Democratic Voters - When Do They Finally Move The Party Forward?? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I’m not a left-winger at all, far from it.  It angers me because her other moderate candidates that would’ve done what I was talking about. Biden is nearly 80 and not the future the party needs imo.  

Ah. 
Well, the answer to this is a historical oddity. I tried to explain it before it happened. There is a reason I predicted Biden would prevail. As most people know I’m hardly the greatest prognosticator. But if you study the nature of Democratic politics it wasn’t  that difficult to see what was likely to happen. These are the things that you need to remember: 

1. In the 1960s after the Democrats embraced racial integration, whites in the south fled the Democratic Party. They’ve never come back. 
 

2. This means that in most southern states, the majority of Democratic voters are black. Blacks are a minority in every one of these states and they don’t have enough power, normally, to decide state elections or national elections. But when it comes to the Democratic Presidential primaries, they suddenly are transformed from minority to majority. This is the historical oddity I was referring to. 
 

3. More than any other minority group in this country, the black vote in the south is unified. Again, this has its roots in the Civil Rights Era, Martin Luther King, the NAACP and CORE. The black vote is dominated by women who are churchgoers and who organize registration and voting. There is no equivalent to this organization for blacks anywhere in the north, or for any other interest group in this country. When you combine this organized voting with the historical oddity of black voting power in southern Presidential primaries, the southern black voters instantly become the dominant force in the entire Democratic Party- not for choosing policy- in that they remain one of several competing interests- but in deciding who the Presidential candidate will be. They are decisive. 
 

4. The southern black voter tends to be traditionalist, conservative (within the boundaries of the Democratic Party but sometimes socially conservative even beyond those boundaries) and most of all, pro-establishment. Only one time in the last 50 years have they ever gone against the pro-establishment choice for President: that was for Obama over Hillary in 2008, and that was closer than people realize, it only happened because Jim Clyburn decided to reverse himself and endorse Obama. Jim Clyburn is the most powerful man in the Democratic Party in terms of deciding who the President will be. 

So there you go. Long explanation, but if you’re angry at the choice of Biden, realize it has to do much more with historical reasons than it does with any overall tendencies of most of the voters. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This is true but the pushback didn’t come from traditional conservatives; it came from nativists and populists. So I don’t think it’s safe to compare that to what’s happening in the Democratic Party, which currently is a more traditional struggle between left and center. 

I would consider AOC and Bernie to be populists.

 

[timschochet]

I would consider AOC and Bernie to be populists.

Hmm. Not sure about that. Bernie uses populism (most good politicians do) but that doesn’t make him a populist. He is anti free trade, which is a hallmark of populism, but most leftists are also anti-free trade. 
Not saying you’re wrong, have to think about it some more. 

 

[zftcg]

If Bernie isn’t a left wing populist, the term has no meaning

 

[Slapdash]

I would consider AOC and Bernie to be populists.

Certainly

 

[Thunderlips]

Yes, they obviously made a choice in terms of candidates. I just meant they punted on choosing a future of the party. I say that as someone who would have loved for a young, dynamic (ideally non white) leader to emerge and change the party’s trajectory. But when that didn’t happen, I viewed the best option as going with Biden, winning the election, and hopefully trying again in four years. 

Didn't we just have 8 years of one?.......and let's be honest, Biden (despite being old, white and maybe not all that dynamic)....should be perceived as an extension of the said younger, dynamicer, non whiter former POTUS that Biden served under.  Obama still come to find Biden.....Biden don't come to find him.  

 

[BladeRunner]

Yes, they obviously made a choice in terms of candidates. I just meant they punted on choosing a future of the party. I say that as someone who would have loved for a young, dynamic (ideally non white) leader to emerge and change the party’s trajectory. But when that didn’t happen, I viewed the best option as going with Biden, winning the election, and hopefully trying again in four years. 

Why is there this incessant need for a candidate to be non-white or female?  Can't we just have a qualified candidate?   Whether thats a male, female, black, white, purple....whatever?

