Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That sure looks like a whole room full of progressives to me...I think i found the shirt for "progressives"....
Netroots Nation: The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party
- Thread starter vostok
- Start date
doublejj
Well-Known Member
well they ain't democrats.....That sure looks like a whole room full of progressives to me...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
They're right wing, TEA party Republicans is what I would guess. In other words, extremists
Democratic moderates are by definition farther to the center than progressives..
So why would you compare progressives to Republicans? Wouldn't a more apt comparison be Democratic moderates to Republicans since they support more of the same things?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Who specifically are you talking about that are Progressives(TM) to your liking? How many are there?I don't think the argument is whether or not Democrats/progressives should unify to defeat Trump and the Republicans, it's which strategy actually produces results that will lead to that end? The moderates had 8 years to convince everyone their strategy was better and it resulted in the Democratic party losing control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and stacking the court with likely two more conservative judges with Kavanaugh in the the batters box waiting for 3rd base coach Manchin to wave him home
From this, holding 257 seats in 2008 when Obama was elected:
To this, losing 63 seats after two years of Obama being president, to 193, and Democrats controlling both houses of Congress for 7 months, from Jan 20, 2009, to Ted Kennedy's death on Aug 25, 2009:
Those are the results you get when you utilize a moderate Democratic strategy over the course of your Democratic administration. The Entire South was decimated, the Rust Belt in shambles, the South West, gone. Even Colorado swung right.
Meanwhile, actual progressive candidates who support working class issues, who visit red districts and actually speak with the voters there and talk to their concerns about their access to healthcare, their stagnant wages and rising prices, their cost of rent and higher education for their kids are getting voted into office all across the country, even in traditionally deep red districts because these issues transcend party lines and voters pick up on whether or not a candidate is telling them what they think they want to hear or whether or not they actually believe what they're saying. Candidates like Lee Carter in Virginia's 50th, James Thompson, who is currently polling 7% ahead of Republican incumbent Ron Estes in Kansas' 4th, Ben Jealous in Maryland facing popular Republican Governor, Larry Hogan, Nixon in NY going against Cuomo, and of course Ocasio-Cortez defeating Joe Crowley in NY's 14th.
Oddly, the Democratic Establishment, the DCCC has refused to endorse any of these candidates, even the ones who've already won their primaries who face Republicans in November, and they've never endorsed a progressive over an Establishment/corporate Democratic candidate, ever. So when they call for "unity" to defeat Republicans, it's all lip service. Establishment Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. This is evident by Steny Hoyer's attempt at muscling out Levi Tillemann's bid in Colorado's 6th, by the DCCC breaking spending records supporting Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th, releasing opposition research about Laura Moser in Texas' 7th. etc.
So it begs the question, why should we, as a party, continue to support moderate Democrats when the results show they can't win elections in red districts/states against Republicans? Moderates and even many Republicans support the policy positions espoused by progressives. The results speak for themselves.
I've poked around and tried to find out where your angst is coming from. When I last checked the Our Revolution website, only 12 people they endorsed are seeking office in Congress this year. 6 of them won primaries. I get that you have huge ambitoins but realisticaly, 6 congressmen are just a drop in the bucket. It takes 218 congressmen to make a majority in the house.
I don't understand your complaint. Not enough of your kind of Progressive(TM) entered races to make the kind of difference you want. Why are you blaming me or Pelosi for that matter? "Did Not Enter" is the category Progressives(TM) ran in practically all voting districts. You know, as they say about the Clearinghouse sweepstakes, you must enter to even have the chance of winning and influencing legislation.
.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
No. Not even close in terms or progressive voting records.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Because progressives would rather we have a Russian/Republican president than a democrat....so the t-shirt fits
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
FIFY
Based on their voting record, about 2/3 of Democratic Congressmen are good progressives. They don't tow Bernie's line 100% of the time but most of the time, Bernie votes with them. Bernie's cause would be lost without them. Bernie knows that. Pad doesn't but Bernie does.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Buckwit is fine with that kind of 'pragmatism'.
