DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What you say is the "misrepresentation" of my viewpoint is because I mock liberals for their constant harangues against Trump no matter what he does.

The multiple impeachment threads - almost weekly - were a joke but you as the administrator did nothing about it. It just fed the mindless hysteria about Trump and getting rid of him. So, yes, I mock them for their predictions that Trump would be out of office in spring of last year and then summer, fall and the end of the year.

Re Gary Johnson vs Sanders - I knew in either event it was a protest vote - and Johnson was fricking nuts. I'd have voted for Weld if his name headed the ticket.

Cortez won because of where she ran. You correctly pointed out that her message would not sell in other parts of the country - or did you forget you made that point? Tammy Baldwin made the same point. Perez representing her as being the future of the Democratic party was utterly idiotic. She is not. Forget about ideological purity - understand why those states and counties that we lost in 2016 turned against us - I don't care whether it was by 70,000 votes or 1,000 votes.

Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

DP. You make a lot of sense. As a moderate Republican, I would vote for a Bill Clinton type (2nd term, when he pivoted to the center) - and most definitely it it were against Trump. But no way would I vote for a Cortez type, and if the Democrats insist on moving hard-left, they will lose all moderates. The problem from where I sit is that the extreme progressive types (like Perez and Ellison) are so convinced of their own moral superiority that they are tone-deaf to the fact that most people are moderates and reject their positions.

I would include our esteemed moderator, Jeff Steele, as one of those "morally superior" individuals. He proudly says that he never voted for a Clinton in his life. Flawed as I am, I voted for BC both times and have never regretted it. He was one of the better presidents we have had in the last 50 years.

Yes, I agree with you on all points - including our moderator's claim that he detests "compromise," as exhibited by Bill Clinton, 2nd term. The ability to compromise is one of the best traits in a president (or a husband!), and that is why I go along with your statement that Clinton was one of our best presidents of my lifetime (his horrible personal failings aside).

The non-compromising position of hard-left liberals might make them feel proud for sticking with their "moral superiority" - but they're wrong. If they insist that their socialist-like positions are the only correct ones, and nominate someone who reflects that. they will lose again.

I love how all the Republicans here are so full of advice for the Democratic Party. One would think that you folks have plenty of work to do in your own party. I understand that you are looking for a refuge from your party, and Democrats certainly welcome refugees, but maybe wait a day or two before you start telling us what to do. The Democrats have waged campaign after campaign based on the premise that if they would just move a little more to the right, moderate Republicans would finally support them. Sadly for all of us, those Democrats don't have a lot to show for their efforts. There is absolutely no reason that a deep blue district like the Bronx should have a moderate representing it. That is the perfect place for AOC.

And there you go with your sanctimony - criticizing Republicans, who have in the past voted for Democrats, who have the GALL to explain under what circumstances they would vote for a Democrat in the next election. Your disdain is so apparent: "don't tell us what to do." Don't you WANT moderates to vote D? Instead, because you have set up in your own mind that we are the "other," you don't even want to hear from us.

And I didn't say I was looking for a refuge from my own party. (Everything is a snide slap at the GOP with you.) I was a registered Democrat well before I began to lean Republican, and I am - horrors! - the type of person who "crosses over" when I feel the better candidate is on the other side. That's an admirable trait, in my mind, rather than someone who has such animus for the opposite party that he would never, under any circumstances, even under threat of death, vote for a Republican.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Yep, unlike you, I'd have compromised my principles to save us from Trump. I couldn't look in the mirror knowing that I was responsible for this catastrophe in the White House. I don't know how you do it.

But, but ....... your boast about never having voted for a Clinton was just another hollow brag.

Ever heard of "De Profundis"? There is a statement that Oscar Wilde made in that long letter he wrote from Reading jail which fits your "principled" stand perfectly.

On the one hand you are attacking me for refusing to compromise. On the other, you are attacking me for being willing to compromise when necessary. That is pretty much the perfect illustration of your behavior in this forum. You are entirely devoted to criticizing Democrats. It is hilarious that Trump represents none of your alleged values or principles, yet you do nothing but defend him.

