Do you support concessions to banks to win elections?

[BainsBane]

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

More tax breaks for corporations? Tax cuts are very popular in red districts. Should we compromise there?

14 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I support whatever compromises might help us win
	2 (14%)
	No, I will not compromise on banks or taxes, only reproductive rights.
	0 (0%)
	I will compromise on the rights of women and people of color to win, but economic justice requires being tough on banks and the rich
	0 (0%)
	I believe core values of economic justice and equality should be central to the party, and that means not granting concessions to banks or the rich, or undermining equal rights
	12 (86%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. well played

I can't believe some of the things I've been reading here the last few days....

[BainsBane]

2. I wish I could say I am shocked

I'm not because I've seen it coming for a while now. I am nevertheless pissed off.

[MLAA]

3. I am with you.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. I am as well. Then again, I've been pissed off since about 9 AM election night. Daily.

[BainsBane]

5. Trump definitely hasn't been good

For my emotional state.

[Bradshaw3]

6. There's only one thing I won't compromise on

I will never take part in strawman straw polls

[BainsBane]

7. This is a retort

To those anxious to compromise in a way that strips away equal rights for over half of the population and greatly increases poverty.

Save your snark for that poll.


Or better yet, come up with compromises that involve your own rights rather than the subjugation of the majority.

[Bradshaw3]

8. I will not compromise on pointing out strawmen

or "polls" like this for what they are. Never.

[BainsBane]

9. It's not a strawman

It's in direct response to a concerted effort to remake the Democratic Party to undermine the rights, lives, and economic survival of the majority. It responds to a very real, ongoing phenomenon. It exposes the fraudulent nature of talking points about equality and economic justice, values they not only fail to uphold but demonstrate hostility toward.

The rights of over half the population are not a straw man. Promoting policies that have been proven to result in sharp increases in poverty and death rates is not a strawman. Just because this OP doesn't fit your concerns or the narrative you wish to promote does not make it less than real.

Women are not straw. We exist, and we are the majority this party, and that is precisely why are rights are under assault.

Now, you've made yourself clear. You are welcome to "never take part" somewhere else.

[SunSeeker]

10. Great post.

[BainsBane]

11. Thanks

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Well written!

Women are not straw. We exist, and we are the majority this party, and that is precisely why are rights are under assault.

[njhoneybadger]

54. Women's rights aren't negotiable

..................................!

[The Polack MSgt]

58. This. Well said Bainsbane

[Weekend Warrior]

25. Brave stand.

But the conceptual argument being made is not a strawman. The line you have drawn is based on a false premise.

[betsuni]

12. K&R

[sheshe2]

14. K&R

[mcar]

15. Good question

Where does the line get drawn?

[BainsBane]

17. On someone else

Always.

[mcar]

18. Yep

[brer cat]

40. The truth condensed into one sentence.

[dawg]

16. Actually, I already support corporate tax reform.

The U.S. needs to move to a territorial tax system for corporations that would not tax U.S. corporations on their income earned abroad. Such a change would allow those companies to bring foreign earnings back to the U.S. for investment or (more often) distribution to shareholders.

This is an issue where I am in partial agreement with many Republicans. (Of course, unlike the Republicans, I would offset the revenue losses with higher taxes on rich individuals.)

I only mention this because I think it is important to remember that all of us don't fall on the political spectrum somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Che Guevara.

[Gothmog]

19. I stand with BainsBane

[ismnotwasm]

20. We either have a platform or we don't

I understand compromise --human rights should never be compromised

[brer cat]

41. +10000 nt

[Me.]

21. Shoe On THe Other Foot Time

KR

[oberliner]

22. This feels like a push poll.

Just saying.

[DanTex]

23. Depends what you mean by "support concessions", but I would say yes.

If a Democrat that supports tax breaks for corporations (or something else) is running against a Republican that is worse in every way, then I would vote for the Democrat despite the fact that I don't support more tax breaks for corporations.

Also, if the only way to win in a red state or red district is by running candidates with positions to the right of mine, be it on taxes or whatever, then I support doing that.

