Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Elections are won in the primaries
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 113 (820531)
09-22-2017 10:16 AM


The way the gerrymandering has taken over the elections for representatives and senators -- with the tacit compliance of both parties -- it has now reached the point, imho, that the elections are won in the primaries.
Progressives are not going to change the democratic party from the inside.
Third party challenges rarely result in victory.
Time to run alternative candidates in republican primaries ...
Fiscally conservative
Working family centered
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2017 9:38 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2017 8:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by anglagard, posted 09-24-2017 9:22 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 09-25-2017 5:02 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 09-26-2017 11:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 113 (820576)
09-23-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes
09-23-2017 9:38 AM


Uh, I am a progressive...
Congratulations, you like to think outside the party boxes.
If your district is gerrymandered so that a republican, no matter how obnoxious, would win ...
But he was up against a progressive conservative in the primary
One that backed universal healthcare, working family values (minimum wage, family leave) ... would you vot for them in the primary?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2017 9:38 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2017 11:14 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2017 10:06 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 09-26-2017 3:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 113 (820738)
09-25-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
09-25-2017 5:02 PM


It is certainly doable. What we would need is for Progressives to register Republican and support a Progressive candidate in the primaries. In states with open primaries it isn't even necessary to register with a party. It's not as if there is a lie detector at the polling place, so you can vote in whichever primary you want to. Given the relatively low turnout for primaries it wouldn't take much to make a large impact.
Exactly. When support for $15/hr minimum wage enjoys an 80% approval rating across the board, and universal health care (medicare for all) also enjoys a comfortable majority support, then a candidate talking these issues would move them into the republican debate.
Obviously, this can't be planned in private so Republicans will see it coming a mile away. Their response would certainly be interesting. Would they try to drum up higher turnout for primaries, or have their voters register as Democrats and nominate a staunch conservative in the Democratic primaries? Things get interesting when voters start moving off of their normal strategies.
What we currently have is certainly not working.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 09-25-2017 5:02 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2017 12:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 113 (820759)
09-26-2017 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
09-23-2017 10:06 PM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
For me, all of these issues would be deal breakers for politicians running for state-wide office. Many of them are deal breakers for local politicians. Now your own state's Republicans may not be as screwed up as North Carolina's but at least some of you have even more dicked up Republicans (are you feeling me Texans).
If I were to register for and vote in a Republican primary, my most likely motive is to select a loser that could not beat a Democrat. Your mileage may vary.
Well that is one way to go.
What I am thinking of is trying to broaden the message to the voters.
There is wide support for the idea that a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a family with housing, food, and other basic needs, and if the wages do not allow that, then a minimum wage law would be preferable to government assistance.
"We support efforts to ensure that habitual drug users are not on public assistance rolls."
"We reaffirm our support of voter ID and the repeal of straight-ticket voting."
"We support partisan elections for all offices."
"Suppliers and consumers of illegal drugs should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law."
and I see no problem with a progressive (sorry Rhain) conservative taking these positions. Being progressive means moving forward not backward.
And here is the catch-22. Once the candidate does repudiate all of that, he must have a reasonable answer to "Why the bleep are you a Republican"
Because I'm not a bleeding heart liberal socialist commie democrat, and I follow the core values of my grandfather and grandmother.
The idea is to change the dialog.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 09-23-2017 10:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2017 11:53 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2017 1:17 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 113 (820788)
09-27-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by anglagard
09-24-2017 9:22 PM


