sorry msg (meloshouldgo), i like me some moderate democrats.

Marv wrote:maybe brown, klobuchar, gillibrand gain some momentum for 2020. maybe even o'rourke despite the tough loss.

sorry msg (meloshouldgo), i like me some moderate democrats.

Thank you for calling me by the TLA thought people would catch on to that, but didn't happen over 7 years so not too hopeful anymore.
I am not asking others to change who they root for or vote for. I have provided my body of evidence against their work (centrists). I get the whole we should work together thing, I do. I also see that working together only further entrenched people in their differences as happened during the Obama years. I personally think the country needs a very hard push to the left, something moderates cannot deliver. The balance of power has long shifted. We can vote in moderates to deliver low impact, mostly impotent results only to be torn down at the first opportunity and replaced by something idiotic or in cases of government agencies to be neutered.

In the meantime the general population is getting less educated, more disenchanted with their life and blaming it more and more on the left because they are being fed the tripe coming out of far right sites that have gone mainstream. Think moderates can address that in a bipartisan way? I don't.

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:Man wtf is up with the south?

Deep-ceded cultural resentment.

are those fancy words for angry and stupid?

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:In the meantime the general population is getting less educated, more disenchanted with their life and blaming it more and more on the left because they are being fed the tripe coming out of far right sites that have gone mainstream.

Pin that. We're going to get back to it.

Think moderates can address that in a bipartisan way? I don't.

But candidates/office holders to the far(ther) left can?

No idea, but after failed attempt upon failed attempt by centrists to check the right wing power grab, the spread of neoliberal policies and the demise of the middle class - it sure seems to be worth a shot

What you seem to consistently overlook is that there isn't enough people in the United States that identify with the far left to win elections in this country, particularly in the executive branch.

People who identify as unaffiliated voters continues to grow, and the reason they do is because there is a level of dissatisfaction with the two parties who lean too far to the left and the right. They are "moderate" voters.

Your ideological argument is understood and I too believe the country would benefit if POLICY shifted to the left. Unfortunately for the both of us that's really not electorally possible.

Classic example of opinion posted as fact - get a hard left candidate to run a national race then let the data speak for itself, you are projecting out of vacuum

The American people as a BODY won't have it. Even if Congress successfully had a cycle or two in which its body moved to the harder left, history has shown us the electorate has a way of balancing things out and as we've learned first hand the last 2 years, any years the White House spends in the right's hands, has decades long ramifications in the Judicial branch.

If by balancing things out - you mean going further and further right - you are correct. Centrists haven't balanced anything because they haven't consistently stood for anything.

If I understand my history correctly, liberals in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania who didn't think Clinton was farther enough to the left and didn't vote or voted for an alternative candidate may have helped shift the razor-think margins there that resulted in a Trump presidency.

That isn't an issue of blame, that's just math. What was needed in those swing states was likely a more appealing moderate democrat than Clinton, not a harder left one.

If I understood the math Sanders was kicking Trump's ass in polls by double digits, even Fox news had him beating Trump in a national race - so maybe, just maybe what the country needed was an actual left wing candidate instead of a corrupt politician with more ties to central banks than the middle class.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

That you seem to acknowledge a significant portion of the electorate not only isn't moving left it also resents the left seems to suggest you're already aware this hard left turn is politically self-defeating.

Thinking hard-left liberals are in better position to address what's happening on the right doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, if I understand you correctly.

We have been through this before and won't change each others minds. This is not worth rehashing.

If your position for supporting centrists is based out of your faith based belief system that hard left candidates can't win in the US, you are truly the prime example of how right wing propaganda has set the table for voter expectations. For years our brains have been hammered both consciously and subconsciously by relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging by the far right. And complete lack thereof from centrists. Electorates can be made to change over time - this is the lesson from the right wing success. This is why what was fringe once is now mainstream - because of messaging and constant frontal attack on people's thoughts. IT WORKS. Centrists don't win on merit, they only win because all 8 year GOP presidential end in recessions. They lose because they don't have a message or a vision for people who vote them in, they are too busy playing bipartisanship, singing kumbayah and creating weak ass impotent policies.

But I digress, I said I won't do this again.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:In the meantime the general population is getting less educated, more disenchanted with their life and blaming it more and more on the left because they are being fed the tripe coming out of far right sites that have gone mainstream.

Pin that. We're going to get back to it.

Think moderates can address that in a bipartisan way? I don't.

But candidates/office holders to the far(ther) left can?

No idea, but after failed attempt upon failed attempt by centrists to check the right wing power grab, the spread of neoliberal policies and the demise of the middle class - it sure seems to be worth a shot

Wait, you have "no idea" if more far-left candidates can be more successfully bi-partisan?