This intense focus on race and sex is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  You guys are potentially passing up good candidates because you want to mark some check boxes off on the "Feel Good/Virtue Signal List".

 

[dkp993]

Yes, they obviously made a choice in terms of candidates. I just meant they punted on choosing a future of the party. I say that as someone who would have loved for a young, dynamic (ideally non white) leader to emerge and change the party’s trajectory. But when that didn’t happen, I viewed the best option as going with Biden, winning the election, and hopefully trying again in four years. 

100%, but it’s exactly that first stage that I’m talking about.  That is where the opportunity was missed.  Obviously when it comes down to Biden or Sanders as your only choice that’s different but not what I’m talking about.   

 

[Thunderlips]

There's never really been a whole lot of love between The Obama Machine and the Clinton Machine.  In 08, that was Hillary's "slot" and Obama came along an usurped it. With that, came almost on a district level; a changing of the guard and leadership. A lot of Clinton people didn't like that.  16 comes along, and in all reality, Biden was poised for that and would have probably gotten the nomination if not for the death of his son.  Biden would have probably beaten Trump fairly handily if they went H2H.  So Clinton gets it, and IMO, didn't QUITE get the pop she should have from the Obama Machine.  I think 20 is the righting of that ship (politically speaking, Biden didn't lay claim to this as his destiny like Hillary did both in 08 and 16.  He very much backdoored the slot) and will be framed on both sides ( as we all know because of the silly "Obamagate" tactic being thrown against the wall by Trump) as Biden (w Obama) v. Trump.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

In my opinion the whole system is broken. I have no evidence of it, but I'm convinced there are people who vote republican 100% of the time, but are registered as democrats so they can vote in the primaries to keep getting moderate liberals like Biden and Hillary on the democratic ticket. 

What we need is system where a vote in primaries for the winner of the primary is carried forward as your vote in the election and can't be changed. 

Your first point doesn't mean the system is broken.  Republicans voting for Democrats and Democrats voting for Republicans means the system works.  You need to appeal to the masses to win the election.  If Sanders really wanted to run in the general he could have run as an independent but he needs those moderate liberal votes to win just like Biden needs the Sanders clan votes to win.  

If we did your primary vote idea, Trump would win hands down.  All the votes that went to Sanders, Warren, etc. would be lost votes for Democrats since you can't change your vote.  Since voting is anonymous, you wouldn't be able to track who voted for Sanders, Warren, etc. so you wouldn't know who should get a second general election vote.  Trump was getting 99% of the Republican primary votes since he was running virtually unopposed.  

 

[dkp993]

In my opinion the whole system is broken. I have no evidence of it, but I'm convinced there are people who vote republican 100% of the time, but are registered as democrats so they can vote in the primaries to keep getting moderate liberals like Biden and Hillary on the democratic ticket. 

What we need is system where a vote in primaries for the winner of the primary is carried forward as your vote in the election and can't be changed. 

Your first point doesn't mean the system is broken.  Republicans voting for Democrats and Democrats voting for Republicans means the system works.  You need to appeal to the masses to win the election.  If Sanders really wanted to run in the general he could have run as an independent but he needs those moderate liberal votes to win just like Biden needs the Sanders clan votes to win.  

If we did your primary vote idea, Trump would win hands down.  All the votes that went to Sanders, Warren, etc. would be lost votes for Democrats since you can't change your vote.  Since voting is anonymous, you wouldn't be able to track who voted for Sanders, Warren, etc. so you wouldn't know who should get a second general election vote.  Trump was getting 99% of the Republican primary votes since he was running virtually unopposed.  

I believe the crux of his post was that people are voting nefariously or in bad faith. Not what you’re describing in where a largely Republican person votes for a Democrat because he or she believes they are the best candidate.  

