HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Martin O'Malley &...

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 07:58 AM

Why Martin O'Malley & Elizabeth Warren Can Beat Any Repub, Including Walker, Bush, Paul and Cruz

Why Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren Can Beat Any Republican, Including Walker, Bush, Paul and Cruz
by H.A. Goodman
3/25/2015

A paradigm shift is needed in today's Democratic Party.

Rising stars in the Democratic Party like Tim Kaine, Jim Webb and especially Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren are all formidable candidates, despite the fact that one liberal icon has amassed $328,755,858 and owns her own server. If Republicans can be proud of the fact that Ted Cruz would "most likely" be able to serve as president, Democrats should trumpet the plethora of talent within their ranks. The truth is that presidential elections are decided by electoral votes, not the soap opera we'll all witness for the next 593 days. To win the White House a candidate needs 270 electoral votes; far fewer than the 332 votes Obama won in 2012 to beat Romney.

Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren can defeat anyone Republicans have to offer in 2016, primarily because they possess ideas and attributes that resonate with the majority of Americans.

First, let's analyze how President Obama was able to rout the Romney campaign in 2012. In an article for The Wall Street Journal just days before the election, Karl Rove made the following observations about America's political landscape:

It comes down to numbers...

"In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence--from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments--give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more."

Why are Rove's words important for Democrats in 2016? Romney won only 206 Electoral College votes for several reasons. The numbers and especially the "anecdotal data" Rove referenced didn't reflect the damage done by Romney's 47% statement. When a wealthy Republican candidate states that 47% of Americans are "dependent upon government" and "believe that they are victims," this might speak to conservatives, but it doesn't resonate with the average American...

Therefore, the hot button issues important to conservatives, like Scott Walker's ability to defeat unions, aren't enough to ensure that a state like Wisconsin won't go to a Democrat in 2016. According to The New York Times, Wisconsin went blue despite Paul Ryan being Romney's choice for Vice President...

...America in 2016 will be the same America that voted twice for Obama through electoral maps dominated by blue ink. Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren, in addition to others like Kaine and Webb, can beat any GOP challenger simply because on key issues, they speak to the most people. Democrats don't need to pin their hopes on one candidate; we have a plethora of talent and should trumpet our candidates like the GOP flaunts its challengers. Like 2008, Hillary Clinton could be overshadowed by a newcomer named O'Malley or a courageous woman named Warren. If this happens, both Democrats and the average American will win big in 2016.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/martin-omalley-and-elizabeth-warren-can-beat-any-republican_b_6937318.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

84 replies, 2717 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Martin O'Malley & Elizabeth Warren Can Beat Any Repub, Including Walker, Bush, Paul and Cruz (Original post)
RiverLover Mar 2015 OP
beachbum bob Mar 2015 #1
RiverLover Mar 2015 #3
SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #22
daleanime Mar 2015 #5
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #6
JEB Mar 2015 #69
99Forever Mar 2015 #9
LynneSin Mar 2015 #27
leftofcool Mar 2015 #2
RiverLover Mar 2015 #4
daleanime Mar 2015 #19
bemildred Mar 2015 #7
Scuba Mar 2015 #14
daleanime Mar 2015 #20
bemildred Mar 2015 #21
daleanime Mar 2015 #38
zeemike Mar 2015 #24
A Simple Game Mar 2015 #36
bemildred Mar 2015 #39
A Simple Game Mar 2015 #41
bemildred Mar 2015 #42
A Simple Game Mar 2015 #74
bemildred Mar 2015 #75
A Simple Game Mar 2015 #82
bemildred Mar 2015 #83
villager Mar 2015 #56
Liberalynn Mar 2015 #26
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #44
bemildred Mar 2015 #45
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #47
bemildred Mar 2015 #55
geek tragedy Mar 2015 #57
bemildred Mar 2015 #58
deutsey Mar 2015 #8
ALBliberal Mar 2015 #23
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #66
ALBliberal Mar 2015 #79
DrDan Mar 2015 #10
RiverLover Mar 2015 #12
DrDan Mar 2015 #67
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #11
RiverLover Mar 2015 #13
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #15
RiverLover Mar 2015 #16
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #25
RiverLover Mar 2015 #32
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #18
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #40
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #43
ProudProg2u Mar 2015 #17
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #31
ProudProg2u Mar 2015 #35
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #46
zeemike Mar 2015 #50
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #53
zeemike Mar 2015 #61
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #62
zeemike Mar 2015 #63
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #64
zeemike Mar 2015 #65
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #71
zeemike Mar 2015 #72
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #73
sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #80
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #81
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #28
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #29
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #30
cascadiance Mar 2015 #33
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #52
cascadiance Mar 2015 #60
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #68
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #34
Octafish Mar 2015 #37
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #49
Octafish Mar 2015 #54
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #59
libdem4life Mar 2015 #48
still_one Mar 2015 #51
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #70
still_one Mar 2015 #84
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #76
HassleCat Mar 2015 #77
Vincardog Mar 2015 #78