Really?

Isn't that kind of self-defining?

Classic example of opinion posted as fact - get a hard left candidate to run a national race then let the data speak for itself, you are projecting out of vacuum

No, that's a projection. Your's is in the vacuum.

The premise of your argument is "hey, you never know" absent of any premise or support other than "hey, you never know".

If by balancing things out - you mean going further and further right - you are correct. Centrists haven't balanced anything because they haven't consistently stood for anything.

This is rhetorical empty calories. They haven't stood for what YOU believe in. So you call it "nothing" and think it effective discourse.

If I understood the math Sanders was kicking Trump's ass in polls by double digits, even Fox news had him beating Trump in a national race - so maybe, just maybe what the country needed was an actual left wing candidate instead of a corrupt politician with more ties to central banks than the middle class.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

You're replying in practiced rebuttals now. What I actually wrote is a better candidate than Clinton was needed. To throw Clinton right back into this in retort ignoring what I wrote is just you waiting for your turn to get in your talking points.

Clinton was leading in the polls too. Clinton actually won the popular vote.

What you aren't demonstrating whatsoever is why a more progressive candidate like Sanders who may have run up the margin in California and the Northeast would have made the difference in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which is where the race was decided, by 88k votes (total).

Your argument is THOSE states needed a more far-left candidate, as opposed to a less damaged moderate candidate and I don't even see an attempt at an argument to explain why, other than your personal investment in the issue.

Seems like classic self-projection. 'If there was just more candidates who thought like me'.

Thing is I'm personally as likely as if not more progressively liberal than you.

The difference is I can read a map, and can separate personal desire from the information in front of us.

But hey, I also admit I cannot win the "hey, you never know" debate.

That's a foolproof debate winner.

We have been through this before and won't change each others minds.

No, that's self-projection again. My mind CAN be changed. Ironically, in a preamble to your next argument, you're essentially including yourself ... unwittingly.

If your position for supporting centrists is based out of your faith based belief system that hard left candidates can't win in the US,

More rhetorical nonsense. Its data-based, as inconvenient that is for your talking points. You are the one concluding unaffiliated, undecided voters would be more reliably influenced by candidates and policies to the farther left than candidates and policies to the center left or right. Which defies math and logic, not to mention utterly ignoring why they reside BETWEEN right and left in the first place.

For years our brains have been hammered both consciously and subconsciously by relentless, targeted, expert and disciplined messaging by the far right. And complete lack thereof from centrists.

I see a pattern emerging. Stay tuned.

Electorates can be made to change over time - this is the lesson from the right wing success. This is why what was fringe once is now mainstream - because of messaging and constant frontal attack on people's thoughts. IT WORKS. Centrists don't win on merit, they only win because all 8 year GOP presidential end in recessions. They lose because they don't have a message or a vision for people who vote them in, they are too busy playing bipartisanship, singing kumbayah and creating weak ass impotent policies.

Yes, I see. You remind of Bill Maher and Michael Avenatti, progressives who speak critically of the right's tactics but in fact make it clear that they admire them and want to emulate them.

You also make it clear you want to fight fire with fire. You seem to want to use the right's tactics to try to draft undecided voters into far-left zealotry, and turn this country into a war between two far-leaning extremes with NO meeting in the middle.

The fact that you seem unable to anticipate where that leads... or worse, invite it, pretty much says it all here.

Your problem, however, is your recruitment strategy - you have NO idea how to appeal to the electorate you need to and don't seem to recognize the inherent problem.

You need to appeal to the more educated, more enfranchised, less angry, less resentful, with less motivation to look for a false scapegoat for their problems, which aren't that big of problem to begin with.

You're looking for zealots and idealogues in the wrong places. You face a sociological problem that trumps(!) politics. People who are mostly comfortable, satisfied and can see and comprehend the bigger picture tend to avoid zealotry.

You're more like like the angry, resentful far right than unlike it. You've simply substituted "centrists" for libs and dems.

But I digress, I said I won't do this again.

Yet you did. But I'm sure that's someone else's fault.

I am inviting you to expand your scope of thinking. If you accept that the last 30-45 years had not seen the situation improve for the middle class or anybody outside the 1% and the whole time it was centrists or republicans leading the charge, you already know wr need to consider other solutions that doesn't involve another 8-10 years of centrist policy making. That is literally all I am saying.

If you think that the centrists have done a great job and everything possible to maintain balance and that's the ONLY positive outcome anyone should dare hope for, then by all means continue to wallow in your self righteousness and your math. Like I said I can't change minds.

