Way too extreme': Some Democrats warn against moving left

[ducks]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/way-too-extreme-democrats-warn-090428922.html

[boutons_deux]

:lol

[baseline bum]

Oh wow I'm supposed to listen to a bunch of Trump voters who said center-right Hillary Clinton was too far to the left for them? What a disaster that would be if the Democrats focus on courting that 30% that will never leave Trump.

[boutons_deux]

no warning about the oligarchy financing the extreme right wing insanity, for 45 years, through their Repug whores, Federal and state?

30% of Repug voters support autocracy over democracy, obviously assuming it would be right wing autocrat.

[RD2191]

:lol

[hater]

:lmao most so called democrats who support Hillary or bidet or Warren are actually to the right of center

Of course these neocons would warn of going left :lmao

[DMC]

What it will do (moving far left) is stretch the dem voter base even thinner. Some more middle of the road types might vote across the isle instead of that far left.

[hater]

What it will do (moving far left) is stretch the dem voter base even thinner. Some more middle of the road types might vote across the isle instead of that far left.

Disagree. Similar thing happened with repubs and tea oarty/trump

What actually happened is most repuvs got on board and voted for far right

Same thing would happen for dems

It actually did happen for dems a few years ago w Obama. All they need is a true left leader that rallies the base. But that won't happen if dinasours like Pelosi shimmer keep cock blocking

[DMC]

Disagree. Similar thing happened with repubs and tea oarty/trump

What actually happened is most repuvs got on board and voted for far right

Same thing would happen for dems

I don't think so. The US is mostly fiscally conservative but liberal on human rights... mostly. You still have a large "muh sky daddy" population who thinks in terms of universal divine edict, regardless of their purported political stance. Both sides of the isle pander to this large base of idiots, so they know those people won't just abandon all their Sunday school brain washing and vote to kill the babies and abandon the bill of rights. The twitter folks might, but that's a very small percentage of the voter base.

[hater]

I don't think so. The US is mostly fiscally conservative but liberal on human rights... mostly. You still have a large "muh sky daddy" population who thinks in terms of universal divine edict, regardless of their purported political stance. Both sides of the isle pander to this large base of idiots, so they know those people won't just abandon all their Sunday school brain washing and vote to kill the babies and abandon the bill of rights. The twitter folks might, but that's a very small percentage of the voter base.

Disagree. Obama and now Bernie are living proof many Americans are hungry for socialism. Let's not forget only reason Bernie did not win the nomination was because DNC cheated

Had Bernie won the nomination as he should rightfully should have all bets are off whether Bernie or Trump would have won.

[baseline bum]

What it will do (moving far left) is stretch the dem voter base even thinner. Some more middle of the road types might vote across the isle instead of that far left.

Yeah that worked great with Clinton.

[Spurminator]

No "middle of the road" Democrat is going to vote for Donald Trump. The risk is that they simply don't vote. That's Democrats' real weakness. Republicans/conservatives will always rally and vote for the Republican choice, even if they hate him, because they will always hate liberals more. (It doesn't hurt that in rural areas, election day is one of the more exciting semiannual community activities and takes 5 minutes as opposed to the hours it takes to vote in some urban areas.)

Democrats have to be "excited" by their candidate, and the idea that not voting might put someone like Donald Trump back in the White House isn't enough for them.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah that worked great with Clinton.

Hillary was and is, like the entire BigMoney Dem establishment, center right, not at all "too far left"

[DMC]

Yeah that worked great with Clinton.

Not sure which Clinton you're referring to, but Hillary won her primary. Fucking Bernie over cost her a few votes but she was projected to win. Her loss wasn't because she wasn't left far enough. Even now with all these far left folks in the news, you have an old white male, middle of the road compared to the aforementioned, as a frontrunner in an election when he didn't do anything between 2016 and now. That should indicate that the American people aren't ready for the far left agenda.

[DMC]

No "middle of the road" Democrat is going to vote for Donald Trump. The risk is that they simply don't vote. That's Democrats' real weakness. Republicans/conservatives will always rally and vote for the Republican choice, even if they hate him, because they will always hate liberals more. (It doesn't hurt that in rural areas, election day is one of the more exciting semiannual community activities and takes 5 minutes as opposed to the hours it takes to vote in some urban areas.)

