they actually did it, every Dem could run on it.

Point 2 - a viable border security plan

Sounds like a winner
Click to expand...
These are the sorts of things they SHOULD be doing, but continuing to bicker over superdelegates is what they ARE doing.  :wall:  

 
The Commish said:
Henry Ford said:
At least something good came of it. 
Click to expand...
I tend to agree...now if they can keep it from being a distraction they might be able to make some progress.  Honestly, I am quite shocked this actually happened.
Click to expand...
My only concern with this is if more states start requiring open primaries.  If that gets to be a more widespread thing super delegates may need to be reintroduced, even if it means the super delegates are voted on by the party members and the at large delegates are everyone's votes.  That would mean we would need a way to strip out the party votes from the non-party votes. 

 
urbanhack said:
Can someone tell me what the #### this is about???  This is why I hate supporting moderate dems and/or the mainstream dem party.

https://rewire.news/article/2018/08/28/schumer-lets-mcconnell-fast-track-fifteen-judges-days-before-kavanaugh-hearings/
Click to expand...
“Trading this many lifetime positions away for a couple days back home in the dead of August is a metaphor for how myopic the Democrats’ approach has been at this dark moment in history,” said Brian Fallon, who, awkwardly, was previously Schumer’s chief spokesperson. He is now the executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group.

“An entire branch of government is being lost for generations, and Senate Democrats are willfully blind to it,” Fallon said. “In the coming months and years, these same Democrats will issue outraged statements about the rulings issued by the very judges that they could not be bothered to try to slow down. It is pathetic.”

 
So the big sin is that Schumer didn't bog down the Senate for 30 hours on each like he has been in the past? Sure, I'd rather they keep fighting. But it's not like it was a question of stopping them from getting approved or not. To actually stop them require a Democratic President or a Democratic Senate.

There are limits as to what you can do when you don't control either branch of Congress or the Oval Office.

 
Matthias said:
So the big sin is that Schumer didn't bog down the Senate for 30 hours on each like he has been in the past? Sure, I'd rather they keep fighting. But it's not like it was a question of stopping them from getting approved or not. To actually stop them require a Democratic President or a Democratic Senate.

There are limits as to what you can do when you don't control either branch of Congress or the Oval Office.
Click to expand...
Exactly, save the fight and political capital when it can make a difference.

 
The Senate map is a rough climb for Democrats with so many of their seats up for election and needing bare victories to take the majority. McConnell has been talked about for a while to keep the Senate in session to keep those Democrats in DC and not campaigning. 

 
I'm not saying the Democratic party is by any stretch perfect. But this is a really bad example to try to show why.

 
Matthias said:
So the big sin is that Schumer didn't bog down the Senate for 30 hours on each like he has been in the past? Sure, I'd rather they keep fighting. But it's not like it was a question of stopping them from getting approved or not. To actually stop them require a Democratic President or a Democratic Senate.

There are limits as to what you can do when you don't control either branch of Congress or the Oval Office.
Click to expand...
The Senate can only meet for a finite amount of time.  Delaying nominees does, in fact, stop some of them from getting through.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is setting up for one heck of a Democratic Party civil war-

Former Vice President Joe Biden told "Axios on HBO" in Iowa that he has shaped the 2020 race, faulting the media and his rivals for thinking Democratic voters are more liberal than the reality. 

"You guys got it all wrong about what happened," Biden said in an interview airing Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET on HBO. 

"It's just bad judgment. You all thought that what happened was the party moved extremely to the left after Hillary. AOC was a new party, She's a bright, wonderful person. But where's the party? Come on, man." 

Biden disagreed strongly with rivals who think the Democratic Party is hungry for Medicare for All, a top priority for Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...
https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-interview-axios-hbo-bf5df4b3-c627-4390-acde-0ec8d44f6915.html

 
Widbil83 said:
Let’s say Biden loses, what do you think happens then? There are a dozen threads about the Republican Party needing a reboot, this seems to me the only one about the Democrats. 
Click to expand...
 If Biden loses to Trump? That would be rough for the party to be sure.  But future demographic changes will be to their favor.

 
What do you guys think about this article from the New York Times about voters who went Democrat in 2018 in swing states who say they will vote Trump in 2020?
 

Many of the voters who said they voted Democratic but now intended to vote for Mr. Trump offered explanations that reflect longstanding theories about why the party out of power tends to excel in midterms. 

Michelle Bassaro, 61, is a Trump supporter, but in the midterm election, she voted for the Democrat in her district to balance the administration’s power. She said she had voted for Republicans when Democrats were in the White House for the same reason, consistent with research that shows that some people intentionally vote for divided government.

Another reason was local: The Democrat promised to bring more jobs to her area, Nanty Glo, Pa. (The name comes from a Welsh phrase that means “streams of coal,” but its coal jobs have disappeared.) 

Voters often think differently about state and national issues. Some said they had voted for their local Democrat in the midterms because the person had served well for a long time, or because the candidate’s policies would directly help their community. But presidential politics were another story, they said. Many of the white working-class voters in the Rust Belt who supported the president in 2016 were traditionally Democratic voters who backed President Obama in 2012 and even continued to vote Democratic down-ballot in 2016. Democrats generally held on to these voters in 2018, but the reasons many of them voted for Mr. Trump, like his promises on immigration or the economy, could still be relevant.

Michael Townsend, 38, a high school-educated construction worker in Dunmore, Pa., was a lifelong Democrat — until he voted for Mr. Trump. 

“In the last couple years, the Democrats had kind of been losing the work, and I thought Trump might get us that work,” he said. “And to be honest, I’ve been in construction 21 years and the last two years were the best years I’ve ever had.” 