The tough part, of course, is knowing whether the concessions are actually necessary to win races, and what those concessions are.

But at the end of the day, if I am given the choice between winning with a non-pure candidate and losing with a pure candidate, I chose winning.

[JoeStuckInOH]

24. Would supporting candidates (D) with deep Wall Street or Corporate ties be a similar compromise?

For example, if a (D) candidate had a history of supporting Wall Street initiatives while in office or at least failed to talk tough on banking regulations... wouldn't that, in effect be the same thing as holding an opinon that differs from the Democratic Core Values.

because, depending on who some such D politician is, I'm sure they'd get plenty of support here without batting an eye.

[DK504]

26. If we can not hold people accountable

for the near destruction of our economy then we may as well hand everything over to the oligarchs.

We will end as a country. We throw young people in jail for 20 years for possesion of a joint, but the Wall St. criminals get a free pass? No, never again.

[BainsBane]

30. My point is this

We see people talking about how rolling the clock back on equal rights is necessary to win, so they claim, with no evidence. In light of this new found penchant for compromise, I wanted to ask if they were willing to make compromises that don't involve relegating people other than them to second class citizenship and poverty.

I find it fascinating that since the Dems defeat in the GE, some have focused their attention not on Wall Street or corporations but on relegating women and people of color to second class citizenship.

[WinkyDink]

27. WHY are all these "How would you compromise Democratic principles to win?" threads appearing? WTH???

[BainsBane]

29. This is a response to the other one

and the now months long effort to push the party to abandon equal rights. It is meant to shine a light on the transparency of those efforts.

[surrealAmerican]

28. That ship has sailed.

The concessions and tax breaks you speak of have already been made - in red states and blue states, with the support both major parties.

[JHan]

31. I like this poll :)

Some interpreted your poll literally when all you've done is highlight how pragmatic principles collapse when it comes to established civil rights.

And this is the argument we've been hearing - that the DCCC's announcement was a signal to democrats to be more pragmatic in areas we don't win but the heart of pragmatism is practicality and it specifically relates to policy. It's impractical to adopt a stance that puts your base at risk in the hope of making political gains- when those gains won't be significant. Single issue voters who prioritise pro-life as it relates to reproductive choice will tend to vote Republican. There's enough data pointing to why dems lose , pro- choice positions don't rank high among those reasons.

Further, pragmatism entails cost/ benefit analyses, often in less than ideal circumstances, but there's no evidence I've seen that this signal from the DCCC will help Democrats, rather I'm seeing pushback and the DCCC may see a drop in funding as a result - the last thing they need.

[BainsBane]

32. I think this is less about winning elections

that trying to placate critics of the party, much like Schumer did in his television appearances last week.
It's unwise because it risks alienating loyal Democratic voters for people who refused to vote Democrat in 2016 and have said they will do the same in the future.

If that DCCC director really believes this will win seats, he has no idea what he's doing. Voters who care about banning abortion know very well that the Republican party is the one committed to that goal and that the national Democratic party is pro-choice. It's one thing to understand some of these guys are going to be luke warm on the abortion issue and another to announce it as party strategy. There is a reason to publicize it, and I seriously doubt that can be about winning over anti-choice voters.

[JHan]

34. And...

Even if this were some Machiavellian tactic to undermine republican support in red areas, I still don't see how it helps or makes a dent. Lujan would have been better off saying nothing.

[NastyRiffraff]

33. Thank you, bains

It's a goddamn shame that the question even needs to be asked, but after seeing what's being posted on a DEMOCRATIC site in the past week, apparently it does.

[TexasTowelie]

35. K&R.

[geek tragedy]

36. I think the party platform should not be changed in favor of banks, but I also

think there shouldn't be an anti-bank litmus test for Democrats running in pro-bank districts

[BainsBane]

38. and turning the clock back on abortion rights and civil rights?

