2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJust saw Chuck's interview with Candidate Orman ...
I'll take him over the republican; but I give him little change of anything other than an insufferable prick.
That is all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
vi5
(13,305 posts)Why exactly are we rooting for an "independent" and not fielding a Dem candidate?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)he (and national/state-wide Democratic Party Officials) agreed that Orman had the better chance of winning in Kansas than risking a 3 way race where Orman was pulling far more from the Democratic side than the republicans.
That plus, he was a Democrat before he switched to independent.
vi5
(13,305 posts)But that just sums up so much of what pisses me off about our party. Yes, I get that Kansas is a very conservative state. But still the idea that we should just give up and put our hopes in the good will of an "independent" who previously had left the party (presumably looking out for his own best interests) is just pathetic to me. Same way we "gave up" in Florida and pinned all our hopes on Charlie Christ.
I'm sure the very serious, very pragmatic people will tell me I'm just naive or whatever, and maybe I am. But the idea of giving up without a fight and begging for the good will of people who are acting in their own best interests......I'll never be ablet o get behind that as a strategy.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But you, also, want to risk a republican win? That seems pretty myopic.
But that said, a Orman victory could produce a very good thing for the people of Kansas ... If he is true to his campaign statements, his policy stances COULD/SHOULD be completely poll driven, i.e., "X"% (majority) of Kansans support Universal Gun Checks, so he supports gun checks, or "Y"% (majority) oppose Fracking, so he opposes fracking.
But it COULD, also, produce the opposition result, with him substituting his "legislative wisdom" for the will of the people.
The cynic in me, has me thinking we will see the latter.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I don't understand why that's hard? If those positions are popular enough for him to win, then why can't we find a Dem who will go out there and sell the hell out of them. Especially since you say yourself you are doubtful the "independent" Orman will actually live up to that.
So if the Republican wins, not only are we in the same position we would have been in anyway, but we look like a bunch of craven cowards.
Sometimes you need to fight and lose in order to build up good will and show that you are willing to fight for what you believe it. I'm just tired of this focus on "keeping our powder dry" which the D's have been doing for the better part of a decade now and which sees us losing ground left and right and only furthering the perception that we don't stand for anything as a party.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it is conservative Kansas! Orman pulls both the Democratic and republican support.
His candidacy isn't about his positions; but more, his refusal to (announce a) caucus ... that is a very popular message in Kansas.
With all due respect ... we, Democrats and Democratic supporters, need to stow the ego-driven, "but we look like a bunch of craven cowards" stuff, it makes for bad politics and worse policies/governance. That's what got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, would have had us bombing a gas-filled Syria, and would have had us in a shooting war with Putin over the Ukriane ... IOWs, that's what drives republicans!
Only in prison, and the school yard, does a "bad stand" gain you anything ... everywhere else in life, especially the workplace (the closest most of us will ever come to governance ... and that's only if one works in management, or a highly participative company), the smart fight win the day.
vi5
(13,305 posts)About to potentially lose another branch of government to a bunch of ignorant lunatics.
The fact is that whatever we've been doing hasn't been working if we can continually lose ground.
So all of our noble and mature stances and supposedly serious and wise approaches haven't really gotten us anything.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You mean, the media-enabled narrative that "there is no difference between the parties" ... where the republicans are allowed (by the media) to deny Democratic policy success and the internet gives an amplified voice that denigrates all Democratic policy successes? This is why we are where we are.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I mean trying to be "bipartisan".
I mean "reaching across the aisle".
I mean starting negotiations from the center and then ending up somewhere to the right of center.
We were told by the very serious people who apparently know better than all of us that this is what people wanted. That they would be happy to finally have the adults in charge. That it would expose the Republicans for the petulant spoiled children that they were and people would drive them out of office in droves and reward Democrats for playing nice and behaving like adults.
But the unserious children among us who said that wouldn't happen precisely BECAUSE The media enabled narratives would never let it happen, were told to keep quiet. We were the ones who said we'll be damned by the media and republicans if we play rough, and we'll be damned by the media and republicans if we play nice. We chose to play nice and now we're losing.
That's the opposite approach we took and now it's paying dividends for the Republicans. So.....good for us, I guess.
And let me guess what message the leaders of our party are going to take away from any losses we have to deal with in a few weeks......We need to be more conservative? We need to reach across the aisle more? We need to be more bipartisan?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Like those who have asked the president not to come and campaign for them or those who refuse to say they voted for him.
Democrats like that, we don't need. If they weren't running against such god awful opponents, I'd be praying for their defeat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We need every single Democrat that can be elected (yes, even the reddest of blue-dogs) and any independent willing to NOT caucus with the republicans.
brooklynite
(94,503 posts)...I've met him and he's worth supporting.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)about Schumer and him.
As a strategist, I see his campaign stance as wise and discerning; but, I can see why he's frustrating Kansas Democrats.
brooklynite
(94,503 posts)I can see why he might frustrate some people -here-.....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)It's Kansas they aren't going to elect a progressive.
Orman is good on many issues.
On choice: "We’ve spent a lot of time over the last two decades debating whether or not women should have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health. As a man, I’ll never have to face some of the decisions that women have to make. I know the women of Kansas are smart, and I trust them to make their own decisions about their reproductive health."
SUPREME COURT
Hobby Lobby
Religious freedom is a sacred Constitutional right given to every American, but corporations are not people. The Supreme Court is simply wrong to treat corporations like they are. In the Citizens United case this view resulted in a dramatic increase in outside, untraceable money flowing into politics. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court ruled that certain types of corporations can have religious values and as a result of that be able to deny types of healthcare to their employees because of the corporation’s views. This is a dangerous precedent to set and opens the door to many more court challenges from private employers.
Citizens United
I believe the Supreme Court made a mistake in giving corporations the same rights as people. Citizens United ultimately increased the influence of special interests on our political process and put a “for sale” sign on Congress.
While labor unions and Political Action Committees (PACs) were already putting too much money into our political system, Citizens United made this far worse. The ruling basically allows any corporation, labor union, or individual to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, even if a corporation is established for the sole purpose of raising and spending money on elections. The decision also enables organizations called 501(c)4s to spend unlimited amounts of money in politics without reporting who is funding them. This excessive spending and lack of transparency isn’t good for the American political process.
Even more alarming is that the decision opens up the door for significant foreign influence in US elections. Because donations can be made through any US corporation, even one with significant foreign ownership, foreign countries could exert significant influence in US elections.
http://www.ormanforsenate.com/issues
Finding someone in Kansas who holds these views is a good thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)programmed denigration from outside ... outside of Kansas and, likely, outside of the Democratic Party.