 

[Leroy Hoard]

There's never really been a whole lot of love between The Obama Machine and the Clinton Machine.  In 08, that was Hillary's "slot" and Obama came along an usurped it. With that, came almost on a district level; a changing of the guard and leadership. A lot of Clinton people didn't like that.  16 comes along, and in all reality, Biden was poised for that and would have probably gotten the nomination if not for the death of his son.  Biden would have probably beaten Trump fairly handily if they went H2H.  So Clinton gets it, and IMO, didn't QUITE get the pop she should have from the Obama Machine.  

Could be why a dem is not currently prez.  GOP eventually united behind Trump.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I believe the crux of his post was that people are voting nefariously or in bad faith. Not what you’re describing in where a largely Republican person votes for a Democrat because he or she believes they are the best candidate.  

How can any vote be in bad faith?  It's your vote to do what you want with it.  The fact that there are only two legitimate parties and people have to shoe horn themselves into one of them is the real travesty.    

 

[zftcg]

Why is there this incessant need for a candidate to be non-white or female?  Can't we just have a qualified candidate?   Whether thats a male, female, black, white, purple....whatever?

This intense focus on race and sex is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party.  You guys are potentially passing up good candidates because you want to mark some check boxes off on the "Feel Good/Virtue Signal List".

Gee, if only there was a good example of a Democrat declining to support female and minority candidates in favor of a white guy because they thought he was more qualified. Oh wait, that's exactly what I was discussing in the post you were responding to! Try to keep up, will you?

Second, the fact that you think the only value in diversity is virtue signaling is exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party, and why, on its current trajectory, it's consigning itself to minority status within the next generation.

Third, do you think that the fact that the GOP leadership is made up almost exclusively of old white guys is a function of it being a strict meritocracy?

 

[zftcg]

How can any vote be in bad faith?  It's your vote to do what you want with it.  The fact that there are only two legitimate parties and people have to shoe horn themselves into one of them is the real travesty.    

If you're a lifelong Republican who registers as a Democrat in a year when the GOP incumbent faces no opposition, solely to vote for the candidate you think would be easiest to beat, I would say that's operating in bad faith. But I'm not sure if there's actually any good way to prevent it. Parties could "close" their primaries to party members only, but that forces them to exclude the loosely attached voters that they will need in November.

 

[BladeRunner]

Gee, if only there was a good example of a Democrat declining to support female and minority candidates in favor of a white guy because they thought he was more qualified. Oh wait, that's exactly what I was discussing in the post you were responding to! Try to keep up, will you?

Second, the fact that you think the only value in diversity is virtue signaling is exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party, and why, on its current trajectory, it's consigning itself to minority status within the next generation.

Third, do you think that the fact that the GOP leadership is made up almost exclusively of old white guys is a function of it being a strict meritocracy?

The only value of diversity IS virtue signaling.  If you can't make it on your own merits then the color of your skin or what's between your legs shouldn't matter.  It shouldn't ever matter.  Ever.

Yeah, I do think it's a meritocracy.  And who cares if it's almost exclusively white guys? Even though that's not true because there are numerous African-Americans and women in all levels of government for the Republican party.  Just because it's not as many as a Democrats doesn't mean anything.  There could be numerous reasons why, but none of them racist as you seem to imply.

However, the party that cries about diversity and screams the loudest about it has an old white guy as their candidate.  So I guess diversity doesn't mean squat from the left anyways.  Only as virtue signaling points apparently.

 

[Politician Spock]

Your first point doesn't mean the system is broken.  Republicans voting for Democrats and Democrats voting for Republicans means the system works.  You need to appeal to the masses to win the election.  If Sanders really wanted to run in the general he could have run as an independent but he needs those moderate liberal votes to win just like Biden needs the Sanders clan votes to win.  

If we did your primary vote idea, Trump would win hands down.  All the votes that went to Sanders, Warren, etc. would be lost votes for Democrats since you can't change your vote.  Since voting is anonymous, you wouldn't be able to track who voted for Sanders, Warren, etc. so you wouldn't know who should get a second general election vote.  Trump was getting 99% of the Republican primary votes since he was running virtually unopposed.  