Are you a proponents of that as well, in order to "win" of course? Given your insistence that a list of leaders--whom, coincidentally, just happen to be women and people of color--need to be banished from leadership to help our "brand," I would think opposition to equal rights would be part of that same rebranding you insist is necessary to appeal to the right sort of voter.

[geek tragedy]

39. Steny Hoyer is a woman of color?

For the umpteenth time, "we should be willing to pass anti-choice/pro-bank/terrible legislation" and "we should be willing to run candidates who can actually win in their districts" are two separate propositions.

Democrats have a very real, structural problem in terms of House of Representatives seats. No matter how much we run up the score in big cities, that won't help us win in rural exurban and suburban districts where not everyone supports taxpayer-funded abortions and BLM.

This dynamic also has twice now surfaced in presidential elections (2000 and 2016).


Without the ability to win Congress and the Presidency, the national Democratic party is utterly worthless.

If you agree with everyone in your coalition on all the major issues, you don't have a big enough coalition.

P.S. Nancy Pelosi won the Speakership of the House thanks to the votes of anti-choice Democrats.

[JHan]

42. women ( and men) on this board keep asking for the statistical evidence..

that sending a public signal of welcome to pro-life candidates as it pertains to reproductive choice will result in significant net gains - you , and others, have yet to provide that evidence.

Worse yet, in the face of understandable concerns women have about the impact of this, you condescend as if we don't understand that Democrats have gain the house and take control of state legislatures - well no shit, really?

We already have SIGNIFICANT data why dems lose, and it's not because Dems don't run enough pro-life candidates. A voter for whom pro-life ,as it relates to reproductive choice, is their singular issue will NOT vote Democrat.

So what is the point ? The DCCC will see a drop in funding as a result of an announcement which was unnecessary, that's some kind of winning strategy right?

so much winning right??

(And that's not even to get into the completely unnecessary explosion that Congressman Ray Lujan, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, set off when he said the DCCC would support anti-choice candidates as long as they "fit the districts" in which they're running. Realpolitik or no, it is not a smart thing to declare publicly that you're open to pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population—and of what is generally your entire margin of victory around the country—overboard. If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue. Where do they find these guys?) "

...... That's from Charlie Pierce and he's right. It's a dumbass strategy.

[geek tragedy]

43. What was Lujan supposed to say?

"If you don't agree with the national party on abortion, please vote Republican. We don't want you"

?

[JHan]

44. So there was some imperative here that he say something?

I'll tell you what he could have said if asked - " we are committed , as a party, to a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her right to make her own medical decisions" - end of.

[geek tragedy]

45. He was asked in an interview.

Litmus tests are for people who want to pursue the 18 State Strategy.

[JHan]

46. I typed in my post what he could have said, he's the political expert..

by now he should have a response for questions about what the democratic party stands for without pissing off the dem base. Is that too much to ask?

Litmus tests pertain to pragmatic reasoning.. I explained in my post why "pragmatism" in this area is a failure for democrats when it comes to choice.

Similarly, since environmental regulations and global warming are a sore point for a lot of folks in red states, if the DCCC made an announcement that climate change deniers are welcome in the party, it would be a good move I take it? Dems just might get more votes in Red States if they signaled a willingness to ease up on environmental protections and go full hog with coal - that would also be fine, in the interest of pragmatism correct?

[geek tragedy]

48. And then the follow-up question would be "so there

are litmus tests?"

[JHan]

49. Yeah I know, .......

Expecting the party leadership to reinforce the party's platform when commenting on these issues is a step too far. ..

I'll repeat Pierce since you're determined to avoid it:

"it is not a smart thing to declare publicly that you're open to pitching the privacy rights of 51 percent of the population—and of what is generally your entire margin of victory around the country—overboard. If an anti-choice Democrat wants to run, you let that candidate stand up and take the heat alone, instead of telegraphing to your most loyal voters that the party establishment is open for business on this issue. Where do they find these guys?) ""

[geek tragedy]

50. The party needs to broaden its appeal.

It's uncomfortable business but it's absolutely necessary. Preaching to the choir is a failing strategy.