Given your rich liberal heritage that goes back to before I was born, how do you feel about Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court? Can you honestly say that Hillary Clinton's would have been worse? I'm just an uncompromising socialist or whatever, but I would think someone like you might spend a bit more time complaining about Trump's many horrendous policies and less time attacking other liberals.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And there you go with your sanctimony - criticizing Republicans, who have in the past voted for Democrats, who have the GALL to explain under what circumstances they would vote for a Democrat in the next election. Your disdain is so apparent: "don't tell us what to do." Don't you WANT moderates to vote D? Instead, because you have set up in your own mind that we are the "other," you don't even want to hear from us.

And I didn't say I was looking for a refuge from my own party. (Everything is a snide slap at the GOP with you.) I was a registered Democrat well before I began to lean Republican, and I am - horrors! - the type of person who "crosses over" when I feel the better candidate is on the other side. That's an admirable trait, in my mind, rather than someone who has such animus for the opposite party that he would never, under any circumstances, even under threat of death, vote for a Republican.

You described yourself as a "moderate Republican". It's right there in your previous post. There is nothing admirable about being a member of a party led by Trump. But, if it works for you, go for it. I'm just confused why you are interested in telling Democrats what to do.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Yep, unlike you, I'd have compromised my principles to save us from Trump. I couldn't look in the mirror knowing that I was responsible for this catastrophe in the White House. I don't know how you do it.

But, but ....... your boast about never having voted for a Clinton was just another hollow brag.

Ever heard of "De Profundis"? There is a statement that Oscar Wilde made in that long letter he wrote from Reading jail which fits your "principled" stand perfectly.

On the one hand you are attacking me for refusing to compromise. On the other, you are attacking me for being willing to compromise when necessary. That is pretty much the perfect illustration of your behavior in this forum. You are entirely devoted to criticizing Democrats. It is hilarious that Trump represents none of your alleged values or principles, yet you do nothing but defend him.

Given your rich liberal heritage that goes back to before I was born, how do you feel about Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court? Can you honestly say that Hillary Clinton's would have been worse? I'm just an uncompromising socialist or whatever, but I would think someone like you might spend a bit more time complaining about Trump's many horrendous policies and less time attacking other liberals.

Two points: you were the one who self righteously proclaimed that you have never ever voted for a Clinton - and this was in response to my comment about Bill Clinton.

As far as Trump's nominees, they would not be my choice but as I have said on this forum repeatedly (quoting Obama): "Elections have consequences". Trump has the right to appoint anyone he chooses subject to Senate approval.

But more to the point, will some of the uncompromising positions you and other liberals advocate improve our chances of winning the House and Senate? Now that is the crux of the matter.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Yep, unlike you, I'd have compromised my principles to save us from Trump. I couldn't look in the mirror knowing that I was responsible for this catastrophe in the White House. I don't know how you do it.

But, but ....... your boast about never having voted for a Clinton was just another hollow brag.

Ever heard of "De Profundis"? There is a statement that Oscar Wilde made in that long letter he wrote from Reading jail which fits your "principled" stand perfectly.

On the one hand you are attacking me for refusing to compromise. On the other, you are attacking me for being willing to compromise when necessary. That is pretty much the perfect illustration of your behavior in this forum. You are entirely devoted to criticizing Democrats. It is hilarious that Trump represents none of your alleged values or principles, yet you do nothing but defend him.

Given your rich liberal heritage that goes back to before I was born, how do you feel about Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court? Can you honestly say that Hillary Clinton's would have been worse? I'm just an uncompromising socialist or whatever, but I would think someone like you might spend a bit more time complaining about Trump's many horrendous policies and less time attacking other liberals.

I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:But more to the point, will some of the uncompromising positions you and other liberals advocate improve our chances of winning the House and Senate? Now that is the crux of the matter.