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:02 AM

1. not a chance.....hoping doesn't change reality

 

either Jeb or romney would easily win election if somehow democrats make a huge mistake on go this way....learn the lesson of failed democratic nominees from McGovern to Dukakis

and the effect of idealism that rather give america George W Bush then vote against their principles in NOT voting for Gore ,especially the florida nader voters.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:06 AM

3. "not a chance" is EXACTLY what I heard about Obama's chances in 2006. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:14 AM

22. good point

 

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:11 AM

5. But working will....

don't you want a future?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:18 AM

6. That's quite quite conservative--US problems haven't changed since the 1972?

Wow. If this represents party capacity to think the party really has lost more than it's moorings.

It's become frozen in it's point of view and lost in time.

Being the Anti-Nixon is the solution to the problems of 2015?

The answers are to be found in personalities?

Come on. That's a mega-groaner.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:26 PM

69. That is exactly correct. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:37 AM

9. Kewl...

... it's the political gatekeeper. I guess us silly "lybrals" and "professional lefties" should just pack up and quit, now that you've made your pronouncement, eh?

Oh, and btw, anyone that blames voters (and non-voters) because their candidate lost, is a REAL loser and a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:34 AM

27. I think Jeb and Romney would give any Democrat a difficult run for the money

Both of those candidates have an appeal to the moderates of the country.

We keep forgetting that there are millions upon millions of people out there that have absolutely nothing to do with the internet or any of this craziness called the Tea Party. That's the reason why John McCain won the 2008 primaries and Mitt Romney won in 2012 - because they were the sanest of the bunch.

That's not saying a Warren/O'Malley (or O'Malley/Warren) ticket couldn't beat either of these candidates, it's just that neither would be a walk in the park.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:02 AM

2. Then you need to get Warren or O'Malley to declare they are running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:08 AM

4. It would be politically astute for either of them the wait until AFTER Hillary formally announces.

And really stupid to do so beforehand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:10 AM

19. Good point.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:25 AM

7. Give Warren proper funding and she will kick anybody's ass.

The party needs to decide whether it wants to win or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:52 AM

14. +1,000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:11 AM

20. And would draw more people to the polls....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:14 AM

21. That's the thing. There are a lot of voters our there with nothing to be FOR. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:18 AM

38. Exactly, we need some one people will be excited to vote for....

not some one who people have to be forced to vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:25 AM

24. Yes she would.

And people are hungry for change and Obama proved that...but the hunger has not been satisfied.
But I wonder whether the third way really cares about winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:56 AM

36. The third way does care about winning. Our problem is that even if the Republican candidate wins

the third way doesn't lose. The only way they can lose is if they don't control the Democratic candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:22 AM

39. Right, control of the party is what matters, the source from which blessings flow. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:25 AM

41. You notice something funny about your post? It works just as well without

the first comma as it does with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:29 AM

42. I try not to be too confrontational, hence the comma. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #42)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:14 PM

74. No nothing confrontational at all.

I just noted that the sentence works for,

Right=correct (comma included)
or
Right=direction (comma excluded)

You couldn't have constructed the sentence better if you tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:16 PM

75. I do try.

And generally I am sensitive to the multiple meanings in what I write. But in this case I was just being concise, three sentences for one.


