General Discussion

intheflow

(28,462 posts)

50. Yes.

Mon Jan 31, 2022, 06:52 PM

Jan 2022

On all points. There was a center once, before the two parties colluded in 1984 to control candidate debates exclusively themselves so that third party candidates are effectively blocked from national presidential debates and thus, denied them an affordable national platform to deliver their platform for the nation. Once they declared only two opinions were legit, the population followed choosing one side or the other.

http://|The League of Women Voters and Candidate Debates: A Changing Relationship
(Link source: League of Women Voters)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Carville Says Democrats Are 'Addicted to Hopeless Causes' [View all] brooklynite Jan 2022 OP

wow, a rarity indeed, as I completely agree with the old swamp rat about us shitting away hundreds Celerity Jan 2022 #1

what race would have been decided by more money? qazplm135 Jan 2022 #2

That triangulation politics of the 90s is what has brought us to this point in time. intheflow Jan 2022 #8

It worked at the time qazplm135 Jan 2022 #13

The con is voter suppression, gerrymandering, and disproportionate Senate representation MadameButterfly Jan 2022 #25

Demorcats were getting their butts kicked qazplm135 Jan 2022 #28

The BBB bill had 48 senators MadameButterfly Feb 2022 #71

I disagree. we had real majorities back then and were competitive in states that now Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #57

It worked. We had way better majorities. I believe people are Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #54

that was over a generation ago qazplm135 Jan 2022 #64

Liberals did not vote for Trump iemanja Jan 2022 #29

I personally know two who did. intheflow Jan 2022 #40

I suspect a few myself iemanja Jan 2022 #59

Those who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, and we know those that voted for Stein were on the Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #55

+1. There is a much smaller 'center' than there was radius777 Jan 2022 #12

Yes. intheflow Jan 2022 #50

Not a fan but he's right. There are some races that can't be won by a Democrat. So focusing on Autumn Jan 2022 #3

I am one who believes every race should be challenged by a Democrat. We need not spend obscene money Samrob Jan 2022 #34

Over $100 million to lose a race is obscene. There are places a Dem won't win. Autumn Jan 2022 #38

I agree, just put a name on the ballot. Only costs a couple thousand dollars. Give voters a choice Samrob Jan 2022 #39

I Came here to say this Capn Sunshine Feb 2022 #68

Honestly he is right here dsc Jan 2022 #4

The money would not have been raised if the republcan opponents... brush Jan 2022 #31

Carville would make a terrible football coach. Emile Jan 2022 #5

This shit ain't football. BlackSkimmer Jan 2022 #20

No this is all about losing and giving up! Emile Jan 2022 #22

I don't see Carville as a quitter. BlackSkimmer Jan 2022 #23

He is spreading a losing message! Emile Jan 2022 #24

Nope if we listen we would win more elections. Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #51

We are going to win more, by losing on purpose. Ok Emile Jan 2022 #58

There's a lot of wisdom in his words. calguy Jan 2022 #6

broken clocks and all that Celerity Jan 2022 #9

That cash would not have been raised if Harrison and McGrath... brush Jan 2022 #7

An that is an issue isn't it...why don't folks fund races that we have a shot at winning? Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #49

I think that our candidates need to be more cut throat poli-junkie Jan 2022 #10

I don't see that working...I don't care how cut throat you are, we won't win say Indiana or lately Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #48

The polls were wrong in SC radius777 Jan 2022 #11

Maybe the polls were right. roamer65 Jan 2022 #26

I don't think so. He lost that race and honestly, South Carolina is not winnable statewide Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #45

That is the rational folks use for emotional electioneering and IMHO, it costs us elections Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #47

So, we just have to wait for the old man to tell us who we're allowed to donate to? Bettie Jan 2022 #14

No but we need to use logic instead of emotion. nycbos Jan 2022 #15

Pragmatism isn't a dirty word. PTWB Jan 2022 #16

No, it isn't peggysue2 Jan 2022 #36

The "old man"? Seriously? BlackSkimmer Jan 2022 #19

I'm happy to tell you... brooklynite Jan 2022 #27

It is not that you can't donate to whom you choose, but do with the understanding that in a Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #44

This message was self-deleted by its author BradAllison Jan 2022 #17

K and r. BlackSkimmer Jan 2022 #18

Everything Carville is saying... quickesst Jan 2022 #21

After reading his statement I immediately flashed on Howard Dean MichaelSoE Jan 2022 #30

I adore Howard Dean. I supported him when he ran for President and believe to this day, Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #43

And for his trouble DFW Jan 2022 #52

+1 leftstreet Feb 2022 #66

Yeah, like "Universal Health Care" and "Equal Rights." Kid Berwyn Jan 2022 #32

That money would go a long way to establishing a social media presence to combat Johonny Jan 2022 #33

He would know about that kind of thing. GoCubsGo Jan 2022 #35

I can't disagree with you on that. MineralMan Jan 2022 #37

Can't argue with him on those two races. Calista241 Jan 2022 #41

He is absolutely correct. Demsrule86 Jan 2022 #42

I'm not seeing where he proposes a more strategic-minded funding apparatus JHB Jan 2022 #46

Take the money out of it Meowmee Jan 2022 #53

Talk about addicted to a lost cause he should look as his marriage. JanMichael Jan 2022 #56

Sometimes call them "hope fiends" dwayneb Jan 2022 #60

To be blunt... He is a moron... Ohio Joe Jan 2022 #61

Tell me: which candidates did you not support? brooklynite Jan 2022 #63

Well... Ohio Joe Feb 2022 #65

+1 Cede a race is s dumb idea! Spot On! Emile Feb 2022 #69

Simple Answer- 1990's Clintonian Pragmatism is way out of fashion... JCMach1 Jan 2022 #62

Maybe we should have spent some of that money wellst0nev0ter Feb 2022 #67

I lost my addiction to James Carville a long time ago. Paladin Feb 2022 #70