If Democratic candidates ran on progressive ideas on a consistent basis...

[Yavin4]

they would win more elections over time than lose. Yes, in individual elections or cycles, they would lose here and there, but over time, they would win more because their ideas would resonate with the people.

For example, if Grimes actually ran against big coal and laid out a vision for a new future for KY free of depending on coal jobs, that would resonate with that 18-22 year old who wants a future other than working in a coal mine.

[RKP5637]

1. Exactly! Far too many democratic politicians are gutless and try to be more rightward than the

republican next to them. We need to elect democrats that have guts, not wimps that are afraid of republicans. We need democrats that stand for democratic principles, not rightward democrats akin to the Stockholm Syndrome.

[RufusTFirefly]

22. It's not about guts. It's about who's writing their checks.

With a democracy (sic) based on money, we the people can't compete.

Love the Stockholm Syndrome analogy by the way. Some of the apologists are corporatist flacks to be sure, but many are prisoners who have bonded with their captors.

[Dustlawyer]

28. +1!!! We have to change our tactics! We have to focus solely on the root problem instead of

the symptoms. We fight for public education, environment, Wall Street reform, SS, LGBTV rights, equal pay... The reason we keep have these battles and continue to lose the war is the one thing that is consistent, they buy the politicians of both parties!
If we fought singlemindedly to get rid of campaign contributions, the revolving door, and for Publicly Funded Elections we could do this! OWS was criticized for having so many issues no one could get their minds around them all. It did a lot of good, but we can learn from what mistakes it demonstrated as well.
What we have been doing is playing their game on all fronts, dividing ourselves. With their money and the influence it buys we can never make any real headway. However, if the environmentalist join with the people who fight for equal pay, women's reproductive rights, public education supporters, financial reformists... we can be an unstoppable power!
The politicians are bribed with campaign money to keep their asses in Washington. If they see enough people banded together in one coalition they WILL TAKE NOTICE! Most people are willing to protest for their pet issue, but not for others that they may still support, just not as passionate about the other issues. If they think that their issue will be favorably resolved by joining with others to attack the root problem and return Representative Democracy where they will get what they want in the end, they will fight for it!

[RufusTFirefly]

30. I totally agree that it's a systemic problem, and that we need publicly funded elections

I'm not as quick to dismiss OWS's tactics though. They've had a lasting effect. After all, if the problem is the system, it's rather dubious to use the system to fight it.

Compare them with the huge number of protesters in Wisconsin, who channeled all that inspiring energy and enthusiasm into electoral politics. In the end, it failed miserably. They were forced to support a milquetoast candidate (who -- surprise! -- lost), and since then the state's Koch Party Governor has continued his scorched earth policy.

[Dustlawyer]

37. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing OWS, I just believe that we need a singleminded purpose

focused on getting rid of the PTB's ability to legally buy our politicians. OWS was and is great! What we have to do now though is to spread the word in such a way that everyone will understand that getting rid of the corruption in Washington, which almost everyone acknowledges, will be directly to their immense benefit across the board!

[Volaris]

62. That's why the First Cause of anyone who wants to call themselves a Liberal,

HAS TO BE, Publicly Funded Elections.
Without that, all of our other, pet causes are just LOST CAUSES.
We fight for that, to the exclusion of all else until it's gotten, the rest is an easy get precisely for the reason you gave....The demographic numbers are on OUR side, and both sides know it=)

[RKP5637]

33. Yep, so right about who writes their checks. And, we have citizens united! It's a cruel joke on

the citizens to pretend we have a democracy! We don't, and any saying we do are really clueless IMO about what is going on in the US.

[RufusTFirefly]

36. Unfortunately, you will never hear this from mainstream sources. Ergo, it isn't true.

There's a well-meaning, overly trusting segment of the population that naively believes that if we truly had a problem that they'd hear about it on the news: "We interrupt the Nightly Kardashian Report to bring you a special bulletin!!"

[RKP5637]

41. Much like the good Germans were during WWII who ignored what was going on in their country until

it was too late. I have friends that are just blasé about everything, same thing, waiting for the special bulletin that will never come as their country slips away from them and later they will wonder WTF, how did this happen.

[RufusTFirefly]

43. Yes.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked.... But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next."[/div

They Thought They Were Free

[RKP5637]

50. Yep, the 'boiling frog' syndrome and it's been going on in this country for some time now, just

thinking of police militarization and brutalization of the populace as one aspect of what is going on. ... gradually, and now more and more, the police have become a domestic army armed to the teeth to keep the populace in line, much like the German SS. And the message is toe the line or we will kill you or at minimal maim you. Some democracy.

[RufusTFirefly]

53. Chill. We're just 'alarmists'

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, 'everyone' is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. ... They say, 'It's not so bad' or 'You're seeing things' or 'You're an alarmist.'

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end?

[RKP5637]

55. In short, only time will tell. n/t

[RiverLover]

2. I totally agree. We have a 2-party system for a reason, actual choice. nt

[Miigwech]

3. The hard truth

Most Dems are not progressive. Pres. Obama is very weak in this regard. He appoints Wall Street insiders for every financial position, for example. I think most Americans don't believe that the Dems are any different from the Repubs .... if the majority of Dems held progressive views that we would see it in their actions, not just words.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Bouzhou, Miigwech.

"Most Dems"? Well, yes, if you're talking about the pros who rin the machine. Not so much if you talk to the base.

The "centers" of both parties run to the right of the electorate, pretty much driven there by the demands of their puppet masters.

[Miigwech]

18. Hey friend

Bouzhou, Aaniin, to you as well ! You speak the truth, the people, the base, want Dems to be more progressive... but the elected ones need money, so they lie to us.

[RiverLover]

19. "but the elected ones need money, so they lie to us."

That cuts it down to the bare simple truth! The essence of the problem. $$$ in politics is killing Democracy.

[RKP5637]

34. It is, in fact, not much of a democracy exists today. We go through the motions of a democracy, but

more and more the bottom line is it's just procedural, and often meaningless. How any can profess we have a democracy when it's all about $$$$$ is really clueless.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. "I think most Americans don't believe that the Dems are any different from the Repubs...

if the majority of Dems held progressive views that we would see it in their actions, not just words."

exactly Miigwech. I have a strong feeling Hillary is going to try and run on progressive ideas during the campaign. Only problem is she is not a progressive, and the people know that. This is why people hate politics and most don't vote. What politicians say during a campaign is almost always different than their actions once their in office.

[99Forever]

4. Exactly

[ThePhilosopher04]

6. Exactly. Liberals must fight ...

and present a consistent message, even in red states, if there is ever going to be a shift in public opinion. The average citizen who really isn't political must be presented with clear alternatives. Liberals must also wear the badge proudly and stand up for progressive ideals instead of running away from them. I live in Louisiana and chose not to vote yesterday. Landrieu gave me no choice.

[Scuba]

8. Bingo!!

[TheKentuckian]

9. She boxed herself into a place where she managed to be less genuine than McTurtle and

did it in such a way to hamper over vote from reachable voters in search of those who wouldn't vote for her no matter what her positions were.

