Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Aug 28, 2013, 11:14 PM
Number of posts: 281
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Aug 28, 2013, 11:14 PM
Number of posts: 281
I\'m a Democrat.
Look at the gaps between registered voters and likely voters in these polls: http://pollingreport.com/2014.htm
After we cut through all the noise about voter suppression, voters thinking Democrats are too soft, and everything else that already tilts the game against us, when it comes down to it the registered voters of America still lean towards Democratic candidates. But as it stands right now, we're going to lose ground in the House and lose the Senate, and we can pin most of the blame on one thing:
Our voters aren't planning to show up. They didn't in 2010 either, and look what happened.
So let's do something different this time. We've got 7 weeks until Election Day, and despite all our internal differences, the primaries are pretty much all over and we have our nominees for the House and Senate. Let's get behind them and work our asses off to see them elected. Yeah I know your Senate nominee has some positions you disagree with, and your Congressman voted for something you didn't like, but this is a two party system by design and 99% of the time you get two choices. We all know that the Democrats are FAR BETTER than the Republicans, and there shouldn't be a person on this board who wants the Republicans to win and take this country down their path to destruction.
They don't count "I stayed home from voting because nobody who agreed with me 100% of the time was running" on Election night. "I stayed home from volunteering because nobody agreed with me 100% of the time was running" does not get voters registered, does not get information about our candidates to undecided voters, does not help our GOTV operation, and does nothing to keep Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from supervising 4 years of shutdowns, impeachment trials, and whatever else his Koch masters tell him to do.
So let's all go vote on Election Day, tell everybody we know why they should be voting for Democrats, and getting Democrats to actually go do it. I know it's hard, but let's get out and make phone calls, knock doors, and do whatever else we can to turnout our voters. When we show up we WIN, just like we did in 2006, 2008, and 2012. Let's make 2014 the year where we told the Republicans that we weren't going to sit on our hands and let them do whatever they want.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Tue Sep 16, 2014, 01:38 PM (4 replies)
President Obama can't just sit by and let the cops run rampant in the streets of Ferguson. It's too late to bring back Mike Brown, but there's no telling how many lives he can save or prevent from being ruined by simply taking action.
If we have to send in the National Guard to quell the police violence, then so be it. We don't have to send them to Iraq, Syria, or anywhere else. It's time for the President to take action at home.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Wed Aug 13, 2014, 11:48 PM (24 replies)
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has edged ahead of Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes for the first time in a Bluegrass Poll, though the race remains a toss up.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Mon Jul 28, 2014, 07:04 PM (14 replies)
I've noticed we've had a spot of feathers-ruffling in the past few days over whether or not Bill Clinton or Barack Obama was the least liberal President. I understand why we'd want to fight these wars over and over, but I think it's worth noting that the vast majority of Obama's positions are currently held by the Clintons as well. That is because, for the most part, they both adhere to party orthodoxy. Let's think about the ramifications of this.
Social issues and foreign policy issues are interesting, but I would suggest that those aren't exactly attuned to any noticeable scale in American politics; as much as the Libertarian Party would like to frame it as a debate between fascists and themselves, we live in a two-party system by design (look up Duverger's Law and why it applies to single member district plurality elections) and the two functional parties have a random assortment of positions that don't always make sense in conjunction. There are real internal splits in each party (moreso the GOP right now) over which direction a party should go, and I get the impression that primaries are more often played out over these issues and certain stylistic debates rather than serious economic policy.
While we can't apply the left-right scale to other issues, it certainly works when talking about economic policy. Since George McGovern lost in 1972, the Democratic Party has been moving further and further towards the Center economically and away from the New Left ideology of the late 60s and early 70s. This has happened at the same time as a rightward shift in Republican ideology, and I think most everyone will agree that America in 2014 does not have the same political center as America in 1974. I also think it's incorrect to assume that post-Bush hasn't seen a gradual change in direction back towards the left; I think it definitely has and the widespread admiration for people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would be evidence of that. So this brings us to the real question: which of Clinton or Obama is closer to the Left?
The answer, unfortunately, is less clear than we'd like to imagine. Bill Clinton governed as a Centrist in the 1990s, and I think examination of Obama's early political career would suggest that he started off as substantially more open to ideas on the Left than Clinton was. But both of these guys were essentially shaped by their local environments: being a state senator from Chicago makes it much easier to advance core liberal principles than being Governor of Arkansas OR President of the United States. I think both Presidents were essentially products of the political climate of the time, and would suspect that were Obama the President in the 1990s he would have followed similar policies as Clinton, and were Clinton the President today he would be similar to Obama. For all the shock that idea might generate, keep in mind that Obama has surrounded himself with Clintonites as President, and the Clintons have essentially supported and adopted many of the ideas and policies associated with his Presidency.
So what's the point of this comparison? To realize that politicians are essentially actors within a large-scale political game. At a certain level, a lot of people only hope to represent their broad coalition in opposition to the other, and their personal opinions are drowned out by a party machinery that tries to keep a lot of different coalitions happy without pissing off another all too much. Clinton and Obama had a lot of stylistic differences (and a few similarities) and certainly their policies are not identical when compared across two decades. But they are similar in overarching personality and goals, and I think debating which of these mainstream actors is more outside of the mainstream is somewhat counter-intuitive.
