"We're losing our damn minds" ~ James Carville

So... if the party can block the most popular candidate from getting the nomination... they can become a majoritarian party?

 

He is right? “sucking up to the global elites”

yes he I think is. As I said before, 2020 is more about all the craps and damaging things trump is doing than your own ideas.

 

It depends on:

1. If "most popular" means more than 30% of the party.
2. If he/she has any appeal outside of the party or even the primary electorate.

If you have one candidate that 30% of people love and everyone else hates, and another candidate than 10% of people love and 80% of people are OK with, then the latter probably is more effective at building a "majoritarian party", whatever that is.

For comparison, I'd point to Trump and what electing him did to the GOP all across the board. He was the most popular candidate within the GOP, but a large chunk of people can't stand him.

 

No accounting for Republicans. Somehow, if Sanders became the nominee and went on to win the presidency, I don't think all the Democrats would suddenly turn into sycophantic communists.

As for the party, I don't really care what they do. I don't see the Sanders threat (maybe because I plan to vote for him), but I'm not trying to gameplan the general election anyway. I'll cast my vote and then complain the next morning about the outcome.

 

I agree with that. But Carville talking about a majority party would mean the goal isn't just to win the Presidency (I assume) - it's to win state houses and the House/Senate/etc. My Trump example was in reference to 2018 and all the other special elections that had Republicans losing in places they hadn't lost in generations.

Sanders can win the Presidency. But he probably loses a lot of other elections for Dems this year and almost certainly in 2022.

 

Carville is right if you conflate the MSM and the Dem party like Trump voters like Dagger do.

The issue is the party doesn’t have a FoxNews that has 100% party message discipline. We have media that is driven by clicks or viewership drawn to outrage which Trump plays to his advantage.

However 2018 tells a different story about the party and who it speaks to even without the MSM.

Yes... I think Carville is right to say “we” got to get our act together but he’s talking mostly to the MSM who chases it’s tail. If like in 2018 the party through the nominee speak directly to voters and their own local issues, I think 2020 will be a good year. If the message is clogged with Trump tail chasing, yeah it could go bad.

Social and other digital media will be crucial in November. The MSM will do the party no favors.

 

I took that to mean a party that is capable of winning the Senate and the Presidency.

 

Nook aint the only one .... there's quite a few of us who want no part of a socialist - no matter the flavor.

70%GDP turned over to the gubmint .... they cant get healthcare right , cant fix immigration or gun laws and people are fine and dandy with giving the gubmint $100T in new spending over the course of his potential term(s). Damn who pays for it ....

Life is expensive enough as it is without a tax increase of the magnitude required to pay for all that.


I really don't think people comprehend the economic damage that would cause. Hell if Bernie wins the nomination , I expect an immediate and significant pullback in the market just on the fear of the possibility he wins the general.

I think these people live in Morey's "New Math" fantasy world where the luxury tax just don't matter.

 

He's right in the sense that Democrats don't play to win elections. They play to win votes. Those are two totally different things.

 

Lol, the gubmit is the only reason we have tcp/ip packet switching which is the backbone that makes the internet work.

Please ask yourself why we need to pay for the profit motives of entities who's only job is to pool people's money together to pay for medical bills. That is essentially what insurance is. It's just an entity that pools money to mitigate risk. Why the **** do you think it's necessary for that function to need a profit motive?

We still have private hospitals and private pharma companies in a single payer option. It's just we pool money using tax revenue with no profit motive meaning significantly lower overhead cost.

 

I saw Carville's rant and largely agree with him. As I've been saying this election will be won in the suburbs. Further to truly be effective the Democrats need to win back the Senate. To do so they need to win at least Maine, CO, AZ, IA and NC. Since this is a presidential year the presidential candidate will define the races. If the top of the ticket is running as a Socialist I'm not sure how well that will help winning AZ, IA and NC. MN and CO are already leaning heavily Dem and those two Senators are probably done.

My argument all along is we can't think about who will carry Harris and Travis County but who will carry Montgomery and Denton Counties.

 

lol You got it backward. Your type of Dems i.e the Ivy Leaguers, Clinton, Obama etc. win the presidency and by taking and appealing to the one percent with a nod to other highly educated folks in the 10% have done just that. They have won the Presidency off and on while steadily losing seats in the House and Senate and State Houses.

 

Seriously. Do posters like @Major not look into the electoral history of down ballot elections the past decade under the Obama/Clinton regime? Democrats are getting slaughtered. How do you think the GOP had such a stranglehold in Congress for the past decade? Not only that, the GOP has a stranglehold on state legislative elections also.

 

I largely think Trump has set up whoever is next in line for Presidency for failure. He used all leverage to mitigate a pending recession by manipulating the fed, the stupid tariff trade war, removing consumer protection laws and other regulations that weren't wasteful or just more red tape. Then there's foreign policy where our allies won't know to trust us because whoever comes after the winner in 2020 could be someone with a completely different vision of what America should be and could re-neg on previous agreements like Trump has with Iran, N. Korea, China and Russia. If you're an ally of ours, would you trust us even after Trump is gone?

I wouldn't. We got a President that bashes allies, sucks up to dictators and is a shitty person all around in general. And we got idiots that think that's good policy. People that some of you guys say are rational minded conservatives on this BBS that are just trolling because their guy got away with it.

Whoever gets elected, M4A or other progressive policies won't get passed, nor would it necessarily be the right time to enact it. All we can really hope for is someone that can fix the damage this administration has done to us as a global super power and mitigate the damage from a pending recession. Basically a clean up crew to fix up all the **** Trump has corrupted for the next President that comes after.

Whoever wins after Trump is just gonna be left with a government that's the equivalent of being the 8th dude in line waiting for their turn at a g*ngbang. Congrats. You get to **** the mess that's already been ****ed up. Here's your United States of America.

 

Maybe this year is not the time, but at some point the Democratic Party needs to draw a line between the socialists and core democrats. If true socialism becomes the norm, those suburban votes will be long gone and have only one choice. There's 30% of the party that is louder than the 70% of true democrats and the 30% delivers a disturbing message to folks that might be looking to leave the Republican Party. I'm not registered but if I was looking for an alternative to the Trump regime, the only viable option is Mayor Pete because he appears to be center. I would say Biden, but in the last few months he's appeared to me to be aging fast and acting erratic.

 

Obama and Clinton didn't lose House and Senate seats because they were moderate. They lost them because used their large majorities and pushed for legislation as far left as they could. 1994 was a direct reaction to the assault weapons ban. 2010 was a direct reaction to health care reform. Now imagine trying to go even further left - and worse yet, not even passing anything because you don't have support from your own party. So you get all the negatives without any of the progress.

 

Also here's my hot take. Whoever wins after Trump is gonna be the next Jimmy Carter. A one term President that will be blamed for a recession they shouldn't be held responsible for. I think that's what Romney is counting on come 2024. "We had Trump and we gave Dems a chance after him and look where we are now. A recession. It's time for true conservatism to surface and I will be the President to do that." Some bullshit like that conservatives can cling to like the idiots on here that say, "We gave Obama 8 years and looksie where we iz now." Whoever wins is gonna muddled by the mess they're stuck cleaning up.

 

Ahh the leftist Romney care plan.

I have a different take. The GOP is far more willing to cater towards their base which generates more turnout for down ballot elections where turnout is a severe problem.

It's hard to get exited for the establishment sector of the DNC for down ballot elections when the Obama administration was so passive against the entities that created the subprime mortgage crash.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1