Democrats have to be "excited" by their candidate, and the idea that not voting might put someone like Donald Trump back in the White House isn't enough for them.

As you say, not voting for one is a vote for the other. These rural areas you speak of make up the majority of the country. They get ignored by the press and by politicians most of the time because their individual stories don't sell a lot of copy.

[DMC]

Disagree. Obama and now Bernie are living proof many Americans are hungry for socialism. Let's not forget only reason Bernie did not win the nomination was because DNC cheated

Had Bernie won the nomination as he should rightfully should have all bets are off whether Bernie or Trump would have won.

Americans are not hungry for socialism. If they were they'd have it. They are hungry for cheeseburgers, pizza, guns and alcohol. You can find all of these on damn near every street in anycity USA.

[TheGreatYacht]

What it will do (moving far left) is stretch the dem voter base even thinner. Some more middle of the road types might vote across the isle instead of that far left.

Stupidest comment on this thread. Rule #1: NEVER ABANDON YOUR BASE.

TBH don't know if ppl like you are this stupid or you'll just like to push Democrats to the right for strategic reasons cuz you know that will make them more shitty and improves the chances of Repugs winning.

Obama was a Republican and your side still called him a "commie" :lol

[TheGreatYacht]

Not sure which Clinton you're referring to, but Hillary won her primary. Fucking Bernie over cost her a few votes but she was projected to win. Her loss wasn't because she wasn't left far enough. Even now with all these far left folks in the news, you have an old white male, middle of the road compared to the aforementioned, as a frontrunner in an election when he didn't do anything between 2016 and now. That should indicate that the American people aren't ready for the far left agenda.

Fucking retard :lmao

[TheGreatYacht]

Stupidest comment on this thread. Rule #1: NEVER ABANDON YOUR BASE.

TBH don't know if ppl like you are this stupud or you'll just like to push Democrats to the right for strategic reasons cuz you know that will make them more shitty and improves the chances of Repugs winning.

Obama was a Republican and your side still called him a "commie" :lol


https://youtu.be/aGpip7D0yvs



:wow

A far right-wing lunatic like Joe Manchin (or Killary) can run as a Democrat and you still wouldn't vote for him cuz all your side cares about is unborn fetuses. Your side would still call him a commie. So who gives a shit what loyal lifetime Republican voters want. People that are struggling and living paycheck to paycheck in the rust belt is what matters. Those people will vote Democrat or Republican based on who's gonna give them jobs and help them pay their insulin.

[TheGreatYacht]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/way-too-extreme-democrats-warn-090428922.html

Those corporate Democrats should abandon the party and go join the Republicans. Let the progressives take over so we can have some resistance to the Republicans. Allow the Democrats to shift the Overton window back to the left and revive the FDR democratic socialist type of Dems :tu

[baseline bum]

Not sure which Clinton you're referring to, but Hillary won her primary. Fucking Bernie over cost her a few votes but she was projected to win. Her loss wasn't because she wasn't left far enough. Even now with all these far left folks in the news, you have an old white male, middle of the road compared to the aforementioned, as a frontrunner in an election when he didn't do anything between 2016 and now. That should indicate that the American people aren't ready for the far left agenda.

Meh bullshit. She lost because she was a center right corporate shill who excited no one from her base. Reck is the only person on this forum who actually liked her in 2016. When Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 with fewer votes than Romney had losing Wisconsin in 2012 that pretty clearly tells how enthusiastic people were for her centrist crap. Things like Medicare For All aren't far left by any definition other than compared to the Washington status quo no matter how much you and the right try to paint it that way. I don't really care if the Democrat appeals to you since you're going to vote for the Republican anyways. You're not the person the Democrats need to target.

[Reck]

Meh bullshit. She lost because she was a center right corporate shill who excited no one from her base. Reck (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412) is the only person on this forum who actually liked her in 2016. When Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 with fewer votes than Romney had losing Wisconsin in 2012 that pretty clearly tells how enthusiastic people were for her centrist crap. Things like Medicare For All aren't far left by any definition other than compared to the Washington status quo no matter how much you and the right try to paint it that way. I don't really care if the Democrat appeals to you since you're going to vote for the Republican anyways. You're not the person the Democrats need to target.