I said "a vote in primaries for the winner of the primary is carried forward as your vote in the election and can't be changed." People who voted for Sanders, Warren, etc... are free to vote for anyone because their vote in the primary was for a loser. And yes, the anonymity of voting would have to be lost in order to do this. 

And the whole "appealing to the masses" argument is a red herring. Because it is happening, the primary winners won the primary with support they won't have in the general election.  The primary losers on the other hand had support that they wouldn't have lost at all in the general election. 

 

[timschochet]

The only value of diversity IS virtue signaling.  If you can't make it on your own merits then the color of your skin or what's between your legs shouldn't matter.  It shouldn't ever matter.  Ever.

Yeah, I do think it's a meritocracy.  And who cares if it's almost exclusively white guys? Even though that's not true because there are numerous African-Americans and women in all levels of government for the Republican party.  Just because it's not as many as a Democrats doesn't mean anything.  There could be numerous reasons why, but none of them racist as you seem to imply.

However, the party that cries about diversity and screams the loudest about it has an old white guy as their candidate.  So I guess diversity doesn't mean squat from the left anyways.  Only as virtue signaling points apparently.

African Americans remain on the bottom end of the economic ladder in nearly every industry in society. So do most other minorities. As for women, take a look at the corporate leadership of this country and tell me how many of them are old white guys. 
 

So long as these are facts in our society, there will always be calls for diversity- and they are justified. 

 

[BladeRunner]

African Americans remain on the bottom end of the economic ladder in nearly every industry in society. So do most other minorities. As for women, take a look at the corporate leadership of this country and tell me how many of them are old white guys. 
 

So long as these are facts in our society, there will always be calls for diversity- and they are justified. 

Negative

If you can't stand on your merits then you shouldn't be able to get in because you have a vagina or by the color of your skin.

 

[timschochet]

Negative

If you can't stand on your merits then you shouldn't be able to get in because you have a vagina or by the color of your skin.

We have never lived in the society you think we do. 

 

[Slapdash]

Was a good thread for a while at least  Thanks @dkp993

 

[Bucsfan5493]

Negative

If you can't stand on your merits then you shouldn't be able to get in because you have a vagina or by the color of your skin.

This is true. You shouldn’t simply be rewarded something based off of your gender, color of skin, body parts, etc. You should be qualified for the job based off of past experience, past actions and current behavioral approaches. That being said, do we really think Donald Trump or Joe Biden are super qualified? Donald Trump had ZERO political experience before coming President, while Joe Biden is 78 years old and clearly in a mental decline. Yet, they are our two options to choose from.

Also since you think this is all just virtue signaling, let me ask you a question. Don’t you think it’s a bit weird that 44 of our 45 Presidents have been white dudes? Not a single female, not a single minority until President 44. And now our two options are again 2 white dudes who the vast majority of the country aren’t enthusiastic to support. Why are old mediocre (that’s putting it very nicely) continuing to get the highest power in the country when there are plenty of women and minorities who are more qualified? Given our past history of 98% of our Presidents being white makes, don’t you think that’s a problem?

 

[Summer Wheat]

Gee, if only there was a good example of a Democrat declining to support female and minority candidates in favor of a white guy because they thought he was more qualified. Oh wait, that's exactly what I was discussing in the post you were responding to! Try to keep up, will you?

Second, the fact that you think the only value in diversity is virtue signaling is exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party, and why, on its current trajectory, it's consigning itself to minority status within the next generation.

Third, do you think that the fact that the GOP leadership is made up almost exclusively of old white guys is a function of it being a strict meritocracy?

Both parties leadership are old white people. We are going to have a POTUS who is pushing 80, and Pelosi is already 80. My grandmother is 70.

 

[sho nuff]

My short answer...when its politically expedient to do so...

Im going to guess if Trump wins a 2nd term...changes will be coming.

If Biden wins...well, how he holds up to 4 years and his VP selection will be telling.  I don't think he tries for 2 terms...but you never know.  But will his VP be popular enough to beat out the possible GOP candidate in 2024?

 

[KiddLattimer]

I don't think he tries for 2 terms...but you never know. 