He voted for the Democrat in the midterms because he liked his ideas on less polarizing local issues, like veterans affairs and opioids, while he said the Republicans were too focused on Washington politics. He has also been intrigued by Bernie Sanders. But he’ll probably back Mr. Trump again, he said. 

Mr. Townsend, who lives just outside Scranton, is in a district that swung from a 12-point victory for Barack Obama to a 10-point win for Mr. Trump in 2016. On the same day in 2016, the district voted to re-elect its Democratic congressman, Matt Cartwright, who won again in 2018. 

The district’s continued Democratic tilt down-ballot, even after it flipped at the presidential level, bears out the tendency of congressional races to lag geographic shifts in presidential elections, particularly if the district is controlled by the party out of power. 

Nowhere was that more true than in the South, which remained Democratic in the House for decades after Republicans started carrying it in presidential elections. 

Danny Destival, 56, who runs a greenhouse supply business in Panama City, Fla., said he’s “been a Southern Democrat all my life.” But in 2016, he cast his first Republican vote because he liked that Mr. Trump was a businessman, not a politician — and he disliked Hillary Clinton.

His main priority is voting for “the person who’s going to get more done” — that’s why he stuck with the Democrats in the midterms — but at the national level, he said, the Democrats have disappointed him on that front. 

“If you’re going to Washington, you need to do something,” he said. “If the only thing you’re going to do the whole time you’re there is try to get rid of the president, that’s a problem. I mean, Trump is not a great person, but you’ve got to get some work done.”

Other voters say they are preparing to take an even greater leap: vote for Mr. Trump after supporting Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 and Mrs. Clinton in 2016.

In the survey, 7 percent of those who supported Mrs. Clinton in 2016 said they now approved of the president’s performance — despite his personality and his Twitter account, many said. 

“In 2016, I hated both” candidates, said Juli Anna California, 57, a nurse from Coral Springs, Fla. “I went with Hillary because Trump had no history as a politician.” 

Mr. Trump has convinced her, though — not with his character, but with his policies.

“He’s not exactly the person I’d have as my best friend,” said Ms. California, who currently lives in Los Angeles as a traveling nurse. “But he’s a great president. Most politicians just talk about doing things, but Trump does them.” 

Scott Will, 51, an equipment operator in Ligonier, Pa., also voted for Mrs. Clinton in 2016, and will vote for Mr. Trump next year. So will much of his family, union workers who had been “die-hard Democrats.” Mr. Will, who started college but left to get married before graduating, credits Mr. Trump’s trade deals and pledge to bring jobs back to the United States.

In years past, it seemed like Democrats were supposedly supposed to be for the working man and for unions,” he said. “But I can say this: I will not be voting Democratic this election.” 

Trump’s Push to Bring Back Jobs to U.S. Shows Limited Results

Aug. 13, 2019

Many of the voters cited economic strength as a major reason to support Mr. Trump in 2020, even if they didn’t support him last time. Also, certain voters who support Trump said they had soured on Democrats because of partisan fighting, culminating in impeachment hearings. 

Matthew Headley, 41, is a general contractor and owns a pizza business in Grand Blanc, Mich. He has mostly voted for Democrats, including for Mrs. Clinton, whose experience impressed him, but plans to vote for Mr. Trump. 

Mr. Headley, who did not finish high school, likes what the president has done for the economy: “The wheels are turning in the right motion for a lot of people who it wasn’t for the longest time.” 

“The Democratic Party fell apart on the heels of Trump winning,” he said. “The harder they’re going after Trump, the more they’re just alienating people and pushing them away.” 

The appeal of moderate Democratic candidates in a year of strong Democratic recruiting may have also been a factor in 2018.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html

 
Widbil83 said:
What do you guys think about this article from the New York Times about voters who went Democrat in 2018 in swing states who say they will vote Trump in 2020?
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html
Click to expand...
There are literally millions of people whose votes could go either way and we don’t even know who Trump will be running against. Although they are interesting to read, I don’t take much stock in individual stories, particularly this early.

 
Widbil83 said:
What do you guys think about this article from the New York Times about voters who went Democrat in 2018 in swing states who say they will vote Trump in 2020?
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the premise of the article; it's indistiguishable from a short, cherry-picked list of anecdotes.  It did catch my eye that almost every person quoted in the article was in their 50s, which reminds me of a cold-hearted fact about the numbers - significantly more would-be Trump voters will die between now and next November as compared to Democratic voters.  Statistically, this matters.

 
Widbil83 said:
What do you guys think about this article from the New York Times about voters who went Democrat in 2018 in swing states who say they will vote Trump in 2020?
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html
Click to expand...
If the democratic nominee is Warren or Sanders then I think many more anecdotal examples like these will emerge and I think democrats are more at risk than they're comfortable admitting. 

I'm not willing to forecast what will happen if it's Buttigieg or Biden. Yet anyway. I maintain that Klobuchar would win (and potentially very easily) if she pulls off the upset in the primary though. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32 said:
If the democratic nominee is Warren or Sanders then I think many more anecdotal examples like these will emerge and I think democrats are more at risk than they're comfortable admitting. 

I'm not willing to forecast what will happen if it's Buttigieg or Biden. Yet anyway. I maintain that Klobuchar would win (and potentially very easily) if she pulls off the upset in the primary though. 
Click to expand...
True, too.

EDIT: Warren or Sanders could offset this with a big bump in young voters.  Seems odd, but it's true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST)
Replies
9
Views
467
The Dude
T
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
879
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Do You Believe College Liberals Have Hijacked The Democratic Party? (5/19/22 7:43 PST)
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top