Edit: and anything "right" is sensitive around here, especially as applied to Democratic politicians, and other posters WILL misconstrue you if they can, or even if they can't..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 07:01 PM

82. I certainly didn't mean my comment as criticism

I merely noted the dual meaning of right in your post. A job well done on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #82)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:03 PM

83. Yes, I know, not offended. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:42 PM

56. Sadly, you're correct. The comma merely sublimates the common knowledge. A little.

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:31 AM

26. Yes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:35 AM

44. The problem is no one "gives" candidates

 

proper funding. Candidates have to go out and get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:37 AM

45. Sounds corrupt, doesn't it?

Selling yourself for money to get office? Yeah, I think so too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:41 AM

47. Yes, but that's the world we live in.

 

The process sorts out those who have no stomach for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:42 PM

55. Perhaps we could think up some better alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:48 PM

57. I can think of a great many things that

 

I can't make happen.

As the saying goes, wish in one hand . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:58 PM

58. I think we can make it happen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:34 AM

8. A huge paradigm shift is needed in this country

by overturning the obvious trickle-down bullshit of Reaganomics and by rejecting austerity in favor of a more equitable, progressive tax structure.

I don't know if O'Malley and/or Warren can do it (they might be able to, they might not...I don't know at this point). Personally, I don't see Hillary doing it. She could surprise me, but I genuinely doubt it based on what I know of her. She'd be better than any of the Republican candidates (e.g., in terms of who she would appoint to SCOTUS, which will be pretty important in the next administration), but I can't see her doing anything to challenge the basic assumptions of Reaganomics or Neo-Liberalism in general. I'll be the first to cheer her on and support her if she does, right after I recovered from my pleased shock.

Regardless, the larger point is we need a paradigm shift away from "the way things are" (or have become since the late '70s) and the only way we're going to get that is through a combination of effective political leadership AND mass movements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:17 AM

23. I would see Hillary steering the country back to Clinton era tax and economic

Policies. Something that President Obama has started but hasn't completely accomplished. At least that would actively oppose trickle down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ALBliberal (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:14 PM

66. Bill Clinton Was the last president to raise the taxes on the highest earners./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 06:00 PM

79. Bill Clinton presided over a vibrant economy. This will bode well for Hillary's campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:40 AM

10. I remember a post here a few years back - "No way Rand Paul can beat a Democrat candidate"

comments like these are simply best ignored

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:48 AM

12. In Kentucky? Someone said that? wow

What's the angle comparing the US to little ole red Kentucky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:17 PM

67. yes - that was the Kentucky Senate election

we have some here who never venture out into the real world hence have no real idea what is going on. They get all their news and views from DU, hence very biased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:46 AM

11. Anyone who suggests Kaine and Webb to me no longer has my ear. Both are to my right.

 

Here is Kain in 2012, parsing his words about marriage equality at a Third Way breakfast mixer....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/tim-kaine-pressed-on-gay-marriage-stance/2012/05/08/gIQAvYPdAU_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:51 AM

13. I think he's only trying to stress that Hillary isn't our only option

like corporate media is trying to shove onto us.

He says if its O'Malley or Warren, our country will greatly benefit. Doesn't say the same for Webb, Kain...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:54 AM

15. It's a primary. Anyone who does not know

 

that primaries have various candidates to vote for and thus must offer up sexist Reagan officials and homophobic Third Way types has some issues, and anyone who dislikes Hilary so intently that they'd vote for Kaine is just flipping buggy. He has all of her negative qualities three fold and. none of the positives.
Webb, like his emphasis on prison reform. Can't stand anything else about him. Kaine is to me every last thing that is wrong in this Party distilled into a smirking arrogant Virginian.
Kaine, 2005: ""No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple — that's the right policy. Gay individuals should be able to adopt."

Webb, 2004 on John Kerry: "To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). In the early 1970s, this small organization — never more than 7,000 veterans out of a potential pool of 9 million — became the darling of the anti-war movement and the liberal media. Its activities went far beyond simply criticizing the politics of the war to repeatedly and dishonestly misrepresenting the service of Vietnam veterans and the positive feelings most felt after serving.