He's already talked about himself as a "transition candidate" to the next generation so I doubt he tries to run again. 

 

[zftcg]

The only value of diversity IS virtue signaling.  If you can't make it on your own merits then the color of your skin or what's between your legs shouldn't matter.  It shouldn't ever matter.  Ever.

Yeah, I do think it's a meritocracy.  And who cares if it's almost exclusively white guys? Even though that's not true because there are numerous African-Americans and women in all levels of government for the Republican party.  Just because it's not as many as a Democrats doesn't mean anything.  There could be numerous reasons why, but none of them racist as you seem to imply.

However, the party that cries about diversity and screams the loudest about it has an old white guy as their candidate.  So I guess diversity doesn't mean squat from the left anyways.  Only as virtue signaling points apparently.

LOL. If Democrats had chosen a minority, we would be elevating someone unqualified solely on the basis of their color. If we choose a white guy, we're hypocrites.

I'm done here. Go troll someone else.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Three factors to deal with -

The party: The funding & functionaries of the Democratic Party lie with the unions & teachers, as they have since i was alive. When i covered the '76 campaign (and one must remember that this was only the 3rd campaign where primaries were the determining factor), i did so because there was this goony GA Guv who was going to coffee klatches in NH months before anyone else and one of the reasons nobody else was running yet is that Labor hadnt chosen their boy (WA Sen Scoop Jackson) yet. Theyre the ones who've been giving the party their Mondales & Bidens and, once the teachers' unions became the ascendant voice in this, their Hillarys. Because the special interest money (except that corps pay both sides now) isnt there to anywhere near the extent as w GOP, those who control central funding control the choices.

Bernie: I'm a Vermonter. I'm a former member of the Communist Party of the USA (tho mostly because race was my issue and CPUSA was the only way white people were allowed to work on race in the 70s). I have never supported Bernie Sanders. He's a shouter who has never followed thru on anything, who got lucky. He sensed that he could use the fact that Clinton was unopposed in '16 to advance his socialization issues and he took off with the young people. But he's got no skills, got no org. If he had, i wouldnt have spent what little time i spent posting on politics here in 2017 wondering out loud why the Party wasnt growing li'l Bernies for 2018 and beyiond, like the Tea Party had in 2010. If they had started as soon as they had learned the lesson of '16, their majority wouldnt be up for grabs in 2020. But Bernie dont care about anything more than Bernie just as the Party cares about naught but the Party.

The "S" word: This all aint socialism. Socialism is about taking over the means of production. This is business paying a toll,l if only to keep their customeers afloat, if theyre going to monetize everything in sight. When i lived in Manhattan in the early 80s, my folks lived out in Jersey. Every other Thursday night, i'd take the bus out to their house for dinner and return with me Da in the morning commute. Me & me Da agree about almost nothing, esp politics. Reagan had just gutted the SEC and EVERYTHING was getting arbitraged. We still had the inflation leap curve left over from Carter, too, and the result of both is that a LOT of plants on the Jersey side of Hudson were being shut down because they were only making 8 cents on the dollar in a time when you needed double that to jump the curve. Thing was those ironing board plants made 8% before the ILC and would make 8% after inflation was under control and the community impact was such that factory closings would kill NBergen or the Oranges as towns and where's the economic sense of that. We'd shout at each other until we got to the tubes or he called me a Commie.

Business has been doing that for four decades now - first closing plants, then outsourcing, then sheltering, then buying politicians outright once K Street was weaponized. Normally, we would be at the revolutionary tipping point but, unlike previous generations, home media has kept these people from hitting the streets and national media has splintered and kept them distracted & feckless. We're closing in on a drone economy and the People need a voice in that. But EVERYBODY runs from the word Socialism and the Party hasnt even heeded the high % of Social Democrat members, never mind found another word. That will be the fight, especially after the lockdown. i would like to see an entirely new entity try to pick ups the disaffecteds on both sides, because the 2020 Democratic coup on their own members is likely to be their last major act.