Clinton was change from Bush 41. Obama was change from Bush 43. Neither substantially changed the Democratic Party forever. Keeping with the Clinton-Obama faction in 2016 is not going to pull the party *further* rightward, but will instead just leave the party continuing to react to political conditions in the same way it has since McGovern lost in 1972. Substantial change in the direction of the party would only be achieved by nominating a candidate that is outside of the party mainstream AND could actually win the Presidency and wield their influence. The closest we've come to doing this in the past 30 years was the Kerry-Edwards ticket (the most liberal ticket since Mondale for sure) and their loss ensured we stayed on the same path for the Obama era. If people actually think Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren represents a path forward, they may be the alternative in 2016.
Personally I'd love to see this change happen, but worry that Sanders and Warren are unable/unwilling to win either the primary or the general election in 2016. In a perfect world that will never come to pass, substantial electoral reform would allow smaller parties to exist in a proportional representation system, and we could make our own coalitions after elections instead of trying to manage them before.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Thu May 8, 2014, 03:36 PM (5 replies)
Is he starting to go socialist?
Newt Gingrich @newtgingrich 5h
The right answer to the Clippers ownership challenge is to sell it to the people of Los Angeles. Green Bay, not billionaires, is the model.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Thu May 1, 2014, 11:51 PM (0 replies)
Workers of the world remember: we have no chance to defeat the oligarchs unless we ORGANIZE and STAND UNITED.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Thu May 1, 2014, 01:06 AM (1 replies)
In case you didn't know, Governor Nathan Deal (R-GA) is up for re-election this fall. His opponent is Jason Carter, grandson of our greatest post-Vietnam President, who is running about 5-8 points back in the polls right now. Carter is raising a lot of money, and Georgia has been trending purple for a few years, so a lot of people are thinking he may have a shot to beat Deal if he plays his cards right.
Enter the winter storm in Atlanta. Let's get one thing out of the way: 2-3 inches of snow is not the apocalypse. This happens in Atlanta every few years, and EVERY time the officials promise they'll handle it better when it happens again. The Mayor of Atlanta will probably get some heat for this (in 2011 he promised that his city would be prepared for the next time it snowed) but the state government is definitely going to have to deal with this problem as well. Today Gov. Deal blamed everything on metereologists, despite the fact that Atlanta was under a Winter Storm Warning before the storm hit. The decisions by everybody in the area to go on with work, school, transport, and life in general caused a horrible traffic crunch in the middle of the snow, and the problems were a result of those poor decisions.
If you've never been to Georgia, you should probably also know that the roads aren't very good. As a state they spend less on transportation than almost every other state, they have very little viable public transportation options even though Atlanta is a gigantic metropolis, and they have historically struggled with responding to winter weather. A lot of people have made excuses for Georgia's incompetent Republican government based on the assumption that they don't own any equipment...but they actually do have some salt trucks, although it's clear they should buy more.
Jason Carter should capitalize on the palpable anger in Georgia and make this into an election issue. The suburbs are pissed, and those are the population centers that he could possibly run on this issue in. If Carter criticizes Deal's lack of preparedness for the situation, and promises a major investment in transportation including PLENTY of equipment to deal with winter weather...he may just be able to win over enough votes to make this a completely different election.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Wed Jan 29, 2014, 03:45 PM (6 replies)
They fucking don't.
More here: http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Posted by DemocraticWing | Wed Jan 29, 2014, 01:44 AM (11 replies)
American political scandals, for the most part, are pretty boring and unimportant. Chris Christie is a jerk, and surely not fit to be President, but this story is really only important in the sense that it's getting plenty of media coverage. It's the same thing with nearly every scandal really, and Republicans are the worst at literally manufacturing crap to sling at Democratic politicians, which is a bit different than what's going on in New Jersey.
Don't get me wrong, Christie acted wrongly and will suffer consequences due to that. He's not going to jail, and probably won't have to resign, but I have no doubt that the New Jersey Senate is going to hold his feet to the fire for the rest of his term. His Presidential aspirations are likely gone as well, although I can't predict what's going to happen 18 months in the future.
The reason I'm starting this thread though, has actually little to do with Chris Christie or this scandal itself. My issue is that stories can get stuck in the media cycle for weeks, and dwarf other more important events. Bridgegate isn't very important in comparison to the violence in the streets of Kiev at the moment. Americans like to think about ourselves constantly, but people are dying in the Ukraine because of their political disagreements. There is some talk of civil war. It's not just Ukraine of course, there is some pretty bad violence in the CAR right now as well. There have been some huge diplomatic developments on the Iran question, and Egypt has a new Constitution too.
This even spreads to the events here at home. While we've been focused on New Jersey, the biggest domestic story of 2014 is actually occurring in West Virginia. They very real consequences of unfettered capitalism have poisoned the drinking water for many thousands of people. Perspective is important.
After having written this, I realize my point kind of got away from me. That's alright I suppose. I'll sum it up with this: we should of course be making sure we don't let people like Chris Christie get away with their misdeeds, but I hope we do this knowing that many more important events are unfolding around the world as we speak.
Posted by DemocraticWing | Sun Jan 19, 2014, 09:18 PM (23 replies)