Kerry and his VVAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service. While this might have fit a small minority, the most accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of those who went to Vietnam were "glad they served their country," 74% "enjoyed their time in the military" and 89% agreed with the statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win."

Kerry's own comments were filled with hyperbolic exaggerations that sought to make egregious acts seem commonplace. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971, he testified that fellow veterans had routinely "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." With those words, he defamed a generation of honorable men. No matter how he spins it today, at a minimum, he owes them a full and complete apology."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm

So. Webb and Kaine. Want a link to Kaine parsing his words on marriage equality at a Third Way Breakfast in 2012? Can do if you wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:58 AM

16. Recent News articles saying Hillary has NO competition in the primaries~

Too many to list, not worth my time.

I'm surprised you've missed them all. I read one every day that says Hill has no credible challengers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:28 AM

25. And so you offer up those guys? To what end? What makes a challenger credible is support coupled

 

with intent. If voters do not create the credibility, no one has any. That includes Hillary, who has to win Primary elections. She's more credible than the others because she has amassed so many Primary votes in the past and because she is very well known. The moment there are actual rivals and actual contention for the nomination, any candidate that resonates with enough voters becomes instantly well known and hence, credible.
Just standing people up on a platform does not make them credible. Voter support does that. Sadly, I see those who put 'anyone but Hillary' as their objective keep offering up former Republicans and various anti gay Third Way types as if they offered a serious contrast to Hillary, which they do not. Bernie Sanders certainly does, but that cohort seems to reject him as being too progressive and they seem to favor candidates that I personally see as less famous versions of Hillary with less road testing and in some cases very dubious histories with the Republican Party which have yet to be clearly addressed and rejected.
Webb and Kaine are not credible candidates in part because of the sort of thing I posted, quotes you did not even bother to address in any way, shape or form. That dismissive attitude is a recurring theme in Warren threads. Barf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:49 AM

32. I didn't write this! And the guy who did ISN'T "offering" up anyone other than Warren & O'Malley.

If you can' read the article & understand it. I can't help you any more.

Good luck to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:10 AM

18. I don't get it either...Kaine and Webb are well to Hillary's right.../NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:25 AM

40. No kidding. The OP could not even be bothered to address the quotes from them.

 

Kaine is also hugely Third Way, Webb of course a former Republican, which seems to be a feature not a bug with many people on DU.
I don't see the consistency in thought at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:30 AM

43. Webb was a good vehicle to get a Democrat who could beat George Allen but he's very conservative...

And Kaine is very conservative as well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:07 AM

17. The ruling class will never "allow" a " True peoples president"..

 

We find Obama was just the same old tool of the ruling class as all the rest. Obamacare or ACA was not "single payer" for a reason .(The insurance company's are doing better than ever) Thank you very much. Curiously the president was caving and doing everything possible to placate the RepubliCONS. Hillary Will Be Obama On Steroids...!

WARREN-----2016...!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudProg2u (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:44 AM

31. Would the ruling class be a majority? If so why do we want to change the rules where the

minority rules rather than the majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:51 AM

35. The "ruling class" are the 1 % or...

 

even the 1/10th of 1%. The true "Owners" of this USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudProg2u (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:40 AM

46. In 2014 there was only 36% of eligible voters who voted. There isn't any way 1% can

win elections unless the 99% allow them to win. In fact some of the 1% are liberal. What in the hell happened to the 64% who did not show up and vote? This is who says they really don't care who wins, just don't bother them with the chore of voting. Don't be angry at the 1%, be angry at the 64%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:59 AM

50. Have you ever asked them why the don't vote?

I have and most of them say the game is rigged and there is no one to vote for that stands for them...they see no change and they see no candidate that will change anything.
When they thought there would be change like in 08 many did come out and vote...but they were fooled again and I suspect they won't next time etheri if it is Clinton Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:20 PM

53. In 2014 I am aware of only one Bush who was running and he did win.

This is almost like a kid who did not get every toy they wanted probably because their parents could not afford the gifts and just decides not to ever participate in Christmas again. The possibility of electing any candidate for any office which is going to be the complete perfect ideal of what any of us wants will not happen.