Re: No Quarter
Do you know of any Republican office holder that is a counterexample, because I don't.
No, but I know a lot of republicans that are and that don't like their choices from either party.
Also IMHO the same applies to all Republicans and most Democrats with regard to "working family centered." All they care about is reelection and as a result only representing and rewarding rich donors, to hell with anyone else.
They flat-out don't deserve my vote or anyone else outside of that less than 1%.
Exactly, which is why we need better/more choices in the primaries.
I absolutely disagree because it is already happening. For example Sander's fight for Medicare for all. It does have cosponsors, something unimaginable but a few years back. It and any other humane legislation will increase over time and the Democrats will have one choice "Adapt or Die."
We have only just started. I will likely not live to see the promised land but dammit, I will fight for it until my dying breath.
Indeed, but it will all come for naught if republicans control the district lines and state governments.
I have a better idea - vote for those against gerrymandering.
Indeed, but until then the elections are won in the primaries for the districts as gerrymandered. So instead of waiting for the general election to cast a useless vote against a pre-determined race, take the election to the primaries of those districts: if it is republican district then run the race in the republican primary.
If the elections are run in the primaries, then take the election to the primaries and run all the general election candidates in the primaries.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by anglagard, posted 09-24-2017 9:22 PM anglagard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 113 (820821)
09-27-2017 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
09-26-2017 11:53 PM


Re: Voting for republicans -- in the primary
Except that some of those positions would be huge steps backward.
Let your principled conservative take those positions. I am not voting for him. And I notice you shortened my list. Was there anything on that list that was a deal breaker for you?
You appear to have given up hope. Good luck with the Republicans.
Curiously what I am proposing is alternative candidates to the republicans -- in the primaries.
Again, if the gerrymandering guarantees that a republican candidate wins the district, then the actual election takes place in the primaries, and the only real hope you have for electing a progressive candidate is to run in the republican primary.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 09-26-2017 11:53 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2017 1:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 113 (820929)
09-29-2017 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LamarkNewAge
09-28-2017 3:54 PM


Re: Obama had 60 votes and could have made D.C. and Puerto Rico states.
I'm curious.
Why should Obama have wasted time on whether or not DC and Puerto Rico etc would be states,
When there were things like healthcare, immigration and tax reform to deal with?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-28-2017 3:54 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2017 9:37 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 113 (821004)
09-30-2017 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
09-28-2017 1:25 PM


Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
... But a bigger issue is that Democrats do not show up to vote. ...
Which is a failure of the DNC and the neolib wing (Hillary etc) that refuses to take up issues of interest to the people that would bring them out to vote: living minimum wage, family leave, women's rights, voting rights, universal healthcare, right to organize, etc.
Instead they seem to think that "republican lite" is the path to victory ... with corporate sponsors ...
People hate corporate sponsorship of candidates because they see this as corruption.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2017 1:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2017 11:12 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2017 2:11 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 113 (821015)
09-30-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
09-30-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
I know that you hate all things Hilary, but she is not responsible for folks not showing up to local elections for good candidates. The problem predates her run for president anyway. The problem dates back at least as far to when Republicans managed to bet enough seats to redraw the Congressional maps that we have to live with now.
It dates to the DNC turning away from working people to suck up to corporate support/addiction.
Hillary is just the latest most extreme example. What she promised was 4 more years of Obama deadlock corporatism and holding onto the status quo: you get that with or without democrats.
Why should people vote for a candidate that does not promise anything more than what the republicans offer.
As if the Republicans are less corporate.
Agreed. The difference between corporatist republicans and corporate appeasing DNC republican-lite DINO's is too small to ascertain any benefit to vote for as far as working people are concerned.
Why was Bernie popular with independents and moderate republicans as well as progressive democrats?
No corporate ties, issues for working people.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2017 11:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2017 12:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 113 (821026)
09-30-2017 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
09-30-2017 12:44 PM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
You seem to be missing the point. "Corporateness" would not seem to the reason why republicans are kicking democrat booty in off cycle elections dating back for quite a bit. ...
Because they use base core trigger issues (abortion, immigration, terrorist fear, etc) to get the gullible to vote for them.
The democrats have, apparently, no idea of what a core issue is that is of concern to the voters. They put out ho-hum candidates and think you have to vote for them.
I seem to recall Obama winning two presidential elections. ...
Because he represented change in the first and keeping the wolves at bay in the second, when the republicans won state elections and the house and then the senate.
They effectively hog-tied Obama's second term, and would have done the same to Hillary ... unless they could magically win house and senate seats, which Hillary was incapable of doing.
... You aren't making much sense with regards to explaining a long, pre Obama history of people not turning out to vote for Democrats in non-presidential elections. ...
It was -- and still is -- a(n increasing) failure to have and promote core issues that appeal to voters.
... I would have much preferred more of the same over what we got. ...
Which only would have delayed the inevitable descent into the maelstrom.
... Rational democrats ...
don't exist in the DNC. Look at Wasserman-Schultz for example, and Pelosi (who thinks we are doing fine), and the new imposed chairman of the DNC ...
... should have figured out the same.
Except that it has been -- and was -- independent voters that elected the president.
Sounds to me like you are just rehashing your issues with Bernie not getting the nomination. Again.
Except that it is about issues that get voters to the ballots, not Bernie. Bernie was popular because he had the issues that appealed to the voters.
"Elections are won in the primaries" (and lost) because of gerrymandering and also because of the way the primaries are run -- as if only their flavor of candidate matters.
Bernie won the open primaries because the independents could vote. He lost the closed primaries because the independents couldn't vote.
As long as dems ignore and belittle independent voters they will continue to lose. It's simple math.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2017 12:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2017 3:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 47 of 113 (821069)
10-02-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rrhain
10-02-2017 3:38 AM