You want to do things the "right way" through consensus building, but in your zeal to do that you refuse to acknowledge the right way hasn't worked for the majority of the population. So unless you can acknowledge that wr can't have a discussion about anything else that follows. Not saying you need to change your mind or wr need to have a discussion. Just that I have moved forward in my thinking from the place you are at now with your thinking, or at least that's how I see it.

meloshouldgo wrote:I don't know if hard left candidates will succeed better if they get voted in, I can't predict the future.

Which is the entire point - "IF they get voted in."

IF

More as we go.

That said, they won't be more successful being "bi-partisan."

That they won't be as bi-partisan is the very reason you want them to have a shot at it. So they're not.

To suggest hard left idealogues would somehow be more successfully bi-partisan - which you did, I'm not taking anything out of context - is illogical... and relevant. Which we'll get into.

My premise is Centrists have shown over and over again that they are too happy to fall in line with Republicans to carry the neoliberal agenda forward.

Okay. Pinned.

This isn't empty rhethoric, I have shown the body of work of the centrists to destroy middle class America on these forums over multiple years. Do yourself a favor and read some ****.

I have no reason to read more from someone ignoring what I've actually written in favor of something they're inventing whole cloth.

I well understand your antipathy for what you describe as centrist policy. But that's still something, not "nothing." That's why I call it RHETORICAL empty calories. It's pointless language that does nothing to move the dialogue forward other than describe how passionate you are on the topic, which is good and fine but nothing I have any use for.

I thought your post said a better "moderate" candidate was needed. And no this isn't practiced rebuttal, I was just giving you data on why hard left candidate had the better chance to beat Trump. Hillary never even came close to the types of lead Sanders had on Trump in the polls.

I think a less damaged moderate candidate would have win in 2016. Hell, most electoral pundits left and right ALL agree if not for Comey's announcement Clinton would have won.

I don't think Clinton's problem was her politics. I don't think losing by 88k total votes in Penn., Mich. and Wis. was a referrendum on her not being liberal enough.

Sanders, who btw, lost his own primary, might have been more appealing vs. Trump NOT because of his positions, but because he wasn't Hilary Clinton. (I'd like to see polling to suggest Sanders would have done better in the three rust belt stakes that decided the election, if you have it.)

I think her problem was she was Hilary Clinton.

Instead of projecting what I want how about you respond to my actual claim that meeting in the middle hasn't worked, doesn't work and won't work?

Because it's beside the point.

Or maybe you consider the sytematic destruction of the middle class, civil liberties and current bull market in far right politics as proof of your approach working?

I haven't articulated a policy approach, other than saying outright I am likely personally as liberally progressive if not more so than you.

You've mistaken my position on pragmatic electoral math with policy. And I don't know how other than you really, really want to.

So we should just ignore the truth and keep voting them in?

It depends on what the alternative is.

do you understand that trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity? When extreme right wing politics was considered a fringe element what did you map reading tell you? They'll be mainstream in twenty years? It's your inability to see anything beyond what's glued into your brain that limits you. You can't and won't admit that right wing politics does, has and continues to work better in converting the minds of teh electorate while you imbeciles in the middle keep pointing to your "this is just math"argument. Show me the math that predicted a facist **** in the white house making friends with North Korea and destroying alliances. Your level of tunnel vision is beyond obscene. I understand math just as well as you do, I just don't choose to tie every decision to it because I also understand it's limited in scope and based on what's happened in the past.

I don't have a crystal ball and I can't predict what will happen, BUT the one thing the math DOES reliably tells us is what won't happen. Centrists won't make America better unless the radically change their policies at which point they'll no longer be centrists.

This isn't the my best quality but I admit I enjoy the idea you were so pleased with yourself by this you felt the need for a follow-up post semi-apologizing for it, as if you somehow dropped the mic.

[sigh]

Anyway...

I can only respond to what you post here, I can't read anymore into what isn't here.

You SEEM to be SO dissatisfied with the centrist bogeyman that what I can gather from your position is all liberal progressive minded democrats should coalesce around more far left candidates because they deserve a shot at delivering our more desired agenda. Moderates have failed so its time to TRY to elect more radical progressives to give them a shot.

Here's the problem. I personally would be happy for even further left candidates to be in power. The problem is all liberal democrats unified don't have the ability to elect these candidates to give them real political power.

We need help.

That isn't defeatist, that's just the facts.

Elections in this country are decided in the middle.

I understand and am sympathetic to your politics, whether or not you want to believe that because it's more convenient to vilify me. But the stakes are too high to conclude 'hey you never know until you try.' We DO know. Math and data and history are very real and very relevant.

You know what California and Montana, and New York and Mississippi have in common, politically?

They ALL send exactly two Senators to Washington. I mean jesus man, have you ever seen a electoral map? You think a hard push to the left is the way to win back the Senate? What the ****, dude?