Just because you voted for President Obama and he did not cover all of your issues is an expectation too large. All presidents has to have a supporting staff of whom are elected. We need to be aware of the limits even a president has. Do you think by any imagination not voting is going to get the issues acted on which you are interested? If we don't vote it negates the complaining about what is happening, those who are elected will cater to those who voted for them and it won't be a lot of DNC issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:14 PM

61. Well I don't buy the "I did not get my pony" argument.

It is a false premise...and no one expects to get everything they want, just a little of it would give them faith that the system is working.
It is just blame the voter and ignore the facts that the system is not working for average people who find themselves working more and farther in debt every year no matter who is elected.
Obama promised change and delivered none that the average voter could see...and that includes the ACA...or the closing of Gitmo...or perpetual war.
And they are told to believe that he is powerless to do anything about it...so why bother to elect him in the first place?

When FDR took office in just a few months he implemented the CCC which had an immediate effect on the lives of millions and because of it he was elected 4 times...but today we are told the president's hands are tied and he is powerless....bullshit I say, it is just an excuse not to change anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:22 PM

62. There was quiet a bit of difference in the time FDR became president and when Obama did.

There were lines everywhere wanting jobs, men who wanted to work no matter what. People was putting gravy over biscuits to keep their guts from slamming together, there was not any food stamps, no unemployment, no welfare, no social security, no social network. FDR also did not have a TP faction doing the crazy things which we have today. No, there is not a true comparison between FDR and BHO.

I read many posts here this person did this and I will never vote for them, this person didn't do this so I will never vote for them, yes, it is the pony show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #62)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:36 PM

63. After a while people get tired of excuses.

And the worst ones are those that claim some boogie men won't let me do it so I won't even try.
It shows weakness and people don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #63)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 02:51 PM

64. Yes, we get tired of excuses, this goes both ways.

We are only as strong as our weakest link, a non voter is a weak link. The TP has gained ill strength because voters vote for them, 36% voter turn out is strength to the GOP. They do not have to meet the needs of those who do not vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:09 PM

65. Well that is where we disagree.

A non vote is a vote of no confidence...the only vote you have if you don't agree with etheir party.

Of that 64% that did not vote are some who are just lazy and or ignorant I am sure, but we are not going after those people because it is a waste of time...we are going after the others who would vote if they thought it would make a difference.
But when we don't offer them anything and even try to piss them off we are not serious about winning elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 04:37 PM

71. Since 64% is a majority sure it would make a difference. Some may feel it is a waste if time but

Who do they think I going to be interested in their issues. The elected officials says they don't have to do anything for this group who does not vote and they can continue to respond to those who have voted and will probably vote again. I am not sure how non voting is going to help, but don't complain when those they would like to see in office never gets there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 04:55 PM

72. Well the point is that they don't want to see either of the two choices offered in office.

If we want more people to vote you have to offer them something to vote for not just against.
And we just write them off and think we can win by convincing the right wingers that we are better than their side...and you will fail in that.

Many of the undecided will chose not to vote at all if they can see nothing from either side, and that is a formula the right wing has used to get elected...and we help them by making excuses for promises not kept and blaming them for it...and the more we do it the more they will sit out the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #72)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:07 PM

73. OK, then we can just look past the non voters, they dont care who is elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 06:28 PM

80. People will vote, if they really see a reason for it.

What you cited earlier about FDR may be right. In that
way we will have to wait for 40% unemployment, total
disasters everywhere until we get more than 70% of
voters to go to the polls.