Yeah I'll fess up to "liking" her when you find a post of mine that indicates such.

In terms of agreeing which candidate I found more realistic, sure Hillary had more grounded policies than Bernie. If that is your measure of liking someone then I guess.

Did you vote for Bernie or Hillary? If you voted for her then you're in the same vote as me.

EDIT:

BTW, I did not vote in the primary which seems to be the argument you and DMC are having so feel free to exclude me from this conversation.

[baseline bum]

Yeah I'll fess up to "liking" her when you find a post of mine that indicates such.

In terms of agreeing which candidate I found more realistic, sure Hillary had more grounded policies than Bernie. If that is your measure of liking someone then I guess.

Did you vote for Bernie or Hillary? If you voted for her then you're in the same vote as me.

I voted Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general.

What exactly were Clinton's grounded policies? No fly zone in Syria?

[Reck]

I voted Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general.

See my edit in post above yours.

[baseline bum]

BTW, I did not vote in the primary which seems to be the argument you and DMC are having so feel free to exclude me from this conversation.

I was talking about the general election where lots of Democrat voters stayed home because of a shit center-right candidate.

[TheGreatYacht]

I was talking about the general election where lots of Democrat voters stayed home because of a shit center-right candidate.

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and then stayed home for Killary Clinton. I will do the same as will all my friends and family if Elizabeth Warren beats Bernie. I don't vote out of fear. These politicians have to earn my vote. If Warren wins the primaries I'm not gonna vote for a shill.

[spurraider21]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and then stayed home for Killary Clinton. I will do the same as will all my friends and family if Elizabeth Warren beats Bernie. I don't vote out of fear. These politicians have to earn my vote. If Warren wins the primaries I'm not gonna vote for a shill.
:tu good on you for helping trump get elected

[koriwhat]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and then stayed home for Killary Clinton. I will do the same as will all my friends and family if Elizabeth Warren beats Bernie. I don't vote out of fear. These politicians have to earn my vote. If Warren wins the primaries I'm not gonna vote for a shill.

you still push bernout and voted for him prior but you won't vote for a shill... :lmao

[koriwhat]

:tu good on you for helping trump get elected

here here :tu

[TheGreatYacht]

:tu good on you for helping trump get elected

Blame your Democrat party for shoving Hillary down our throats...worst candidate of all time so bad that she couldn't defeat Donald Trump :lol

[koriwhat]

Blame your Democrat party for shoving Hillary down our throats...worst candidate of all time so bad that she couldn't defeat Donald Trump :lol

what was bernie's excuse losing out to hillary? i know i know he got robbed like he wants to rob us all with socialism.

[TheGreatYacht]

what was bernie's excuse losing out to hillary? i know i know he got robbed like he wants to rob us all with socialism.

You should be very thankful to the corruption Gods that Bernie got cheated. He would've obliterated daddy Trump. He was the real MAGA.

[koriwhat]

You should be very thankful to the corruption Gods that Bernie got cheated. He would've obliterated daddy Trump. He was the real MAGA.

he would've obliterated us all tbh. you're a very useful pawn who props up a zionist who lies about the 1% when he's right up there with them cash cows he bitches about so often. you're just gullible and we see it daily with your YT spam you post here. :tu

[Reck]

Blame your Democrat party for shoving Hillary down our throats...worst candidate of all time so bad that she couldn't defeat Donald Trump :lol

And now you had a field of 20+ democrats to choose from and Bernie still couldn't do shit to become relevant.

[Psychopav Chump]

Present

[Winehole23]

I was talking about the general election where lots of Democrat voters stayed home because of a shit center-right candidate.Yep. DJT won with fewer voters than Romney in 2012.

The conventional wisdom is often neither.

[spurraider21]

Blame your Democrat party for shoving Hillary down our throats...worst candidate of all time so bad that she couldn't defeat Donald Trump :lol
im not a registered democrat, and agree that she was about the worst case scenario as a candidate. i said as much during the election.

but its laughable to suggest that she'd to more long term damage than trump. you can look to gorsuch and kavanuaghty as exhibits A and B, our inaction towards climate change as exhibit C (not that hillary would have done a lot there, but she wouldn't have moronically withdrawn from the paris accord)

[hater]

Americans are not hungry for socialism. If they were they'd have it. They are hungry for cheeseburgers, pizza, guns and alcohol. You can find all of these on damn near every street in anycity USA.