He should register as a republican.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The principles we are fighting for are supported by a majority of all Americans, yet the Democratic Party thinks it can't win on them... at least, not with their major donors.
They need to decide if they're going to do as the majority of their campaign contributions would dictate or if they'll do what the majority of all Americans need.
The Progressive Movement isn't waiting.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Not once have you ever justified why Progressives should vote for a party that actively works against our interests.I think i found the shirt for "progressives"....
Your big on vague smears but short on letting people vote for candidates who actually represent.
Soooooo tell us again how that makes you anything but an apologist for Oligarchs?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Exactly.I don't think the argument is whether or not Democrats/progressives should unify to defeat Trump and the Republicans, it's which strategy actually produces results that will lead to that end? The moderates had 8 years to convince everyone their strategy was better and it resulted in the Democratic party losing control of the House, Senate, Presidency, and stacking the court with likely two more conservative judges with Kavanaugh in the the batters box waiting for 3rd base coach Manchin to wave him home
From this, holding 257 seats in 2008 when Obama was elected:
To this, losing 63 seats after two years of Obama being president, to 193, and Democrats controlling both houses of Congress for 7 months, from Jan 20, 2009, to Ted Kennedy's death on Aug 25, 2009:
Those are the results you get when you utilize a moderate Democratic strategy over the course of your Democratic administration. The Entire South was decimated, the Rust Belt in shambles, the South West, gone. Even Colorado swung right.
Meanwhile, actual progressive candidates who support working class issues, who visit red districts and actually speak with the voters there and talk to their concerns about their access to healthcare, their stagnant wages and rising prices, their cost of rent and higher education for their kids are getting voted into office all across the country, even in traditionally deep red districts because these issues transcend party lines and voters pick up on whether or not a candidate is telling them what they think they want to hear or whether or not they actually believe what they're saying. Candidates like Lee Carter in Virginia's 50th, James Thompson, who is currently polling 7% ahead of Republican incumbent Ron Estes in Kansas' 4th, Ben Jealous in Maryland facing popular Republican Governor, Larry Hogan, Nixon in NY going against Cuomo, and of course Ocasio-Cortez defeating Joe Crowley in NY's 14th.
Oddly, the Democratic Establishment, the DCCC has refused to endorse any of these candidates, even the ones who've already won their primaries who face Republicans in November, and they've never endorsed a progressive over an Establishment/corporate Democratic candidate, ever. So when they call for "unity" to defeat Republicans, it's all lip service. Establishment Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. This is evident by Steny Hoyer's attempt at muscling out Levi Tillemann's bid in Colorado's 6th, by the DCCC breaking spending records supporting Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th, releasing opposition research about Laura Moser in Texas' 7th. etc.
So it begs the question, why should we, as a party, continue to support moderate Democrats when the results show they can't win elections in red districts/states against Republicans? Moderates and even many Republicans support the policy positions espoused by progressives. The results speak for themselves.
Since those 'moderate Democrats' refuse to represent my interests, I refuse to continue supporting them.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
doublejj
Well-Known Member
decisions have consequences....
Huckster79
Well-Known Member
I vote for the most progressive candidate that seems genuine and at least has some chance of winning... especially in a general that may very well be a moderate dem...
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This is batshit crazy.
Progressives don't owe the Democratic Party anything at all, and it's exactly this self serving attitude that will keep costing them seats until they learn who they actually work for.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Indeed they do.
'Moderate' Democrats have been suffering the consequences of their poor decisions since 2010.
You can't blame the loss of over 1100 Democratic seats on Progressives. Gonna have to have a good hard look in the mirror for the answer to that.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Democratic party should forget about the progressives and concentrate on the trump/swing voters. The ones that went for trump last time. They are the key to winning things back.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That's the problem with a two party system; voting for who you think will win is not getting you the representation you need.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
doublejj
Well-Known Member
More moderate policies