I'm not so sure that some anti coal campaign has any hope of any short term benefit. Now if the idea is to plant a seed and grow something over time then sure and no in the interim a candidate wouldn't fair much worse than Grimes if not the same or better.

[MADem]

71. +1 nt

[joeglow3]

10. A very simplistic view

Depends on the location. We have had democrats here in Nebraska and many people here have bitched about them. Run a candidate that DU would like on their own and watch someone then get their ass handed to them in Nebraska. Each race is unique and needs to be looked at accordingly.

[ThePhilosopher04]

12. You don't get it ...

it's not simply about "winning races." It's about winning the battle of ideas, and if you consistently run candidates who don't stand up for liberal principles, we'll continue to drift further and further to the right in this country. The average American's instinct is to pick leaders who have conviction in what they believe.

[onecaliberal]

26. ^^^^^That

Thank you! This is the exact problem. Far too many buy into the third way narrative. It has failed miserably but those same folks refuse to believe their own lying eyes.

[YoungDemCA]

139. Politics is not really driven by ideas though

Most people vote in a way that corresponds to how their friends and family have voted, and most people can be counted on to vote for their party on a consistent basis. Only a small fraction of the electorate is truly persuadable. Conviction in what the politician believes has nothing to do with it.

[Yavin4]

13. In the 70s, we had very progressive senators in red states

McGovern was from South Dakota. Birch Bayh was from Indiana. It's a myth that red states won't support liberal candidates.

[joeglow3]

21. For every one you name, there are scores who got their asses handed to the

Exceptions exist, yes.

[MADem]

29. Those states weren't "red" in the seventies. Red states are controlled by the GOP.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/columnists/jonathan-ellis/2014/04/26/ellis-democrats-relevant-sd/8239707/

Ellis: 1970: When Democrats were relevant in S.D.

...But nothing is forever. In the early 1950s, the Democrats had only two seats in the Legislature. By 1971, they were running the state.

The 1970s was the topic of a seminar Friday at Augustana College’s Dakota Conference. It’s a peculiar decade in the state’s political history and one that, historian Jon Lauck said, very little has been written about. Lauck, who is a staffer for Sen. John Thune, chaired the seminar.

In 1970, the stars aligned perfectly for the Democrats. They had the right candidates at the right time. Their political foes were running on empty....

And Indiana was purple, thanks to this guy ...


Speaking of McGovern, he ran for President in 72 and what happened then? Back then "red" was "blue," and this was the result of that election:



No one was supporting our liberal candidate in that election, except my state. That's why so many of us had a bumper sticker that said "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts."

Not even McGovern's own state voted for him in that contest.

[JI7]

49. yup, just look at Nixon and REagan in California

[Scootaloo]

83. And you advocate total surrender to the right

[MADem]

87. That's the second time, at least, in this thread where you've mischaracterized my

viewpoints.

Are you being deliberately disruptive, trying to goad and bait me, or do you just sincerely have a hard time understanding the written word?

Anyone with an eighth grade reading ability knows that I don't "advocate total surrender to the right." You said that just because you thought it was pithy and cool, and edgy--and you were trying to raise my ire.

All I can say is that I see you. Clearly. For just what you are.

I don't see much that's progressive in the way you conduct yourself.

[Scootaloo]

90. It's not a mischaracterization at all

You are saying that because these states are currently run by conservatives, we must concede that. That liberalism is hopeless, so we better not even try. That the only possible solution, is dragging our candidates over to the right, shoulder to shoulder with the republicans, to "win."

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?

And winning is all that matters.

[MADem]

120. I'm not saying that at all. Stop putting words in my mouth -- you ALWAYS get it wrong.

I am saying that Democrats running for office in states where we aren't winning need to appeal to the voting Democrats IN THAT STATE. Not the loud mouths on the internet from liberal enclaves, who have never lived in or visited those states, but think, from their perches behind their keyboards, that they know best.

All politics is local. You don't get that, and because you don't get it, you call people names instead of reading your history and learning. That's your problem, not mine.

Step off--you have nothing.

[AgingAmerican]

97. You do it in thread after thread

...demand the Democratic party embrace GOP policies. Could you list which policies we are to embrace?

[MADem]

116. I do nothing of the sort. If you can't respond to debate with anything besides personal

invective, snark and spurious accusations, that says plenty about you--and none of it acquits you well.

I don't have a "purity list" of "policies we are to embrace." Like SOME here.

I run on two mantras:

1. All politics is LOCAL. What sells in Louisiana doesn't sell in Vermont....AND vice versa. Understand that, or get your ass handed to you. Don't believe me? Ask George McGovern's ghost.

2. The WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican. The worst Democrat can be leaned on by leadership and course corrected when it really, really means something. And when the Senate votes on future Supreme Court justices, it really, REALLY means something.

[Scootaloo]

78. How far to the right will you go to "Win"?

What planks of the platform need to be burned to ash, just so we can say that a democrat "won"?

[joeglow3]

93. The true power lies in holding the majority

You pick committee chairs, set the agenda and can prevent undesirable legislation from seeing the light of day. My goal in Nebraska is to contribute to attaining that majority. I understand what you are saying, but the reality is that handing Republicans the seat election after election will not change anything here.

Out of curiosity, what state do you live in?

[AgingAmerican]

98. We have tried this strategy

...lurching to the right, since about 2009. How have the midterm elections gone for us in that time span?

[joeglow3]

102. Never said it should be a nationwide strategy. I advocated a state by state strategy

You still didn't answer my question - what state do you live in?

[NYC Liberal]

106. The exact same way they've gone in every midterm since the late 1800s

for the sitting president's party, save for 2 or 3.

[Scootaloo]

111. A congress full of conservatives is a congress full of conservatives

You're not going to squeeze liberal policy out of a congress that is 1/3 Republican, 1/3 conservative democrat, and 1/3 "other." That's fucking stupid.

[joeglow3]

113. Got us one big fucking step closer to health reform

I would call that a success. Again, what state do you live in?

[Scootaloo]

114. No, it'll cost us that reform though

After all, since your infatuation with running weak Republicans against strong Republicans to win Republican voters while telling the democratic base to shut the fuck up and suck it up has given us our new conservative House and Senate...

I live in Washington. I was born and raised in Alabama, and all of my relatives live in Alabama, Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle. I spent a majority of my adult life in Alaska.

Now. Your turn to answer me;

What liberal platforms are you willing to sacrifice to win? Lay them the fuck out.

[joeglow3]

121. In Nebraska, I hold my nose and vote for the Democrat

It is not that I want to sacrifice any issue in particular. I just admit that it is a lot different running for the House seat in Western Nebraska than it is in San Francisco. To put the same candidate up for both seats is a guaran-fucking-tee win for the Republican. Maybe you can sleep better knowing you tried to put up a true blue liberal, but I sleep much better knowing I have a candidate not as bat shit crazy as the republican and am one step closet to controlling the agenda in Congress.

[Scootaloo]

124. How's that working out for you?

Senate
Jerry Moran (R)
Pat Roberts (R)

House
Kevin Yoder (R)
Mike Pompeo (R)
Tim Huelskamp (R)
Lynn Jenkins (R)

Governor:
Sam Brownback (R)

Good job.I'm sure running conservative democrats is going to turn the tide any day now.