You need to decide whether you support compromise or oppose it since you have attacked me for both. I believe in compromising when it is necessary to achieve an objective that you wouldn't achieve otherwise. You don't compromise just for the sake of compromise. In particular, you don't compromise when you can achieve your goals without it. The entire history of the ACA illustrates the failures of compromise. Obama thought that if he would just compromise with the Republicans, they would happily go along with him. We see where that got him.

I think candidates who support programs that will help people, will see support from voters. Those Democrats whose platform is "I support almost the same things as my Republican opponent" will probably not inspire a lot of excitement. I don't know if Bernie could have beaten Trump, but it was certainly worth the shot. I would have much rather have lost because we were "uncompromising socialists" than lost the way that we did. Even you voted for the uncompromising socialist over Trump. Just think how many others would have?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there you go with your sanctimony - criticizing Republicans, who have in the past voted for Democrats, who have the GALL to explain under what circumstances they would vote for a Democrat in the next election. Your disdain is so apparent: "don't tell us what to do." Don't you WANT moderates to vote D? Instead, because you have set up in your own mind that we are the "other," you don't even want to hear from us.

And I didn't say I was looking for a refuge from my own party. (Everything is a snide slap at the GOP with you.) I was a registered Democrat well before I began to lean Republican, and I am - horrors! - the type of person who "crosses over" when I feel the better candidate is on the other side. That's an admirable trait, in my mind, rather than someone who has such animus for the opposite party that he would never, under any circumstances, even under threat of death, vote for a Republican.

You described yourself as a "moderate Republican". It's right there in your previous post. There is nothing admirable about being a member of a party led by Trump. But, if it works for you, go for it. I'm just confused why you are interested in telling Democrats what to do.

And there it is again....you are so hostile to anyone who describes herself as a Republican, even a moderate one, that you put up a wall when faced with one who tells you they have, and would again, would vote for a D if the circumstances were right. You are so full of moral superiority that you cannot fathom listening - and taking in - anything a Republican would say. All you know (or think you know) is that I voted for Trump (maybe I did and maybe I didn't) and therefore I am the enemy.

But go ahead. Put up a Perez type, or an Ellison type, or a Cortez type - and spend from 2020 to 2024 continuing to curse President Trump.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do we want to win elections without compromising our core values? What is wrong with being a Bill Clinton type of Democrat? Was Clinton not enough of a liberal for you?

Bill Clinton was exactly the compromise of our core values that I detest. I proudly have never voted for any Clinton.

You clearly share Republican values and spend your time attacking Democrats. It is okay to admit your true allegiance. There are plenty of Republicans here.

Are you a democratic socialist

I am not a member of the DSA if that is what you mean. I support many policies that are common in social democracies such as universal healthcare and affordable higher education. FDR was generally called a socialist and many of his programs were socialist in nature. So, I don't really see anything wrong with democratic socialism.

Except that eventually you run out of other people's money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Yep, unlike you, I'd have compromised my principles to save us from Trump. I couldn't look in the mirror knowing that I was responsible for this catastrophe in the White House. I don't know how you do it.

But, but ....... your boast about never having voted for a Clinton was just another hollow brag.

Ever heard of "De Profundis"? There is a statement that Oscar Wilde made in that long letter he wrote from Reading jail which fits your "principled" stand perfectly.

On the one hand you are attacking me for refusing to compromise. On the other, you are attacking me for being willing to compromise when necessary. That is pretty much the perfect illustration of your behavior in this forum. You are entirely devoted to criticizing Democrats. It is hilarious that Trump represents none of your alleged values or principles, yet you do nothing but defend him.

Given your rich liberal heritage that goes back to before I was born, how do you feel about Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court? Can you honestly say that Hillary Clinton's would have been worse? I'm just an uncompromising socialist or whatever, but I would think someone like you might spend a bit more time complaining about Trump's many horrendous policies and less time attacking other liberals.

I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

You're the smartest Democrat on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, kudos to you about one thing: someone who knows me and has been following these exchanges kept telling me that I was asking to be banned or suspended. You have not done that despite my less than diplomatic comments about you and your foibles.