The Indiana and North Dakota Democratic parties are going to run more culturally conservative candidates than the California or Vermont ones.

[JHan]

52. I already addressed those points,,

there is next to zero evidence this will net significant gains.

I already knew that there were Democrats who navigate a fine line in red districts however there are MANY issues that distinguish red states from blue- in fact a surer bet would be to fund candidates who hate environmental regulations , that's an even bigger deal for some in red states - yet you persist in ignoring that fact.

Lujan's statement was a political miscalculation especially at a time when reproductive rights are under attack because it affects how the party is perceived by the BASE. Lujan's statement won him no brownie points. The political pendulum swung one way last year, when it swings the other way, the Democratic Party cannot be perceived to be seen as wishy washy on issues that define what the party stands for... this is not rocket science.

[geek tragedy]

55. There are at least as many anti-choice Democrats

as there are black Democrats. We don't have the luxury of splitting our own coalition at this point.

(Incidentally there's also substantial overlap between those two groups.)

[JHan]

56. Uhm..

there's a significant proportion of black democrats ( for example ) who don't vote Dem because they feel the DCCC* hasn't funded pro-life candidates enough?

This is a major issue for the Dem base?

I know we live in the post modern age where facts are less important than conjured narratives, but your argument is that pro-choice positions have so significantly splintered the Democratic Base that an announcement was necessary from Lujan instead of him defending the national party platform?

Democrats who hold views on the pro-life vis a vis pro-choice spectrum have long made peace with the party's pro-choice stance as far as I know.

I don't know where you're getting this from.

[geek tragedy]

62. Lujan's job isn't to police the policy views of candidates.

That's the job of primary voters in the local districts.

People have an issue with more conservative Democrats running in more conservative Democrats? Then they should get off their asses and recruit, support and fund liberal primary candidates who can win in November.

[JHan]

63. It makes perfect sense to have a party official tout a position ..

that is the complete opposite of what is in the party's platform? https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029423012

I always knew there were pro-life democrats, I wasn't born yesterday.

Don't condense this into "people having problems with conservative Democrats" - The statement was NO LITMUS test, and now complaints about "ideological purity" when the issue here are rights. NO LITMUS tests means someone who wants to run as pro-life will get support from the party regardless of their position on the wide spectrum of pro-life beliefs as it pertains to abortions. How does that make sense given the party's platform? Like I said, it's Lujan's responsibility to be able to articulate himself better than this,

look at where it put Jerry Brown who gave some garbled defense of this which makes no sense " GOV. JERRY BROWN: Well, the litmus test should be intelligence, caring about, as Harry Truman or Roosevelt used to call it, the common man. We're not going to get everybody on board. And I'm sorry, but running in San Francisco is not like running in Tulare County or Modoc, California, much less Mobile, Alabama." - ....................... the "intelligent" position would be pro-choice, the "intelligent" position which cares for the common man ( and woman) is that women have access to healthcare , particularly reproductive health services..

It's not my fault, or the fault of DU'ers, that this has turned out to be an "unnecessary explosion"

[geek tragedy]

64. He's not touting, he's just saying the DCCC isn't going to withhold funds

based on any particular issue.

Someone who wants to run as anti-choice first has to persuade local Democrats to choose him/her in the primary election. Lujan is saying as a rule the DCCC won't second-guess the choice of primary voters.

[JHan]

65. I grant you it is not "touting" however it is a definitive statement...

that is the opposite of what is on the party's platform - which comes across as mealy mouthed and wishy washy. I thought the big problem last year was poor messaging?

"Won't withold funds" is the same as support, a party official has signaled that anti choicers will get funding from democrats who donated to the DCCC assuming the party will stand for what it claims to believe in..... yeah, makes perfect sense.

And yeah I'm fucking pissed that after all the effort of the resistance earlier this year, which came from women marching against this Trump administration, that I have to fucking fight this in the Democratic party as well at the time when I NEED the party to be strong.