At least 30 % of Americans are hungry for socialism. Similar numbers as Americans hungry for right-wing nationalism. All it takes is bringin in the 20 % that are left center or right center

[hater]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries and then stayed home for Killary Clinton. I will do the same as will all my friends and family if Elizabeth Warren beats Bernie. I don't vote out of fear. These politicians have to earn my vote. If Warren wins the primaries I'm not gonna vote for a shill.

Same here

[hater]

:tu good on you for helping trump get elected

LOL the vote against Trump shillaritard failed strategy

[koriwhat]

im not a registered democrat, and agree that she was about the worst case scenario as a candidate. i said as much during the election.

but its laughable to suggest that she'd to more long term damage than trump. you can look to gorsuch and kavanuaghty as exhibits A and B, our inaction towards climate change as exhibit C (not that hillary would have done a lot there, but she wouldn't have moronically withdrawn from the paris accord)

lol the paris climate accord where not even china is held responsible? :lmao

long term damage because of fake news against specialK? you're scared of a guy, gorsuch, who votes with yall?

:lmao

[spurraider21]

LOL the vote against Trump shillaritard failed strategy
huh? what better strategy is there to defeating trump than voting for his opponent?

[spurraider21]

lol the paris climate accord where not even china is held responsible? :lmao

long term damage because of fake news against specialK? you're scared of a guy, gorsuch, who votes with yall?

:lmao
im not even talking about kavanaugh' allegations.

but stealing garland's seat and giving it to gorsuch was a horrible precedent to set, and yeah, having gorsuch and kavanaugh on the bench is going to lead to a lot of shitty rulings over the years that are going to do more damage to the country than a cunt like hillary ever would

[koriwhat]

im not even talking about kavanaugh' allegations.

but stealing garland's seat and giving it to gorsuch was a horrible precedent to set, and yeah, having gorsuch and kavanaugh on the bench is going to lead to a lot of shitty rulings over the years that are going to do more damage to the country than a cunt like hillary ever would

doubt it but that's the lunacy your side pushes.

[spurraider21]

here here :tu
"not a trumper" koritwat oddly happy about trump having been elected

[TheGreatYacht]

"not a trumper" koritwat oddly happy about trump having been elected

He's a Zionist. He probably wanted someone like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio

https://youtu.be/pk9-2c1HyWE

[koriwhat]

"not a trumper" koritwat oddly happy about trump having been elected

you're just upset i'm no pussy like yourself. it's true and the truth hurts from what i can see. stay bitter you progressive retard. :tu

[koriwhat]

He's a Zionist. He probably wanted someone like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio

you're a loser who thinks you know everything there is to do with "zionism" which is quite comical.

the funniest of all is you trying to tie me to the jew community of which i've never ever been a part of due to the fact that i'm not a jew. i have nothing to do with that community yet you keep pretending as if i do kind of how you pretend the jews are coming for us all. you're quite delusional tbh.

[spurraider21]

you're a loser who thinks you know everything there is to do with "zionism" which is quite comical.

the funniest of all is you trying to tie me to the jew community of which i've never ever been a part of due to the fact that i'm not a jew. i have nothing to do with that community yet you keep pretending as if i do kind of how you pretend the jews are coming for us all. you're quite delusional tbh.
you mean the jewmunnity

[koriwhat]

you mean the jewmunnity

this TGY is becoming one of the oddest around here on ST and one of the most radicalized it seems.

[hater]

huh? what better strategy is there to defeating trump than voting for his opponent?

That same strategy was obliterated in 2016

[Spurminator]

At least 30 % of Americans are hungry for socialism. Similar numbers as Americans hungry for right-wing nationalism. All it takes is bringin in the 20 % that are left center or right center


:lmao only 37% of Americans want to impeach :lmao

hater: schizophrenic, or bad with percentages?




:lmao
:lmao

[hater]

hater: schizophrenic, or bad with percentages?




:lmao
:lmao

Wtf are you on PCP?

How can you compare a national presidential election to an opinion poll???

:lmao holy shit

[Spurminator]

Wtf are you on PCP?

How can you compare a national presidential election to an opinion poll???