Wow, that certainly paints a great picture of our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #80)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 06:59 PM

81. It sure does, women had to fight for the right to vote, blacks had to fight for the right to vote.

Use it or lose it, I hate the thought angry old white men votes all of the time and they don't care if the young folks has SS Or pensions, it needs to be an issue for all ages. Our issues will not get solved in one election cycle so vote everytime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:37 AM

28. Why Warren and O'Malley are no Barack Obama

Too long to quote the relevant parts. Pretty devastating to Warren. Would be more so for O'Malley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/upshot/elizabeth-warren-is-no-barack-obama.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:40 AM

29. here's a magazine cover O'Malley is on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:41 AM

30. It is oblivious you left out Hillary's name and we have found in poll after poll Hillary can

beat all of the GOP possible candidates. The primary has not started and it will be determined who will be the DNC nominee. And you quote after Rove, Rove would like to have anyone but Hillary in the general election, why, because he knows the GOP doesn't have anyone who can beat her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:49 AM

33. We need more than a candidate that just can "beat the Republicans"...

 

We need a candidate that represents traditional Democratic values. Standing up for a strong middle class here, and not for those at the top that keep getting more favors paid back from the legalized bribery that has been instituted in our government. Standing up for a clean environment and not having climate change destroy us.

If Rand Paul suddenly became more upset with the Republican Party and decided to join the Democratic Party to run for president, would you support him if the polls suddenly showed that he'd get more support than even Hillary did over other Republicans? Is that he could beat them just enough for you in who you vote for?

Yes, we need to keep the Republicans out of office then, but that's just one part of the big picture. And having a lack of faith that most Americans will be able to select a Democrat over a Republican candidate only if that candidate's name is "Hillary" is not having much faith in the strength and intelligence of Americans at large to vote in favor of their own interests and what is right for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:09 PM

52. Part of the thread title included beat the Republicans so leaving out Hillary's name

who is polling the best with republican candidates is suspect. You may not have had an opportunity to read where Hillary stands on the issues and how she has been a long time advocate of middle class issues.
I am providing a link to her stand and I have faith you will find she is for middle class issues.

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #52)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:13 PM

60. She was also polling a lot better than anyone else against Republicans in 2008 too at this time...

 

... but we still didn't choose her as our nominee and our president then.

There's no reason why she has to be our nominee now just because of these statistics that are more of a factor of CURRENT name recognition issue than they are of who would be our best candidate come election time.

If Rand Paul switched to being a Democrat, might he not draw up on a lot of Libertarians and other independents in addition to many Democrats in perhaps even poll more against Republicans? We wouldn't know. But I myself wouldn't support him, because I know that on the breadth of issues, Libertarians such as he don't have our interests in mind and having a PROPERLY functioning government protecting our middle class, etc. But when you have someone like Hillary, who along with other corporate Democrats have allowed our government to be corrupted so much over the last 20-30 years,, many young people hearing promises of getting out of wars, legalizing pot, and stopping domestic spying, will see someone like Paul perhaps as a better option than Republicans and other Democrats who've allowed the party to be drawn away from those more core Democratic Party values of not being pro-war, pro-spying, and for the freedom from prohibition.

In short, polls to an extent matter, because you need a relatively strong candidate to beat the Republicans. But Obama proved that others could win too, and someone like an Elizabeth Warren I believe would have enough grass roots appeal with her more mainstream stances than many of the corporate leaning members of both parties in doing things like getting the banksters under control of the people instead of being used to keep us as economic slaves.

And I'm sorry, but someone who's helped with efforts to pass the TPP through fast track, supported H-1B visas (that has helped keep me and many other tech workers unemployed (and just now again) more frequently than before it was put in place, and many other stances on similar issues is not serving middle class values, but corporate class values! We've been living with corporate serving crap for over 20-30 years now, and many of us out there want something different than what the corporate control of both parties have given us over that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:25 PM

68. I will play

If Rand Paul

-pledges to increase the minimum wage
-pledges to require companies to offer paid leave
-pledges to protect and expand the Affordable Care Act until everyone is insured
-pledges to protect the rights of the lbtgq community
-pledges to protect the safety net
-pledges to oppose the privatization of Social Security
-pledges to ensure new trade deals are worker friendly
-pledge to keep abortion legal
-pledges to use military force as a last resort
-pledges to promote a sane and humane immigration policy
-pledges to keep the environment safe and clean

then he is DSB's kind of Democrat and worthy of my support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:50 AM