[joeglow3]

125. Wrong state

Worked out as well as could be expected in the last election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Ashford

[Scootaloo]

129. *headthunk* Holy shit, big derp on my part

Kansas, Nebraska, whatever, you all grow potatoes on your beachfront property, what's the difference, right?

*Cough*

Still, though. Judging by all the conservative democrats winning in red states (that is to say, next to none) I have to conclude, it's not a very good strategy.

Telling your base to fuck off and hold their noses while you court people who will never vote for you is, in fact, a godawful strategy.

[hfojvt]

103. there's one huge trouble

and it gets magnified in places like Nebraska.

In general, progressive ideas are - off the table.

If one lone candidate tries to bring them on the table, then he might as well be from Mars. He's the fool on the hill talking about a round world when everybody KNOWS it is flat.

If the national party brought those ideas on the table. If they were presented daily in the M$M as a viable alternative, a realistic choice, worthy of considering, worthy of trying as policies. Then those ideas would be more likely to resonate with voters, even in Nebraska.

Of course, for a candidate to even PRESENT his ideas to the public, he needs a whole bunch of cash. Those in the top 5% have most of the available cash. Once you take cash from them, it becomes very hard to say "let's have policies that favor the bottom 75% instead of those that favor the top 5%". Once that money stream is denied to you, it becomes very hard to get people to hear you.

[MADem]

11. You seriously think that's a winning strategy? To diss the industry that puts food on

so many tables? That brings industry (and the jobs that attend) to the state? That keeps the electric bill low?

Running against coal is like running against child labor laws. It's a bad idea. It's a way to guarantee that a candidate will LOSE.

All politics is local. You'd be better off touting a "clean coal" and a "mixed assets" (wind/solar...and coal) strategy than running AGAINST coal.

Employment in the coal industry followed a steady decline from the 1980s up until the 2000s, evening out at around 18,000 for the past decade. As of 2009, 18,850 Kentuckians were directly employed in the coal industry, less than 1 percent of the total workforce.[8][9] Yet, when accounting for jobs indirectly involved in the industry, that number becomes much larger, nearly 73,000. This number includes education and service industry jobs in mining communities, employment from construction, transportation and manufacturing work that touches the mining industry, as well as jobs stemming from banks, law offices and engineering firms that did business with the mining industry.
Coal’s total economic impact is significant, with over 125.96 million tons of coal produced in 2006, making Kentucky 3rd in the nation for coal production.[10] The state supplies 10.6% of the country with coal for power plants, giving it the nation’s second largest market share.[10]
Arguably coal’s biggest economic impact has been low electric rates in Kentucky, which gives the state a competitive advantage in attracting industry, including those with heavy energy demands such as aluminum smelters and automotive plants.[11] This has also made Kentucky one of the largest consumers of energy per capita in the nation.[12] The state's average retail price of electricity is 5.43 cents per kilowatt hour, the 3rd lowest rate in the nation.[13] In 2004 coal-fired power plants produced approximately 92 percent of the electricity generated in Kentucky. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_Kentucky

[think]

14. Clean coal is a myth

https://www.google.com/search?q=clean+coal+myth&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS597US597&oq=clean+coal&aqs=chrome.5.69i57j0l5.6367j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

[MADem]

23. From one of the sources on your very list, there.... (uh oh...)

It's not a myth. It's apparently a pricey methodology:

That October, Mountaineer began a pioneering experiment in carbon capture. Powell oversaw it. His father had worked for three decades at a coal-fired power plant in Virginia; Powell himself had spent his career at Mountaineer. The job was simple, he said: “We burn coal, make steam, and run turbines.” During the experiment, though, it got a bit more complicated. AEP attached a chemical plant to the back of its power plant. It chilled about 1.5 percent of Mountaineer’s smoke and diverted it through a solution of ammonium carbonate, which absorbed the CO₂. The CO₂ was then drastically compressed and injected into a porous sandstone formation more than a mile below the banks of the Ohio.

The system worked. Over the next two years AEP captured and stored more than 37,000 metric tons of pure carbon dioxide. The CO₂ is still underground, not in the atmosphere. It was only a quarter of one percent of the gas coming out the stack, but that was supposed to be just the beginning. AEP planned to scale up the project to capture a quarter of the plant’s emissions, or 1.5 million tons of CO₂ a year. The company had agreed to invest $334 million, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) had agreed to match that. But the deal depended on AEP being able to recoup its investment. And after climate change legislation collapsed in the Senate, state utility regulators told the company that it could not charge its customers for a technology not yet required by law.

In the spring of 2011 AEP ended the project. The maze of pipes and pumps and tanks was dismantled. Though small, the Mountaineer system had been the world’s first to capture and store carbon dioxide directly from a coal-fired electric plant, and it had attracted hundreds of curious visitors from around the world, including China and India. “The process did work, and we educated a lot of people,” said Powell. “But geez-oh-whiz—it’s going to take another breakthrough to make it worth our while.” A regulatory breakthrough above all—such as the one Obama promised last summer—but technical ones would help too.

Capturing carbon dioxide and storing or “sequestering” it underground in porous rock formations sounds to its critics like a techno-fix fantasy. But DOE has spent some $6.5 billion over the past three decades researching and testing the technology. And for more than four decades the oil industry has been injecting compressed carbon dioxide into depleted oil fields, using it to coax trapped oil to the surface. On the Canadian Great Plains this practice has been turned into one of the world’s largest underground carbon-storage operations.....

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/coal/nijhuis-text

Another of the sources in your list is the American Coal Council--you can have a look there, yourself. They say clean coal is NOT a myth.

And someone better tell the DOE (also on your list): http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/coal_cct2.html

You probably want to read the cites before you hand over a blanket google.

I don't disagree that "clean" coal isn't entirely clean, but there are ways to make it "cleaner" like capturing methods and sulphur washing and things like that. The real question is this, over the long term--do people want to invest in those technologies, which are expensive, or just get off their asses and transition to solar and wind and even wave technology? I'm in favor of the latter, but I am not from KY, either, and I understand that all politics is local.

[RufusTFirefly]

24. You're citing the American Coal Council as a legitimate source??? Bwahahaha!!!! n/t

[MADem]

31. You're not bothering to read what I wrote, OR even following the thread? Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Try reading before snarking. It will spare you deep embarrassment in future.

The list of sources isn't mine--it was provided to me by another poster. You'd know that if you bothered to read the posts in their full context and click the links.

I simply pointed out that the Coal Council was on the list that was provided TO me, along with the other "sources" that I noted.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. No embarrassment here. I read the posts

The poster was simply providing you a search string for "clean coal myth." You conveniently zeroed in on the industry apologist's link.

[MADem]

38. You clearly didn't comprehend them too well if you didn't take the obvious point I was making.

He provided me a "search string" to prove his "myth" point.

I replied by offering him three sources in HIS "search string" that didn't say what he was trying to prove.

Then you turn around and start guffawing like I pulled that material out of my ass, when in fact, it was handed to me, in a sloppy attempt to make a point, by a "myth" advocate. What I "zeroed in on" was an irony--that the "proof" that was handed to me was not "proof" at all. If you paid any attention (and by now I know you did not) you will see that I discounted that ACC source and didn't even bother to provide a link--I simply pointed out that they were in that "search string" that was proffered.