Re: Voting for candidates -- in the republican primary
Yeah...the second largest vote total in history. They clearly have no idea what voters want.
How many house seats did they take back from the republicans
How many senate seats did they take back from the republicans
How many governor positions did they take back from the republicans
How many state house seats did they take back from the republicans
How many state senate seats did they take back from the republicans
How many mayoral positions did they take back from the republicans.
Yeah, the democrats know what the voters want.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! They hog-tied Obama's *FIRST* term. Have you forgotten that the Republicans literally had a secret meeting on the very night of Obama's first inauguration to specifically plan how to obstruct his entire agenda and ensure that he only had one term?
So you agree with me that he was hog-tied in the *SECOND* term, thanks.
Right...because they would have rolled over for Sanders...as if he was capable of magically winning Congress. Please explain how Sanders was going to get Congress to pass a $15 minimum wage.
By stumping for it at the state level -- you should read what he said about it. Curiously we are still winning that battle as $15/hr is still being won -- see recent article on Target.
Yep...second largest vote count in history. They know nothing about what appeals to voters.
How many house seats did they take back from the republicans
How many senate seats did they take back from the republicans
How many governor positions did they take back from the republicans
How many state house seats did they take back from the republicans
How many state senate seats did they take back from the republicans
How many mayoral positions did they take back from the republicans.
Yeah, the democrats know what the voters want.
Says who? Is your cognitive dissonance still affecting you? By your logic, Sanders would have hardly been any better. After all, he had a 93% concordance with Clinton. And with folks like Elizabeth Warren signing off on Clinton's Wall Street plan, I guess that means she's a shill so there would be no help from any Democrats.
We now see Elizabeth Warren signing on to his Medicare for All policy. What success he had would depend on how many down-ticket seats were won.
So let's work this through: Clinton beat Sanders in a Democratic primary ...
Because of the primary system. How many independents voted for her in NY. Hint: it was a closed primary and you had to be registered as democrat before the first debate happened. Then there was the registration purge in NY that dropped more voters in Bernie's home district than Hillary voters. By the state dem party.
... by more votes than she beat Trump ...
Except in states that voted for Trump -- in our election system total votes doesn't count in the Electoral College because states (except two) have chosen winner take all for electoral votes. She knew this better that anyone else in this race but failed to campaign in those critical states in a way that won votes.
Jill Stein got votes because Hillary did not earn those votes. You can't blame misogyny for that, and you can't blame Bernie for that, it falls squarely on Hillary's gucci padded shoulders.
... by and got the second largest vote total in history, but somehow she doesn't connect with voters.
Not where it mattered. Not where working people that had been shafted by the economic crunch and lost homes and savings and were taking low paying jobs to get by, working people that wanted needed something different that what they had gotten in the last 8 years, while Wall Street prospered.
Hmmm...Wisconsin had a voter suppression of 200,000 and how many votes did she lose it by? What about Pennsylvania and Michigan? It has long been known that the country regularly votes more for the Democrat than the Republian...and yet somehow the Republicans are in charge of the country. There are system problems among the leadership of the Democrats, yes, but let's not pretend that there aren't other forces at play. After all, these problems have long preceded 2016.
System problems in the DNC, in the primary setup with superdelegates, in the gerrymandering of states, in voter suppression, and in the electoral college. She more than the other candidates knew this and still failed to earn the votes in the critical areas.
And yet, in a contest of Democrats, Clinton beat him by a million more votes than she beat Trump...whom she beat, as you seem to have forgotten.
See above. You're repeating yourself. The race was close enough that the superdelegates controlled who won and could have picked either candidate for the president ticket.
Nope. He lost the closed primaries because the voters preferred Clinton. That's why she beat him by more votes than she beat Trump.
Because independent voters were blocked and because of the timing of the primaries. And superdelegates.
Clinton won both liberals (84-10) and moderates (52-41). She didn't win those who identify as "independent," but the label "independent" doesn't mean they actually consider voting for either candidate. In fact, independents regularly vote for their candidate. I, for example, am not a Democrat but an Independent...but I have never voted for a Republican.
Good for you. Now break it down by economic class.
If the whole state of California had voted for Hillary 100% she would still have the same number of electoral college votes.
... She didn't win those who identify as "independent," ...
Yep, she didn't earn those votes, and that is why she lost the race. That's what the math says. Blaming anyone other than Hillary and the DNC is just poor loser childish bickering.
Blaming Jill Stein and Bernie and misogyny etc etc etc and not Hillary and the DNC is being foolish -- you can't solve a problem until you define the problem properly.
It won't help them win any seats in 2018. Issues like $15/hr minimum wage, medicare for all, family leave, and others that benefit working people will.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2017 3:38 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2017 12:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 113 (821429)
10-07-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
10-07-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Voting for republicans
Some places are just out of reach of the Democratic party as it is currently configured. Some strategy is needed to reach them, but if the strategy is to become more like the currently configured Republicans, for me that is totally unacceptable.
Agreed, and that is why we need to encourage more variety within the GOP primaries to get alternative ideas into the mix. Maybe not in Texas but certainly in swing states and marginal states.
I too am a DSA member and Working Families Party, and also part of the town democrat committee and am up for membership to the state democrat committee, to try bringing FDR social democracy back to the platforms. That works fine here in RI with a heavily democrat population, but not so well for any democrats working against heavily gerrymandered districts in other states.
So radical idea: instead of beating a dead horse at the general election, take the actual election to the people by entering the republican primaries and getting everyone in the district to vote in it.
The way gerrymandering works is by stuffing as many opposition voters all into as few districts as possible and partition other districts to have a slim majority of faithful voters.
This means a small shift in the majority voters, together with the minority opposition voters also voting, could feasibly elect more progressive independent or "New Republican" candidates in the primary when they don't stand a chance in the general election.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2017 9:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2017 9:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 113 (821698)
10-11-2017 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
10-10-2017 9:58 PM