[geek tragedy]

66. People donate to the DCCC to elect as many Democrats as possible to Congress.

That is its mission. Not to enforce party dogma on abortion, trade, climate change, health care, etc. Just to elect Democrats.

If people want their dollars to go 100% to pro-choice candidates, then NARAL, PPAF are the appropriate recipients of their donations.

[JHan]

67. don't be absurd. People vote & donate to Democrats because their views align with Democrats.

else they wouldn't want them in congress...

you're engaging in sophistry.

[geek tragedy]

69. No I'm not. People who donate to the DCCC understand that Democrats are heterodox

on a number of issues, including abortion. And gun control, and trade, etc.

If people are dead set on their donations only benefiting pro-choice candidates, then they ought to donate to NARAL.

[JHan]

70. They associate the Democratic party with a pro-choice position... because it's on..

the platform.

Where is the data with a breakdown of all the specific reasons people donate to the DCCC? I have donated to the DCCC, and it wasn't to fund anti-choicers... so there goes that theory.

And yeah, people will end up diverting their funds to NARAL - I wouldn't blame them either.

[geek tragedy]

71. Sure, and people also realize that, functionally,

an anti-choice Democrat is better than a pro-choice Republican when it comes to protecting the right to choose, since the most important vote for protecting abortion rights is the vote for House Speaker.

[BainsBane]

60. I can't help but notice

You compulsion to protect the man in charge of congressional campaigns in two consecutive sets of losses. I think that answers your question of why he made a point of throwing women's rights under the bus. He knew it would satisfy those who insist women remain " fresh" of face and out of power. Naturally Pelosi is to blame for Lujan failing to bring about wins. Women are always to blame for men's failings. Just ask Hillary.

He could have deflected. Politicians are expert at it. Being asked a question is an excuse for 4 year olds, not politicians. That's the best you can cime up with as an excuse, and you fancy yourself a political tactician.

You are welcome to put your case for a Democratic Party that stands for no one and nothing before the electorate. Tell them that winning means more than their lives. Tell them they should sacrifice their rights and their survival because a group of privileged white men need to win over another group of privileged white men. Tell them how much it matters that the D group of white men are the ones who plunge them into greater poverty and higher death rates. See how well that does. "




,

[geek tragedy]

61. Or maybe it's because the idea that party organs

instead of primary voters should be choosing our candidates is fucking crazy.

[wryter2000]

51. Thank you

My kindle won't allow me to cut and paste so I was unable to quote Charlie Pierce.

Actually, I am willing to be flexible on issues like taxes in order to get a majority in Congress. I'm not willing to compromise on basic human rights. And I don't think losing the support of women is a winning strategy, anyway.

[JHan]

53. what's incredible to me is that the constant complaint in some quarters is ..

that the Democratic party is republican lite - this is some bullshit of course.

But they're now okay with the party taking an official position on an issue that REALLY blurs the line between Democrats and Republicans. I'm all for pragmatism - but I am not seeing the benefit of this from a pragmatic perspective.

There are degrees to pro-life positions, but when a party official leaves it hanging in the air " there is NO litmus test regarding abortion rights" He shouldn't be surprised at the push back.

[NurseJackie]

37. Thank you.

[Iggo]

47. Nope. (n/t)

[Cary]

57. I am a little confused

I have a degree in economics and also used most of my electives for.graduate level history classes that I loved.

I am first and foremost an adherent of modern mainstream neoclassical synthesis, salt water economics. Think Professor Paul Krugman. Therefore I abhor concentration of wealth. The economy is just a device for maximizing everyone's ability to reach their own potential.

The philosophical underpinning for our nation, that "conservatives hate, is enlightened self interest. That is not Ayn Rand's rational selfishness thought virus. It is maximizing everyone's ability to reach their own potential.

I don't think tax cuts for billionaires maximizes everyone's ability to reach their own potential. Quite the contrary. But if the math and empirical evidence showed that it did maximize everyone's ability to reach their own potential then I would favor it.

[The Polack MSgt]

59. Kick and rec - nt

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Jonathan Banks?