But hey, you have to actually read the material before replying, or you get burned. You truly should be embarrassed, because you didn't follow the conversation and were way too quick to do the typical rude/snark thing.

[RufusTFirefly]

40. You don't understand how search engines (and PR firms) work

They deliberately game the system so their disinformation shows up in search queries from people who are seeking the actual truth.

Unfortunately, there isn't a search query for "not bullshit" so when you search for something legitimate, you're bound to get well-financed propaganda.

Anyway, carry on. I normally treat all your other posts as gospel, so your impressive reputation hasn't been tarnished for the long term.

[MADem]

47. No, no, no--that's not how it rolls. It's not my job to peck through the shit looking for corn.

A poster got lazy and, tiring of debate, provided me a google as PROOF of his assertion.

I took his "proof" and showed him that it wasn't any sort of "proof" at all.

You didn't catch that point, and instead, mocked me (which was kind of uncivil, but I'll get over it).

I pointed out that you didn't bother following the conversation.

The poster should have provided me with some substantive links, not a generic "LMGTFY" effort. It was HIS job to prove HIS point, not my job to do it for him.

[AgingAmerican]

99. Clean coal doesn't exist

Why do you embrace right wing ideas on a Democratic forum?

"Clean coal" is like "Healthy cigarettes"

[MADem]

109. Why don't you try reading a conversation in FULL context, instead of jumping in with a

"gotcha" and an accusation that I am shopping "right wing ideas?" And then you pull Al Gore out from under the DU bus to "prove" your point and rebut an argument I'm not enamoured of, in the first place?

You really should be ashamed of yourself. That's the kind of incivility and black/white RAH RAH TEAM bullshit that makes DU really suck.

Now follow along:

The poster sending me a poor man's LMGTFY, that he offered to prove the myth of clean coal sent me links that said otherwise---the exact opposite of his thesis, in fact. I simply pointed that out AND provided him with a few examples. That's what's happening in this conversation.

Now run along and have a nice day. Go snark without reading at someone else.

[AgingAmerican]

133. Clean coal does not exist

The so called technology was discounted and abandoned before Obama came into office.

[MADem]

134. The technology is expensive.

The Canadians are using it, still.

The technology that people call "clean coal" doesn't mean that the process is emission-free. "Clean coal" is a buzzword to describe existing processes to reduce emissions. So, even if we don't like it, the process does exist--it is unwieldy and expensive in many iterations, it doesn't result in a truly clean output, but it does exist.

It's not "so-called" technology. It's existing, not terribly cost-effective, technology.

[Yavin4]

15. At one point cotton put food on the table. How long did that last?

We will, and are, moving away from coal. Ultimately, KY is going to have to develop other industries or be like Detroit. Will that message win in 2014? 2016? Probably not. But in the 2020s and 2030s? Yes, it will.

[MADem]

20. No one dissed cotton while it was king, did they?

"We" may be moving away from coal, but KY isn't--not for a long-ass while.

Not sure why you're sounding the death knell for KY coal quite yet. There are still plenty of markets for what they provide--not the least being China. Coal still provides a third of that nice clean electricity that we here in USA enjoy.

Just because you don't see puffs of black smoke coming out of those outlets and sockets, doesn't mean that the source of that warm electric heat and that bright light coming from that nearby lamp isn't a product of that dirty, nasty coal. If it's not coal, it's nuclear power. Or natural gas. Or oil. Very little of our nation's electricity is generated by solar or wind, yet, and it's going to be a long, lazy curve before we see any steep changes on that score.

I am (strongly, FWIW) in favor of moving away from coal for purely environmental reasons. However, I'm not so naive as to think that people from Kentucky will cheerily slit their own throats, give up their paychecks, settle down happily to pay higher electric bills, be taxed up the yingyang as industry deserts the state, all for a feeling of vague "progressivism." These folks are like most people--they like job security and an affordable life. They aren't going to trade "their" coal for any other energy source, unless they are producing it at home and can provide it at competitive rates. They're not going to pay more to feel virtuous. They just aren't.

[Scootaloo]

79. What a opportunist viewpoint you have.

"Sure it's wrong, but it's profitable, so I won't criticize it!"

[MADem]

86. Opportunist my ass. And what a mischaracterization of my views, too. I live in the real world.

I don't excuse things because they are "wrong but profitable." I recognize that there's no fucking alternative right now, that working people rely on these industries, and unless they are given an opportunity to transition into new technologies and employment opportunities, that these people will be thrown into poverty. But hey, you can pat yourself on the back because they're out of work and China is burning all that coal now...

You want people in Maine to freeze in their homes this winter, because you're so "progressive" you want everyone to heat their homes with....what? Unicorn shit?

You're typing on a keyboard made out of OIL. The lights that shine down from your lamps come from COAL. Everytime you get in a motorized vehicle YOU are burning oil, unless you're a rich so-and-so with a PRIUS--and lets not even get into the dire environmental impact from making all those batteries--but hey, NO OIL!!!!

So don't you DARE call me an opportunist when you--and everyone else--enjoys the fruits of these methodologies while sanctimoniously tut-tutting at them, and insinuating that they're gonna go away with the wave of your magic wand without an affordable replacement being made available to the working poor who count every penny. Screw Kentucky! Get rid of that coal! Fuck Louisiana (and Texas, and your dear friends in Venezuela)! Everyone stop using oil!!! Because I said so! Yeah--that's a plan...NOT.

And you wonder why this kind of preachy attitude turns people off? What is it with people who can tell people how it "ought" to be, but don't have any clue how to get from point A to point B? You, you and you--you are going to lose your job, but be happy because now we'll have solar panels you can't afford to buy! I mean, really--join the real world. There's a right way and a wrong way to approach these issues. Preaching at people, mocking them, deriding them--particularly when they make their money in these industries--isn't going to cut it. It's going to be a long road, I've figured that much out--you don't even have a road map.

[Scootaloo]

91. Yes, opportunist

"So long as it's winning, we better be on board, no matter what it means."

Winning is all that matters, after all.

[MADem]

110. There's an opportunist in the conversation, but it isn't me. nt

[Scootaloo]

112. I'm not the one advocating surrendering to the republicans.

[MADem]

117. Neither am I--but you persist in characterizing me in that fashion to be rude and disruptive.

It's obvious how you "converse" on this board, and you're all heat, no light. If you can't get personal, rude and falsely, repetitively accuse people of "siding with the GOP," or "surrendering," or some other hyper-emotional, meaningless language, you've got NOTHING. You don't even get your facts straight, half the time.

[Scootaloo]

122. Yes, you absolutely are

When you tell us that we shouldn't entertain the idea of running liberals, what does that say? When you tell us to not oppose bad ideas because those bad ideas are popular, what are you saying?

You are one of the many voices arguing that to "win" red states, we must run conservatives. Well MADem, running conservatives means losing liberals and embracing conservatives.

Duh.

[MADem]

128. No one is "telling" you anything--you just can't hold up your side in debate, so instead of arguing

the points, you create false narratives that NO ONE is saying. It's your M.O. I giess it's easier than debating the issues--stick to a far left platform, refuse to acknowledge that there are parts of this country that are--even if you do not like it--moderate, pragamatic, even conservative--and lose, lose LOSE. Then lick your wounds and delight in your misery.