Toodle-oo

Signed

The Closet Republican/Trumpster

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

I never see you attacking Trump or his minions. To the contrary, you are constantly defending them. During the time period you mention, can you really name far left Democratic candidates who lost general elections? Most of those defeated were exactly the type of moderate Democrats you think will save the party. Democrats constantly campaigned as Republicans-lite. They focused their campaigns so much on moderate Republicans, that much of the Democratic base didn't bother to vote. I just saw an analysis of the age breakdown of those who voted for AOC and she had nearly as many young voters as old. That's almost unheard of because young voters are not supposed to come out and vote in primaries and mid-term elections. But, guess what? If your platform includes things that young voters support, they will come out and vote.

The mythical moderate Republicans are like the poster who has been responding in this thread. Her party is led by Trump but she is still a happy Republican. Do you seriously think it is worth the compromise it would take to attract her to the Democratic Party? Instead of wasting time on her, it is far better to appeal to the natural Democratic base.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

I never see you attacking Trump or his minions. To the contrary, you are constantly defending them. During the time period you mention, can you really name far left Democratic candidates who lost general elections? Most of those defeated were exactly the type of moderate Democrats you think will save the party. Democrats constantly campaigned as Republicans-lite. They focused their campaigns so much on moderate Republicans, that much of the Democratic base didn't bother to vote. I just saw an analysis of the age breakdown of those who voted for AOC and she had nearly as many young voters as old. That's almost unheard of because young voters are not supposed to come out and vote in primaries and mid-term elections. But, guess what? If your platform includes things that young voters support, they will come out and vote.

The mythical moderate Republicans are like the poster who has been responding in this thread. Her party is led by Trump but she is still a happy Republican. Do you seriously think it is worth the compromise it would take to attract her to the Democratic Party? Instead of wasting time on her, it is far better to appeal to the natural Democratic base.

BAM! I'm the "mythical moderate Republican" who has voted D in the past, and would again in the future.....and this sanctimonious moderator thinks it would be a waste of time trying to capture me, and the millions like me, in the next election?? Just listen to his disdain: "would you want to make the type of compromise to attract her to the Democratic Party"? All he knows is that I voted for Trump (he thinks) and therefore I am not worth a bucket of warm spit, even if I am willing to vote D. Basically, he's saying, "we don't want the likes of you."

I sure don't want to join the Democrats if they think I'm so inferior as to be a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fault mindless attacks by liberals on anything and everything that Trump and his minions do. I do so because it is idiotic to take positions that will not get us to electoral success at all levels. I have said repeatedly we need to take a hard look at why since 2008 we have lost an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the House, the presidency, something like 14 governorships and over 1000 seats in the state legislatures. And the standard answer by liberals is gerrymandering ....... not a peep about having lost touch with much of the country.

But ....... we won the popular vote in 2016 as some keep pointing out ad nauseum.

I never see you attacking Trump or his minions. To the contrary, you are constantly defending them. During the time period you mention, can you really name far left Democratic candidates who lost general elections? Most of those defeated were exactly the type of moderate Democrats you think will save the party. Democrats constantly campaigned as Republicans-lite. They focused their campaigns so much on moderate Republicans, that much of the Democratic base didn't bother to vote. I just saw an analysis of the age breakdown of those who voted for AOC and she had nearly as many young voters as old. That's almost unheard of because young voters are not supposed to come out and vote in primaries and mid-term elections. But, guess what? If your platform includes things that young voters support, they will come out and vote.

The mythical moderate Republicans are like the poster who has been responding in this thread. Her party is led by Trump but she is still a happy Republican. Do you seriously think it is worth the compromise it would take to attract her to the Democratic Party? Instead of wasting time on her, it is far better to appeal to the natural Democratic base.

I was going to get off the forum but I will respond to the above with one question:

How did Obama win so decisively in 2008? Yes, the black vote was a factor for sure. But take a look at the states he won: what happened that caused us to lose that large swath of the country? Voters knew they were voting for a black guy or did they suddenly experience a Paul on the road to Damascus moment and it hit them that the guy was black?

Hint: racism has nothing to do with it although liberals use that as the excuse repeatedly.