Re: Voting for republicans options in the primaries
RAZD replies:
"Agreed, and that is why we need to encourage more variety within the GOP primaries to get alternative ideas into the mix. Maybe not in Texas but certainly in swing states and marginal states."
In principle, we agree. In practice, you have already indicated that you would tolerate things from a faux Republican that I personally consider to be deal breakers.
Curiously, I lived in Mississippi for a while, and the democrat party there was like the Massachusetts republicans, imho, so they have already moved in that direction to get elected.
In a curious twist, the news reported that Bannon is planning to have primary challenges for several republicans ... that means that my plan to put a progressive candidate in the republican party and have everyone in the district register as republican to vote in the primary could simply elect the progressive with the liberal voters while the republicans split their votes on two (or more) other candidates.
Again, the premise is that the national elections are effectively run in the primaries when the districts are heavily gerrymandered; that the "republican" districts have a slim majority of republican voters, while "democrat" districts are as full as possible of democrat voters. This means that democrats in a "republican" district could all register as republicans for the primary, and vote for a progressive (democrat in wolf clothing) candidate. With republican votes split between two or more republican candidates the progress could win by getting all the republican registered democrat/liberal/independent voters.
It seems you keep thinking this progressive candidate would be an actual republican instead of an imposter republican for the primary election.
The idea is to break the gerrymandering by using it against them.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2017 9:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2017 2:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 113 (821714)
10-11-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by DC85
10-11-2017 10:49 AM