I never said "we must run conservatives." Never. NOT ONCE. So stop inventing these little false conversations in your head because I'm calling you on it, AGAIN.

Here's what I said because you don't get it in one pass, apparently:

1. All politics is LOCAL. (You might want to look up that word, because its significance escapes you, apparently.)

2. The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

Duh, indeed. You've got to run candidates that voting Democrats in the state or district will actually turn out for, and pull the lever. Not people that YOU decide are "best" for them.


How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in?

[Scootaloo]

131. We agree on something

You've got to run candidates that voting Democrats in the state or district will actually turn out for

Aren't you someone who regularly complains about "Purists" not voting?

MADem, taking the democratic base for granted, telling them to fuck off during the campaign and hold their nose on election day while slouching to the right to appease and court Republican voters who will never vote Democrat is a wonderful way to discourage Democrats from voting. If the democrat suppresses the democratic vote in this way, that lends strength to the Republican on election day, and makes a Republican victory more likely. because the finger-waggling party maven bullshit aside, people will sit at home rather than vote for a candidate that abandons their interests or, worse, advocates things counter to those interests.

We do need to run Democratic candidates that democrats in a state or district will vote for. Absolutely. Do you think democrats vote for right-wingers in 2014, MADem? Maybe back in the Dixiecrat days, or even up to the Reagan era, this was a workable idea. It's not anymore, these things have largely settled out, the murkiness has cleared. If you favor conservatives, you vote republican. if you favor liberlas, you vote democratic.

Now, you insist that Liberals "can't win" in "red" areas. This brings up a few important questions.

First, are liberal ideas bad? Of no value or merit? Are these ideas actually toxic, something that do not deserve support?

Now I have enough faith in you to believe that you don't think this. You feel that liberal ideas are good. Worth supporting. beneficial to all people. Right? I do, too.

Now, that being the case, we come to another question. Why are these areas "red"? If liberal ideas are good, worthy, and beneficial, then why do these areas reject them?

I don't believe people in these locales are inherently stupid. As i tell another poster in this thread, I'm from Alabama, and I spent a long time in Alaska - both "red states." What I saw, was that a lot of these people do want the ideas found in liberalism. However, there's a problem.

The "liberal label" is what has been rendered "toxic." The ideas are sound. The ideas are of value, and the positions are desired. But these people have been told constantly that the word "liberal' is bad. Told this of course by Republicans... and by democrats

You see, when a democrat runs on not being a liberal, they reinforce the republican insistence that liberalism is "bad." When people like you - take it personally if you want - insist that we must run to the right, you are also reinforcing the notion that liberalism - BAD.

And so we retreat. we surrender. we back off, and the counties, the districts, the states, the national regions, the country as a whole... gets redder, and redder, and redder.

Finally, a third question, How do we fix this?

We re-embrace liberalism. You and I and I suspect most everyone here agrees that liberal ideas are good ideas that deserve to be promoted and instituted, right? Well.. you have to promote them! You can't back away from them. You can't concede to the right's narrative that "liberals are bad." We take liberal candidates, and we run them. Demand the party support them.

Will they win immediately? No, probably not. But run enough of them and some will win. keep running them, and simple exposure will erode that concrete wall of anti-liberalism that BOTH parties have cobbled together in "red" states.

The only way to win is to compete MADem. I've never seen a football game where both teams try to get the ball to the same end of the field, and it's certainly not a winning strategy to try.

[MADem]

132. Not sure what the point was linking to your own post, but whatever.

Do you think Bernie Sanders would win in Louisiana? How about North Dakota?

Do you think Elizabeth Warren would have won Georgia, or Arkansas?

If you do believe this, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

You are not the litmus test for every Democratic voter. You apparently think that everyone has your views and priorities, and they just do not. Regional differences in lifestyle, attitude, viewpoint, approach to authority, religious beliefs, etc.--these things are REAL and they have to be considered when running a candidate for office.

You don't "compete" by running YOUR version of a "dream liberal" in states that are moderate or conservative. You don't force the voters to take what YOU want, or else. You give them what THEY want, and then you gently lead them down a better path, often by example in more liberal enclaves. A rising tide lifts all boats. Example--Colorado and the pot legalization. States that said "NEVER!!!!!!" to legalization are now saying "Shit--how many millions did they make in the last couple of quarters? THAT much? DAY-um!!! Maybe we need to get on this gravy train, too...." Some people need to be brought along, to get USED to an idea. A politician up on the stump thundering at them isn't going to resonate--they want a paycheck, a house, a car, and a college fund for their kids. THAT's what they're worried about.

And saying "Oh well, we'll lose and lose and lose...but eventually they'll listen to us!" is absurd. No one gives a shit about "liberalism" if they don't have a JOB and/or they live in a shitty community. If you want people to vote for your candidate, they need to believe that the candidate has their best interests at heart--that they won't be poorer as a consequence of their vote, that they'll be warm in winter, that their children will be well educated, that their streets will be safe and they'll have small entertainments and amenities in their neighborhood that make life worthwhile.

I have to laugh at people who don't get this shit, and wave Elizabeth Warren around like she's some uber-liberal icon. In actual fact, Warren is conservative on a lot of fronts, but she GETS IT. For example, the Army said they didn't want a battlefield piece of equipement anymore and they wanted it cut from their budget. Warren used her clout to prevent the Army from deleting the item from inventory, not because the Army really needed it (they didn't) but because it would have COST MA JOBS if the item had been cut. In short, she PORK BARRELLED. She put her constituents and their JOBS first, ahead of the national budgetary process. She's not effective because she's LIBERAL, she's effective because she worries about working stiffs. Even working stiffs who are making crap the Army does not want or need.

Now, let's have a look at Mary Landrieu, and some of the "LOVE" that the geniuses here at DU gave her (not). Most of them said "Fuck her, she's in bed with the --waaaaaaaaaah--OIL industry!!! HATE her! OIL BAD!!!" Those activists here and elsewhere, instead of talking up her positives (equality, ACA, equal pay, animal welfare, etc.) depressed turnout with this kind of talk, and we end up with a nutter taking her place who makes her pragmatic support for the industry that 'fuels' her state look like disdain. But hey--that nut won't take away their JOBS, will he? Their jobs are SAFE.

You say the only way to win is to compete. I say the only way to compete is to win. If we don't have the bully pulpit, we have shit. And for the next six years in KY and LA, we have shit.

[Scootaloo]

135. It was supposed to link to the OP for the whole thread. Whoops

Do you think Bernie Sanders would win in Louisiana? How about North Dakota?

Do you think Elizabeth Warren would have won Georgia, or Arkansas?

I don't know, since it hasn't been tried. There's honestly no empirical evidence to support your claim that "liberals can't win."

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence of conservative democrats losing. Landrieu is just the latest in a long line.

If the sellout strategy worked, the Southern States would be blue, and Democrats would control the legislature

[MADem]

136. Who is saying "liberals can't win?"

It's not about "liberals"--it's about people who share the culture and history and sensibilities and (!!!!!!) religious beliefs of the majority of the people in the state having a HUGE leg up over someone who doesn't share those things. It's about people who priorities those things, too, and make it clear that they understand what their constituents are facing in their daily lives.

Liberals do just fine in San Francisco, and Boston, and Montpelier, but they have a harder time in Houston and Baton Rouge and Birmingham. That's just FACT. The culture is more conservative in those cities, and all of the snark in the world isn't going to change that. People won't vote for "liberal ideas" because they aren't comfortable with them. They are comfortable with people who respond to their needs.

The bottom line is this--if you are a candidate who is telling the voter how you will help them, they will respond to you. If you are a candidate wagging your finger at a constituency and telling them that the jobs that put food on their tables are "evil," that they don't need to worry about their electric bills because "in the future" everyone will have solar panels that cost more than the house they live in, that their religious beliefs are stupid or wrong, they're just not going to get much play. People don't like to be talked AT, or DOWN to.

If you think that's a "sellout strategy" to appeal to the wants and needs of a constituency, you have a rather warped idea of what "representative government" is all about. Tip had it right--all politics is local. I'm astounded how many people chalk up failures to other things, but that's your bottom line, right there.

[Scootaloo]

138. You're losing your joust against your own straw man, and that's sad.

First, yes, that is exactly what you are saying, "liberals can't win." When you jabber about how badly you assume (hope?) Warren or Sanders would lose, that's exactly what you're saying.

But I think I found the problem you have.

The bottom line is this--if you are a candidate who is telling the voter how you will help them, they will respond to you. If you are a candidate wagging your finger at a constituency and telling them that the jobs that put food on their tables are "evil," that they don't need to worry about their electric bills because "in the future" everyone will have solar panels that cost more than the house they live in, that their religious beliefs are stupid or wrong, they're just not going to get much play. People don't like to be talked AT, or DOWN to.

This is how you see liberals, evidently. Liberals are smarmy, self-righteous, out-of of touch wealthy elites from Boston and San Francisco who lecture people about how evil they are.

I think we all know where you're standing now, MADem. Yeee-up

[Yavin4]

96. You are a short term thinker.

Look, I agree the demos are against the Dems winning in a state like KY in 2014, 15, 16, etc. But if you provide a vision for the future and get the people to buy into that vision, you can win in the 2020s and beyond.

For example, coming out for more fuel efficient cars in the 1970s would have gotten you creamed in MI. But if you did and remained consistent with that message, you win in the 90s and the 2000s.

Message matters more than individual election cycles and politicians.

[MADem]

130. No, I am not, but that sounded a bit like a put-down...I am a practical thinker who thinks that it

is important for the Dems to have control of Congress if we want to make any changes. We're not going to do anything by losing.

As all politics is local, all politics is also INCREMENTAL.

Coming out for more efficient cars in MI would not have gotten you "creamed" in MI with the right massaging of the message. Massage of the message matters as much as the message itself, and smart politicians keep their seats because they know how to do that.

A MI politician who identified, to his constituency, and more importantly, to the manufacturing "constituency" (AKA industry lobbyists) a large market for fuel efficient cars (Sample: these people in this country will only buy a car if it gets X MPG) would have been greeted as a liberator. That politician would have had to "make the deal" though, and that takes work. It takes CODELs, meeting with the right people, holding your nose and voting for that other guy's pet project so he will vote for yours, bundling your deal in a "can't fail" piece of legislation, and a fair amount of quid pro quo. You come to a car-making state with a ready-to-roll, money-making deal and, assuming they have the technological capability to make it work, they'll make it work. Why? Because they want to get rich. Because workers on the line want to keep working and getting paid. And once you're making those cars for Indonesia or Vietnam or where ever, and they're good and people like 'em, then you start selling 'em over here--incrementally.

But politicians who just spout lofty ideas that don't solve problems NOW get short shrift with the working stiffs who want answers to those "short term" problems like the rent and the light bill and the heating bill and the telephone bill and that money for school lunches that they are dealing with TODAY.

Again--All Politics is LOCAL. When people can't pay the light bill, they just don't give a shit about solar panels that cost more than their annual salary. They can't buy that electric car because they can't AFFORD it, they're driving a twenty five year old shitbox. They just don't buy arguments that say "It will only raise the taxes a few dollars for each household." A few dollars buys their kid new underwear so they don't get humiliated in gym class.

That IS the bottom line. You either appeal to your constituents, or you LOSE. If that's "short term" thinking, then that's what the people doing the voting are engaging in. They aren't going to think "long term" just because you say so, and they sure as hell aren't going to think "long term" if it costs them their job, it costs them money they don't have, and it lowers their quality of life. They have to be shown the benefit--and that only happens INCREMENTALLY.

People do take into account their OWN SELF-INTEREST when they make decisions about where there vote is going. That's just fact, and it is denied in some quarters to our party's peril. If we're going to be the "party of the working man" we need to stop ignoring the working man and realize that a lot of them depend on things like coal or oil to feed their families. Those people don't give a shit about new technologies unless and until they are assured that they'll have a JOB.

This idea that everyone has to be lofty and worried about the greater good and future generations does NOT resonate across the board. Noting that here, though, is sacrilegious to the Prius driving, six figure types as well as the people who have absolutely nothing, and thus nothing to lose. But that large swathe of people in the middle--the ones who don't post must because they have to work--understand this point.

[RiverLover]

16. I thought Grimes ran on "clean coal"...and lost. nt

[MADem]

17. She ran from that guy that some here call a rightwinger, and lost.

Clean coal had nothing to do with it. Insincerity did.

[aspirant]

25. IMO she ran

Last edited Mon Dec 8, 2014, 02:14 AM - Edit history (1)

into the arms of the Wall Streeter's Bill and Hillary Clinton and lost

[JI7]

48. she also ran into the arms of Elizabeth Warren and still lost

[MADem]

54. Ouch--that's an inconvenient truth, right there....

Sorta ruins a bit of accusatory logic...!

[aspirant]

64. The EW that's supporting HRC as of now?

But she wouldn't be running at all if Bill Clinton didn't elbow his way in and clear the way. Don't forget Ashley Judd with lots of love in Kentucky was becoming vocal before Bill showed up.

[MADem]

52. No, she ran away from Obama, and she was insincere. It had nothing to do with "Bill and Hillary and

Wall Street." It had to do with her sounding like a phony when she ran from POTUS. She stumbled, and she ran out of gas.

[aspirant]

61. " had nothing to do with Bill and Hillary"

Please use IMO here or show exit poll surveys to back up your implied factual statement.

[MADem]

63. Yeah, right--I'll provide those just as soon as you provide all of your links to back up the

stuff you were tossing in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5926599

Tick tock, now. I'll wait!

And while you're at it, since you're so swift with the Bill/Hill/Wall Street accusations, maybe you can explain this?



Why would she "run to Wall Street" when Senator "Wall Street Sux" campaigned for her? Hmmmm? Got a link for that, too?

Didn't think so.

[aspirant]

65. Switcheroo doesn't work

Doesn't work that way. I called you out first and when and only when you reply, will I reply to you.

[MADem]

70. You jumped in at post 25, and if you want links, you've got to provide yours first.

Here's the links you demanded.