I'm sorry, again as much as a really do relate to your politics, I don't relate at all to your more conspiratorial theories that the left has allowed to right to brainwash a large % of the population and our problem is we haven't done the same.

The right's ability to exploit fear and dissatisfaction is unique to their idealogy and frankly I don't want the left to try to exploit the same tactics, forgetting I don't think they'll be successful for reasons I've already detailed.

In order to win elections in this country, the left needs a coalition. Period. They need to appeal to voters in the center. Period.

The right doesn't have that same urgency to the same degree because of electoral math.

You need to demonstrate a real path in which far left liberals seize significant, staying political power.

Perhaps I'm not smart enough to understand you but all I've seen is expression of resentment that me having serious electoral doubts is also my idealogical position and that your answer is some form of 'hey, you never know if you don't try'.

Show me a path to the executive and two legislative branches that's based on pragmatism and not desire and we have a conservation.

Until then, I see someone with a wish I totally sympathize with with NO idea how it actually becomes a reality.

And yes, I'll take a moderate democrat over a Republican anything all day, every day.

And THAT's our political reality.

Your desire to push left, hard and fast is noble, but would have the exact opposite of the intended effect.

And yes, we DO know that.

meloshouldgo wrote:I was trying to make sure you had the opportunity to see it wasn't designed to bash you but to invite you to see things differently.

You demonstrate you have little actual understanding of how I see things.

And I don't give a ****, but it was 'bashing.'

It was needlessly personal and off-topic.

What you're trying to articulate now is you claim you were trying to advocate, to convince, to influence, to get someone to rethink their assumptions and the tactic you chose to achieve that goal was to insult them.

Good luck with that.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I was trying to make sure you had the opportunity to see it wasn't designed to bash you but to invite you to see things differently.

You demonstrate you have little actual understanding of how I see things.

And I don't give a ****, but it was 'bashing.'

It was needlessly personal and off-topic.

What you're trying to articulate now is you claim you were trying to advocate, to convince, to influence, to get someone to rethink their assumptions and the tactic you chose to achieve that goal was to insult them.

Good luck with that.

You don't give a ****, but it was needlessly personal and bashing? After I posted to clarify that it wasn't.
You do realize what "not giving a ****" actually means, right?

Yes.

Let me rephrase, since this is apparently a thing now.

I'm not bothered by insults.

But when you hurl insults in place of discourse and then claim you didn't I do enjoy pointing that out. Whatever you'd like to call that is okay by me.

And you don't "clarify" what it was or wasn't. It was what it was. I can read. I don't require translation of "Your level of tunnel vision is beyond obscene."

Nor am I going to let it go when you later try to claim you posted that to try to help me.

Way to put the moron into oxymoron bro.

As I was saying...

But since we're now avoiding the actual topic, I do have a genuine curiosity about something...

But I digress, I said I won't do this again.

Can you explain to me why people do this? It's very common and I don't get it.

There no point or upside to it and anyone inclined almost by rule doesn't follow through.

So why do people do it?

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:I was trying to make sure you had the opportunity to see it wasn't designed to bash you but to invite you to see things differently.

You demonstrate you have little actual understanding of how I see things.

And I don't give a ****, but it was 'bashing.'

It was needlessly personal and off-topic.

What you're trying to articulate now is you claim you were trying to advocate, to convince, to influence, to get someone to rethink their assumptions and the tactic you chose to achieve that goal was to insult them.

Good luck with that.

You don't give a ****, but it was needlessly personal and bashing? After I posted to clarify that it wasn't.
You do realize what "not giving a ****" actually means, right?

Yes.

Let me rephrase, since this is apparently a thing now.

I'm not bothered by insults.

But when you hurl insults in place of discourse and then claim you didn't I do enjoy pointing that out. Whatever you'd like to call that is okay by me.

And you don't "clarify" what it was or wasn't. It was what it was. I can read. I don't require translation of "Your level of tunnel vision is beyond obscene."

Nor am I going to let it go when you later try to claim you posted that to try to help me.

Way to put the moron into oxymoron bro.

As I was saying...

But since we're now avoiding the actual topic, I do have a genuine curiosity about something...

But I digress, I said I won't do this again.

Can you explain to me why people do this? It's very common and I don't get it.

There no point or upside to it and anyone inclined almost by rule doesn't follow through.

So why do people do it?

If you are not bothered by insults why do you need to point them out? Are you sure you are being fully transparent?

I didn't say anything about helping you. I said I was trying to get you to understand how narrow your scope of thinking is. It's not meant to be insulting. It's criticism. The fact that you find it insulting shows that you do give a **** or you are 12.