Re: Is "too liberal" even a thing in the US?
I was reading Politico (I know bad habit We're sorry, but that page cannot be found- POLITICO) and they attempted to make what I see as blatantly absurd arguments comparing modern Democratic politics concerning Sanders politics to George McGovern's failed campaign 1972. This is a common fear in the party and it appears to be irrational.
Indeed. But the problem for this thread is dealing with gerrymandered districts
quote:
Gerrymandering
In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander ... however, that word can also refer to the process. The term gerrymandering has negative connotations. Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).[1]
In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents.
This effectively moves the general election to the primaries for the 'yellow' party.
My argument is that we need to put progressive candidate into those primaries and have all the residents of the district register for the 'yellow' party for the primaries to vote for this candidate. If the 'yellows' have two candidates in the primary and the 'greens' only have one it is possible to elect the 'green' candidate in the primary.
This can also work in districts where the margin between the two parties is thin (5%?) if they can draw some people away from the 'yellow' candidate by having a better platform for the people. A lot of democrat candidates in those districts already try to go right to attract voters, and they could do better in the primary than in the general election.
Personally I think a platform around universal healthcare, living minimum wage and paid family leave have strong cross-party support and could provide an alternate candidate with a viable platform to campaign on. They could also portray themselves as independent thinking "new" republicans that are tired of the same old same old congress and lack of results from the incumbents.
Bannon is planning on running alt-right candidates against republicans who go against Trump, and this would be an opportunity to steal the election if the republican vote is split.
What do you think?
Enjoy
ps -- note that fair districting would result in two yellow and three green districts to reflect the whole populations diversity.
Edited by RAZD, : ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DC85, posted 10-11-2017 10:49 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DC85, posted 10-11-2017 1:35 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 66 by anglagard, posted 10-13-2017 2:46 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 113 (821723)
10-11-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DC85
10-11-2017 1:35 PM


Re: Is "too liberal" even a thing in the US?
Are you arguing that say a progressive should run as a Republican? I have been saying this for some time, in fact it is easier to run as a Republican in some states than it is a Democrat.
Exactly, just as it is easier to run as a democrat than a republican in RI and MA, and so we have a lot of DINOs in the state legislature.
They do, and poll 50% or above on all , putting them in the actual political center. (as opposed to the "Center" that is told about in The Beltway)
Something the DNC seems to be blind about, failing to run on these issues in the off-election in 2014 for instance (thanks Debbie WS) or have strong platforms around them in state and national committees (they do seem to be changing as more progressives are getting involved -- thanks to Bernie).
Also running without corporate funding and being an outsider against insider DC politics to represent people not corporations. That was one of the purported things in Trumps campaign.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DC85, posted 10-11-2017 1:35 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by DC85, posted 10-11-2017 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024