That's right--there are none. But maybe you want to have a look at the links downthread of Grimes' campaign stops with Elizabeth Warren--and that might make it clear why there aren't any "Wall Street" links of your own imagination.

[aspirant]

75. Is this a joke?

Did Grimes get any funding directly or indirectly from Wall Street or the Wall Street Clintons, IMO yes. Since it is an opinion I don't have to prove it.

Is this kindergarten? I called you out on your presented fact and then you squirmed around and evaded and tried anyway possible to go on the offense. Your silliness is here for everyone to see.

Now you present photos and say this proves their is no Wall Street Connection. So next we will see pictures of Bill and Hillary holding hands and you will say, see this proves their is no Wall Street connection with the Clintons.

[MADem]

76. You probably know the answer to that question, too.

No, this isn't kindergarten, but it's pretty obvious what kind of game you're playing.

If you want to insinuate a Wall Street connection, you need to back that up with proof or just be gone. No one is interested in your "IMOs" that are plainly lame and childish attempts to cast aspersions on Democrats. Put up or shut up.

[aspirant]

80. IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

Your game is presenting unsupported facts and then walking away.

You and your unproven, alleged facts are the things that need to be gone.

"IMO'S" are used here on DU regularly so now it's clear for all to see exactly which DU democrats you are calling lame and childish.

I can opine on a Wall Street connection any time I choose. Your demands and orders are worthless to me.

"aspersions on democrats"; It must be news to you the DLC/third wayers are Wall Street dems with connections to the dem party, IMO!!!!!!

"no one is interested in your IMOS" NO ONE I'm interested, another false fact from you.

[MADem]

88. You need more help than I or anyone here can give you.

You have no understanding of the issues or the players.

Buh bye.

[aspirant]

89. The MAD...em guy

WERE YOU GIVING ME HELP? What were the psychological issues you were teaching me? Were these issues facts or opinions?

I thought this was a discussion site, not a help line.

Who are the players? Are you a player and is that what you tell the girls?

"no understanding", then I must have overstanding

BYE BYE

[aspirant]

67. IMO maybe some of her campaign funding

came from Wall Street"

IMO there's a possibility EW was privately informing the naive candidate Grimes of the error of the Wall Street ways.

Just for you I edited my previous post. Are you man enough to do the same.

[MADem]

68. Well, come up with that link, why don't you? Did she use that Wall Street money to pay Warren's

airfare, is that it? You're going to have to give us a few links to back up all these wild suppositions.

You do realize that the thin ice you were on has cracked with that last post? There is absolutely NO possibility that Warren was "privately informing the naive candidate" of anything. That picture is a campaign rally, and Warren was campaigning WITH AND FOR Grimes. In June, and again in October.

Here, in case you're unsure and don't believe the images posted in this thread:

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/kentucky/2014/10/28/senator-warren-campaigns-grimes-attacks-mcconnell/18090129/


http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/06/29/alison-grimes-elizabeth-warren-rally-higher-ed/11709399/



Here's Warren introducing Grimes:

I haven't made any comments that require editing, either, so I won't be "man enough" to make any changes--none are needed.

[aspirant]

73. Prove your facts or expect laughter

Your unsupported facts as usual. I present mine as opinions and the ice not only cracked under you, you fell in and was drowning when you couldn't support your facts. Typical repub strategy, when your drowning you try to pull yourself out and push someone else in. IMO, EW was sharing with Grimes her vast Wall Street knowledge.

I don't have to give you any links when it is my opinion, you must when you present facts. You're not man enough to back up your facts.

You present public photos and then try to convince people that public and private interactions are exactly the same. Whaaaaat?

"absolutely,no possibility"=100% fact, now prove it.

[MADem]

74. I've already done that.

I think you're giving us a good view, here. A really, really good view.

And yes, you do have to give me links when you make unsupported claims.

[aspirant]

77. I stand tall

You've done nothing.You've presented no links for your proposed facts and admitted you don't have anything to back up your alleged facts. You pull all of this out of nonsenseville and present it as fact. I present my words with "IMO" which people can take or leave as they choose.

I don't have to give anything when I use IMO, opinions aren't facts.

Yes, I'm giving a really, really good view of my good, sound actions.

[Rex]

123. I agree, her ad where she is blasting shit with a shotgun

is cringe worthy. Although she is right, she is not Obama - he won both of his elections. She should have left the play for 'redneck mountain man' cred alone. Of course the M$M did everything they could do to help Mitch get re-elected, he didn't have to lift one elite finger.

She didn't help herself by distancing herself away from the POTUS imo. I don't and didn't believe the M$M bullshit about people hating Obama (how convenient right at election time) and that the Dems had no way of winning (the M$M made sure apathy was at an all time high). Funny how we don't hear about the scary ebola anymore.

I said they all should have embraced the POTUS no matter what the lying M$M said, but got yelled at here so I shut up about it.

[MADem]

127. I wish they'd run John Oliver's ad towards the END of the campaign....

The one referenced here (you have to click on the link):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017191696

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. Dems figure Kentucky = coal....

They got over thinking Alabama = cotton.



Didn't they?

Oh wait,...that's right. They just GAVE UP there.

But Kentucky is North of the Mason Dixon li,...oh wait,...it isn't.

Neither is Missouri.

Coinkydink?

[SHRED]

35. This is the Citizens United era

good luck

[Recursion]

39. That would make us a "four corners" regional party and lock us out of the White House

For example, if Grimes actually ran against big coal and laid out a vision for a new future for KY free of depending on coal jobs, that would resonate with that 18-22 year old who wants a future other than working in a coal mine.

But it would piss off his parents and grandparents, who are the ones who actually reliably show up to vote. Anger and fear usually trump hope in voting.

Our party is a coalition, and is going to stay that way. Moderates and conservatives reliably outnumber liberals in our own party in both opinion polls and in who actually shows up and votes.

[aspirant]

51. Do moderates and conservatives reliably outnumber

Repubs? If they do, why are we losing? Can it be the insignificant liberals are vital to victory?

[Recursion]

58. We aren't a mirror image of the Republican party

Roughly, 40% of the US calls themselves "conservative", 35% "moderate", and 25% "liberal"

Meanwhile, 50% of the US call themselves "Democrats" and 40% "Republicans" (both parties have been losing ground to "Independent" of late, though)

In the Republican party, they have a diminishingly small number of liberals, a few moderates, and a ton of conservatives. We are not the mirror image of that. We do not have a diminishingly small number of conservatives, a few moderates, and a ton of liberals. We're a party in which 40% of our members call themselves "liberal", 40% call themselves "moderate", and 20% call themselves "conservative". (And, just to make some people's skin crawl, I'm among those who identify themselves as "liberal", so...)

[aspirant]

69. Are liberals and progressives the same?

I feel good crawling in my skin as a progressive

[Recursion]

72. Good question. It's a term with a lot of baggage

It was originally used for New England Republicans, later for Southern Democrats (Strom Thurmond was a "progressive Democrat" when he fought back against including African Americans in the New Deal). In the irony of ironies, Hoover was the last President of the original "progressive era", and was swept out of power by FDR who ran against his (what was then called) Progressivism.