34. I actually agree. They CAN beat any Republican but..

... not as easy as Hillary could AND history is against us in 2016 anyway. I'd rather have the candidate who IS beating all Republicans, not one who COULD if the stars align the right way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:00 AM

37. Integrity.

As candidates, they wouldn't have to waste time explaining their connections to Goldman Sachs, UBS, Phil Gramm, Larry Summers or any of the other friends and machines of the plutocrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:46 AM

49. If you are saying there should not be any connection with corporations then you will not have

a candidate who can afford a campaign. They have to take money from the sources which has the money. Warren stated truthfully she got money from Wall Street, she spent $42 million on a senator race. Do you think you could afford a donation which would match the Wall Street donations? I know I can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:27 PM

54. That's one of the reasons I'm a Democrat. The Party once stood for the Little Guy.

You know, the idea that all human beings are equal under the Law.

My Party also once stood for campaign finance reform, including advancing the idea of -- horrors! publicly financed political campaigns -- now it wants to run with corporate/plutocrat funded campaigns.

That all shows what's changed: The importance of money to politics, speech, and most everything else today.

It is stark hypocrisy. The years 1981-2012, per David Stockman, hold 7/8ths of all wealth in human history. Rather than representing a time of plenty for all, most live in austerity.

The reason, as Bush Jr said, "money trumps peace."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 01:01 PM

59. I understand what you are saying, right now campaign reform is not in the cards.

Congress is a republican majority, these bills are not going to pass. The bills will never get to the floor because McConnell nor Boehner will allow a vote on these. I have a life long Democrat, and for the reasons you talk about, I will remain a Democrat.

We have to do the things which will get Democrats elected, mostly getting out and voting. There are more Democrats than Republicans, ergo, we should be winning elections. In 2014 there was 36% of eligible voters who voted, this is why republicans are elected. If any issues important to middle class Americans we have to do better at the polls. Getting large percentages out to vote would absolutely scare the crap out of Republicans. They are doing what they can to keep us out of the voting booths, we don't have to help them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 11:45 AM

48. I'd settle for a bright, young Liberal in Training...i.e. VP. Julian Castro

 

Flipping the Democratic Party back to the left won't happen in one administration. But we can stall and hopefully begin to reverse the trend by getting one in the vicinity of the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:02 PM

51. O'Malley is giving all indications that he is considering running. Elizabeth Warren has not

indicated any interest to run for President or VP in 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:34 PM

70. Martin O’Malley sounds like he’s running

Since leaving office in January, O’Malley has been traveling the country and laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. During recent visits to Kansas, New Hampshire and elsewhere, O’Malley has delivered a progressive populist message. Specifically, he has called for reinstating Glass-Steagall banking regulations, hiking the capital gains tax, increasing the minimum wage, raising the threshold for overtime pay and strengthening collective bargaining rights. And while he is far more comfortable discussing his policies than his potential opponents, O’Malley took a perceived shot at Clinton in South Carolina when he declared, “Triangulation is not a strategy that will move America forward.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/martin-omalley-sounds-like-hes-running/2015/03/16/81bc4922-c9


Based on his record, he does appear to be someone I could vigorously support. The knock I've heard about him is he is an uninspiring communicator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #70)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:05 PM

84. no question about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:21 PM

76. Of course they can win. ijust think Hillary has a better chance.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:30 PM

77. Could Be

 

Conventional wisdom is that Warren is "too liberal" to appeal to independent and undecided voters, that the Republicans could paint her as another Jimmy Carter, or Barrack Obama, or whomever they wanted, depending on the current mood. But I don't know about that. I'm surprised to hear many ordinary people saying they are ready for somebody like Warren, and they're mentioning her by name, not just saying the want an alternative to Clinton. We may be reaching a point, finally, where people are just fed up with the constant stream of lies issuing forth from Fox News and similar outlets. The lesson from the last election was that it doesn't pay to stay home and not vote, and we'll see if that sinks in during the next two years of idiot legislation and bizarre pronouncements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 05:33 PM

78. If this happens, both Democrats and the average American will win big in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread