General Discussion

Yavin4

(36,589 posts) Sun Dec 7, 2014, 09:32 PM Dec 2014

If Democratic candidates ran on progressive ideas on a consistent basis... [View all]

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.

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Democratic candidates ran on progressive ideas on a consistent basis... [View all] Yavin4 Dec 2014 OP

Exactly! Far too many democratic politicians are gutless and try to be more rightward than the RKP5637 Dec 2014 #1

It's not about guts. It's about who's writing their checks. RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #22

+1!!! We have to change our tactics! We have to focus solely on the root problem instead of Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #28

I totally agree that it's a systemic problem, and that we need publicly funded elections RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #30

Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing OWS, I just believe that we need a singleminded purpose Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #37

That's why the First Cause of anyone who wants to call themselves a Liberal, Volaris Dec 2014 #62

Yep, so right about who writes their checks. And, we have citizens united! It's a cruel joke on RKP5637 Dec 2014 #33

Unfortunately, you will never hear this from mainstream sources. Ergo, it isn't true. RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #36

Much like the good Germans were during WWII who ignored what was going on in their country until RKP5637 Dec 2014 #41

Yes. RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #43

Yep, the 'boiling frog' syndrome and it's been going on in this country for some time now, just RKP5637 Dec 2014 #50

Chill. We're just 'alarmists' RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #53

In short, only time will tell. n/t RKP5637 Dec 2014 #55

I totally agree. We have a 2-party system for a reason, actual choice. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #2

The hard truth Miigwech Dec 2014 #3

Bouzhou, Miigwech. Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #5

Hey friend Miigwech Dec 2014 #18

"but the elected ones need money, so they lie to us." RiverLover Dec 2014 #19

It is, in fact, not much of a democracy exists today. We go through the motions of a democracy, but RKP5637 Dec 2014 #34

"I think most Americans don't believe that the Dems are any different from the Repubs... liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #7

Exactly 99Forever Dec 2014 #4

Exactly. Liberals must fight ... ThePhilosopher04 Dec 2014 #6

Bingo!! Scuba Dec 2014 #8

She boxed herself into a place where she managed to be less genuine than McTurtle and TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #9

+1 nt MADem Dec 2014 #71

A very simplistic view joeglow3 Dec 2014 #10

You don't get it ... ThePhilosopher04 Dec 2014 #12

^^^^^That onecaliberal Dec 2014 #26

Politics is not really driven by ideas though YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #139

In the 70s, we had very progressive senators in red states Yavin4 Dec 2014 #13

For every one you name, there are scores who got their asses handed to the joeglow3 Dec 2014 #21

Those states weren't "red" in the seventies. Red states are controlled by the GOP. MADem Dec 2014 #29

yup, just look at Nixon and REagan in California JI7 Dec 2014 #49

And you advocate total surrender to the right Scootaloo Dec 2014 #83

That's the second time, at least, in this thread where you've mischaracterized my MADem Dec 2014 #87

It's not a mischaracterization at all Scootaloo Dec 2014 #90

I'm not saying that at all. Stop putting words in my mouth -- you ALWAYS get it wrong. MADem Dec 2014 #120

You do it in thread after thread AgingAmerican Dec 2014 #97

I do nothing of the sort. If you can't respond to debate with anything besides personal MADem Dec 2014 #116

How far to the right will you go to "Win"? Scootaloo Dec 2014 #78

The true power lies in holding the majority joeglow3 Dec 2014 #93

We have tried this strategy AgingAmerican Dec 2014 #98

Never said it should be a nationwide strategy. I advocated a state by state strategy joeglow3 Dec 2014 #102

The exact same way they've gone in every midterm since the late 1800s NYC Liberal Dec 2014 #106

A congress full of conservatives is a congress full of conservatives Scootaloo Dec 2014 #111

Got us one big fucking step closer to health reform joeglow3 Dec 2014 #113

No, it'll cost us that reform though Scootaloo Dec 2014 #114

In Nebraska, I hold my nose and vote for the Democrat joeglow3 Dec 2014 #121

How's that working out for you? Scootaloo Dec 2014 #124

Wrong state joeglow3 Dec 2014 #125

*headthunk* Holy shit, big derp on my part Scootaloo Dec 2014 #129

there's one huge trouble hfojvt Dec 2014 #103

You seriously think that's a winning strategy? To diss the industry that puts food on MADem Dec 2014 #11

Clean coal is a myth think Dec 2014 #14

From one of the sources on your very list, there.... (uh oh...) MADem Dec 2014 #23

You're citing the American Coal Council as a legitimate source??? Bwahahaha!!!! n/t RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #24

You're not bothering to read what I wrote, OR even following the thread? Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!! MADem Dec 2014 #31

No embarrassment here. I read the posts RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #32

You clearly didn't comprehend them too well if you didn't take the obvious point I was making. MADem Dec 2014 #38

You don't understand how search engines (and PR firms) work RufusTFirefly Dec 2014 #40

No, no, no--that's not how it rolls. It's not my job to peck through the shit looking for corn. MADem Dec 2014 #47

Clean coal doesn't exist AgingAmerican Dec 2014 #99

Why don't you try reading a conversation in FULL context, instead of jumping in with a MADem Dec 2014 #109

Clean coal does not exist AgingAmerican Dec 2014 #133

The technology is expensive. MADem Dec 2014 #134

At one point cotton put food on the table. How long did that last? Yavin4 Dec 2014 #15

No one dissed cotton while it was king, did they? MADem Dec 2014 #20

What a opportunist viewpoint you have. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #79

Opportunist my ass. And what a mischaracterization of my views, too. I live in the real world. MADem Dec 2014 #86

Yes, opportunist Scootaloo Dec 2014 #91

There's an opportunist in the conversation, but it isn't me. nt MADem Dec 2014 #110

I'm not the one advocating surrendering to the republicans. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #112

Neither am I--but you persist in characterizing me in that fashion to be rude and disruptive. MADem Dec 2014 #117

Yes, you absolutely are Scootaloo Dec 2014 #122

No one is "telling" you anything--you just can't hold up your side in debate, so instead of arguing MADem Dec 2014 #128

We agree on something Scootaloo Dec 2014 #131

Not sure what the point was linking to your own post, but whatever. MADem Dec 2014 #132

It was supposed to link to the OP for the whole thread. Whoops Scootaloo Dec 2014 #135

Who is saying "liberals can't win?" MADem Dec 2014 #136

You're losing your joust against your own straw man, and that's sad. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #138

You are a short term thinker. Yavin4 Dec 2014 #96

No, I am not, but that sounded a bit like a put-down...I am a practical thinker who thinks that it MADem Dec 2014 #130

I thought Grimes ran on "clean coal"...and lost. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #16

She ran from that guy that some here call a rightwinger, and lost. MADem Dec 2014 #17

IMO she ran aspirant Dec 2014 #25

she also ran into the arms of Elizabeth Warren and still lost JI7 Dec 2014 #48

Ouch--that's an inconvenient truth, right there.... MADem Dec 2014 #54

The EW that's supporting HRC as of now? aspirant Dec 2014 #64

No, she ran away from Obama, and she was insincere. It had nothing to do with "Bill and Hillary and MADem Dec 2014 #52

" had nothing to do with Bill and Hillary" aspirant Dec 2014 #61

Yeah, right--I'll provide those just as soon as you provide all of your links to back up the MADem Dec 2014 #63

Switcheroo doesn't work aspirant Dec 2014 #65

You jumped in at post 25, and if you want links, you've got to provide yours first. MADem Dec 2014 #70

Is this a joke? aspirant Dec 2014 #75

You probably know the answer to that question, too. MADem Dec 2014 #76

IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO aspirant Dec 2014 #80

You need more help than I or anyone here can give you. MADem Dec 2014 #88

The MAD...em guy aspirant Dec 2014 #89

IMO maybe some of her campaign funding aspirant Dec 2014 #67

Well, come up with that link, why don't you? Did she use that Wall Street money to pay Warren's MADem Dec 2014 #68

Prove your facts or expect laughter aspirant Dec 2014 #73

I've already done that. MADem Dec 2014 #74

I stand tall aspirant Dec 2014 #77

I agree, her ad where she is blasting shit with a shotgun Rex Dec 2014 #123

I wish they'd run John Oliver's ad towards the END of the campaign.... MADem Dec 2014 #127

Dems figure Kentucky = coal.... Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2014 #27

This is the Citizens United era SHRED Dec 2014 #35

That would make us a "four corners" regional party and lock us out of the White House Recursion Dec 2014 #39

Do moderates and conservatives reliably outnumber aspirant Dec 2014 #51

We aren't a mirror image of the Republican party Recursion Dec 2014 #58

Are liberals and progressives the same? aspirant Dec 2014 #69

Good question. It's a term with a lot of baggage Recursion Dec 2014 #72

not all 18-22 year olds want the same thing, if you go by state, voting patterns are not JI7 Dec 2014 #42

All 18-22 year olds want a future Yavin4 Dec 2014 #95

chris christie and rand paul is popular among young people , and what you say JI7 Dec 2014 #108

did any Candidate win California running on Defense Cuts when that was a big part of the state JI7 Dec 2014 #44

There's no need for standards Scootaloo Dec 2014 #81

i don't view politics as a religion, it's why i can still say FDR was a good president even though JI7 Dec 2014 #82

No, you see it as a team sport Scootaloo Dec 2014 #84

so do you think FDR should not be seen as a positive part of the democratic Party ? JI7 Dec 2014 #85

did any candidate win running against Ethanol in Iowa ? JI7 Dec 2014 #45

even Ted Kennedy opposed Wind Farms JI7 Dec 2014 #46

He didn't want to have to see them from his porch, is why. MADem Dec 2014 #57

Not all of them, just the ones near his house (nt) Recursion Dec 2014 #59

The fact is - both Parties are enslaved by Corporations who have the Power truedelphi Dec 2014 #56

It sounds good but we ned to read the reasons for discontent. Jim Beard Dec 2014 #60

Running on progressive ideas would offend ther Capitalist donors. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #66

Lots of folks here seem to confuse the way they wish things would be with how they are stevenleser Dec 2014 #92

Because the Clinton experiment in triangulation has worked out well for democrats? Exultant Democracy Dec 2014 #101

LOL. Only if you confuse buzzwords with arguments and forget several important facts stevenleser Dec 2014 #104

There have only been two good election cycles for democrats since Clinton got into office, Exultant Democracy Dec 2014 #107

I think many people oversimplify Nevernose Dec 2014 #137

They would run on progressive ideas workinclasszero Dec 2014 #94

A few folks here still think running DINO's is a winning strategy! B Calm Dec 2014 #100

It is a winning strategy... for them. Those people are called "Republicans" Scootaloo Dec 2014 #115

Why would someone today in KY who works in the coal industry vote for someone who ran against big still_one Dec 2014 #105

Because big coal jobs are going away due to natural gas and cheap oil Yavin4 Dec 2014 #119

If moderates ran on moderate ideas, we would get back the core group of voters. Rex Dec 2014 #118

I doubt running against coal would have helped Grimes but it would have been interesting to hrmjustin Dec 2014 #126