In its modern context it was re-coined by IIRC Carville and the evil scary DLC types like Bill Clinton to avoid some of the baggage that "liberal" had by the 1980s (which baggage was mostly racial -- it's been a term with a very unfortunate racial history, which is why I'm cautious about it). Carville subtitled his awesome 1996 book "We're Right, They're Wrong" as "A handbook for spirited progressives". At that point, the sense behind the term as best as I can make it out was the "it's the economy stupid" line: economic growth before anything else, social issues can come later (hence Clinton's waffling on gay rights and his Sister Souljah moment).

In the intervening two decades an interesting inversion has happened, though. White liberals disaffected with the growth-oriented economic policies of Clinton & co. have relabeled redistribution-focused economic politics married with strident social activism as "progressive". Meanwhile, the Clinton faction has seen which way the wind is blowing on race and gay rights, and now see those as wedge issues that are in our favor. So the self-styled "progressives" of the 1990s are now the "third way reactionaries" of the 2010s, and their main common ground is the social issues that the third way types were keen to avoid 20 years ago. (Other than gun control, which was pushed as a third way plan to appear tough on crime without significantly alienating exurban whites -- whatever else it's been, it hasn't turned out as that).

[JI7]

42. not all 18-22 year olds want the same thing, if you go by state, voting patterns are not

the same across all groups.

i believe obama lost young white voters in some of the red states.

[Yavin4]

95. All 18-22 year olds want a future

And they vote in big numbers for politicians that give them a vision for it.

[JI7]

108. chris christie and rand paul is popular among young people , and what you say

doesn't change what i said about people wanting different things.

saying someone wants a future doesn't mean they want the same things in their future.

[JI7]

44. did any Candidate win California running on Defense Cuts when that was a big part of the state

economy ?

[Scootaloo]

81. There's no need for standards

No need for ethics.
No need for morals.
No need for principles.

All that matters is winning. At any cost. With any sacrifice.

[JI7]

82. i don't view politics as a religion, it's why i can still say FDR was a good president even though

he wasn't so good to people of color .

[Scootaloo]

84. No, you see it as a team sport

[JI7]

85. so do you think FDR should not be seen as a positive part of the democratic Party ?

[JI7]

45. did any candidate win running against Ethanol in Iowa ?

[JI7]

46. even Ted Kennedy opposed Wind Farms

[MADem]

57. He didn't want to have to see them from his porch, is why.

What?? Ruin MY view with those .... windmills? The rich often have a NIMBY attitude...

Young Joe is onboard, though--he's got the right idea. Boston is more windy than Chicago--we're blessed with a lot of moving air around these parts, and it's not all coming from politicians.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/young-kennedy-breaks-with-family-over-cape-wind

[Recursion]

59. Not all of them, just the ones near his house (nt)

[truedelphi]

56. The fact is - both Parties are enslaved by Corporations who have the Power

And let's face it - the quid pro quo makes things okay for the Democrarts who run for office - even if they lose.

There are no longer corrupt deals happening in that old fashioned way, in which the candidate meets the unsavory "go to" guy in some dark alley. instead, a candiadte who loses an office knows they will be offered a job inside a Corporation, while they bide their time until the next big electioncycle.

For top level candidates from the center of either major party, it is all about the quid pro quo.

[Jim Beard]

60. It sounds good but we ned to read the reasons for discontent.

I get worried because I remember what happened to George McGovern. It was a horrible defeat. McGovern didn't even win his own state of South Dakota. Lets make sure we put fort the ideas that most people can accept and remember it will all be shredded by FOX propaganda.

[Odin2005]

66. Running on progressive ideas would offend ther Capitalist donors.

[stevenleser]

92. Lots of folks here seem to confuse the way they wish things would be with how they are

This OP has that confusion.

[Exultant Democracy]

101. Because the Clinton experiment in triangulation has worked out well for democrats?

This last 20 years has been the low water mark for democratic power in both houses of congress. When we ran as populists we never lost control of one house let alone two.

History would argue you are the one who has been confused, and the DLC spent a lot of time money and energy convincing people like you of that.

[stevenleser]

104. LOL. Only if you confuse buzzwords with arguments and forget several important facts

Fact 1: Whatever Clinton was doing (you call it triangulation) broke 3 straight Presidential election losses. That's one convenient fact you forget.

Fact 2: Clinton was re-elected despite everything the Republicans threw at him. Another convenient fact you forget.

Fact 3: Al Gore actually won the popular vote after Clinton.

As for the rest, your posit only works if you define everything Democrats have done as "triangulation". That's a term you havent defined and you havent proved that even a majority of what Democrats have done is "triangulation". Its simply a buzzword you throw out there instead of an argument.

So to sum up, you use buzzwords instead of arguments and forget facts inconvenient to the point you are trying to make.

[Exultant Democracy]

107. There have only been two good election cycles for democrats since Clinton got into office,

Their leadership has been detrimental in the long term. You can site Clinton as a win all you want but he marks when the real democratic nadir started. We had managed to keep both houses during the Reagan era and we were still passing more progressive legislation in the 80's then we could get away with today.

The Clinton experiment in triangulation has been a failure for the democratic party as a whole. A few wins here and there do not in any way change the trend line, your a smart guy you should understand that.

[Nevernose]

137. I think many people oversimplify

But that doesn't mean there's not a core truth somewhere in there.

Personally, I think what people want is a populist who can articulate what they stand for and what they will do for the common people. And all too many Democratic politicians these days come off as wishy-washy weenies, not willing to stand up for anything at all, or "triangulating" (not intending to bash the Clintons), or just out to win a popularity contest.

We need FDRs and Trumans and Kennedys, and we're not getting them. DUers can kvetch all they want about Bill, but one of his genius aspects (he has many, actually), was reaching the common person and making them believe. That was Obama's genius before he ever won the presidency, too.

Bush won reelection not because of rigged voting machines, but because he stood for something and didn't back down. People fucking KNEW that he was wrong -- wrong about literally everything -- but voted for him anyway because they thought he was "strong." (Obviously there are many other reasons people voted for him;I'm referring to many of the swing voters)

[workinclasszero]

94. They would run on progressive ideas

if they believed in them.

So....yeah.

[B Calm]

100. A few folks here still think running DINO's is a winning strategy!

Taking the country further to the right is a conservative right-wing message.

[Scootaloo]

115. It is a winning strategy... for them. Those people are called "Republicans"

Win or lose, they get a conservative in office and dis-empower liberalism that much more

[still_one]

105. Why would someone today in KY who works in the coal industry vote for someone who ran against big

coal?

[Yavin4]

119. Because big coal jobs are going away due to natural gas and cheap oil

And they want a different future. The whole idea of tying your economic future to an industry is flawed. See Detroit.

[Rex]

118. If moderates ran on moderate ideas, we would get back the core group of voters.

An appealing future for the next generation is a great start. Part of the huge loss comes from the endless news cycle cheerleading the GOP and dismissing the Dems as that they cannot win. It is as if the M$M made sure enough people were apathetic about voting for Dems, while boosting the GOP rolls.

Can't imagine why they would do that.

[hrmjustin]

126. I doubt running against coal would have helped Grimes but it would have been interesting to

see the results.