:lmao holy shit

I'm comparing two posts by the same person, on the same day.

You: "Democrats are dumb to impeach because only 37% of Americans support impeachment."

Also you: "Democrats can run on socialism because 30% of Americans support socialism."

[Capt Bringdown]

Today's neolib dims are to the right of Richard Nixon


Our Last Liberal President -- > (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/08/04/our-last-liberal-president/cec55416-5f85-4872-9fde-2a93eaa49b88/)

And an even harder truth must by now be evident to the most dreamy of Democratic liberals: The last liberal American president was not a Democrat. The last liberal American president turns out to have been Richard M. Nixon.

First, let us define liberalism as the belief that government can be the national instrument of democracy, capable of promoting economic and social justice.

Next, let us look at the words of the only American president ever to champion a federally guaranteed minimum income of $5,500 for every family with dependent children. That plan, which required job training for parents and child care for children, was objected to by some because it provided far less for the rich states than the poor states.

Nixon responded: "We reject that argument because we are one country. Consider the name of this nation: the United States of America. We establish minimum national standards because we are united. We encourage local supplements because we are a federation of states. And we care for the unfortunate because this is America."

One American president made his "No. 1 domestic priority" a national health plan that would have required employers to offer insurance with standard benefits to all their employees. Dental care, mental health care and a free choice of doctors and hospitals were included. And after three years, employers (in what is now globally condemned as "employer mandate") would be required to pay 75 percent of the insurance premiums.

[pgardn]

I'm comparing two posts by the same person, on the same day.

You: "Democrats are dumb to impeach because only 37% of Americans support impeachment."

Also you: "Democrats can run on socialism because 30% of Americans support socialism."

Hater the dolt.
Most confused poster on this site.

[Spurminator]

Hater the dolt.
Most confused poster on this site.

He ain't mixed up, he's just bored.

[pgardn]

He ain't mixed up, he's just bored.

Hes not bored with stupidity.
He eats if for breakfast.

[AaronY]

Nixon started the EPA and passed several expansive amendments to the voting rights act in 1970 including lowering the voting age to 18 iirc. Also, Republicans were overwhelmingly pro-abortion back then (it was looked at a limited government thing) so if you have any understand of history saying someone is similar in the political spectrum policy wise to early 1970s republicans is not really some massive insult. Youre just projecting that you have no understanding of America history at all.

Nixon obv was a racist POS based on the tapes (he was for abortion in cases of rape and if a black married a white iirc lol) and paranoid but policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican

[TheGreatYacht]

Nixon started the EPA and passed several expansive amendments to the voting rights act in 1970 including lowering the voting age to 18 iirc. Also, Republicans were overwhelmingly pro-abortion back then (it was looked at a limited government thing) so if you have any understand of history saying someone is similar in the political spectrum policy wise to early 1970s republicans is not really some massive insult. Youre just projecting that you have no understanding of America history at all.

Nixon obv was a racist POS based on the tapes (he was for abortion in cases of rape and if a black married a white iirc lol) and paranoid but policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican

So Nixon was a racist POS like Ronald Reagan?

[AaronY]

So Nixon was a racist POS like Ronald Reagan?

Do you think I'm pro-Reagan or something? Lol

[TheGreatYacht]

I'm just saying...Reagan is like the Godfather of conservatism/Republicanism.

[Spurminator]

I'm just saying...Reagan is like the Godfather of conservatism/Republicanism.

Not anymore, too pro-immigration.

[ElNono]

I'm just saying...Reagan is like the Godfather of conservatism/Republicanism.

Reagan would be a RINO today, tbh... he actually did amnesty illegals

[ducks]

Blame your Democrat party for shoving Hillary down our throats...worst candidate of all time so bad that she couldn't defeat Donald Trump :lol

None running can not just like clinton

[spurraider21]

Reagan would be a RINO today, tbh... he actually did amnesty illegals
He’d basically be Hillary tbh

[Psychopav Chump]

Present

Not Present.

[Spurminator]

As you say, not voting for one is a vote for the other. These rural areas you speak of make up the majority of the country. They get ignored by the press and by politicians most of the time because their individual stories don't sell a lot of copy.

Might want to check the numbers on that claim, hoss.

[hater]

I'm comparing two posts by the same person, on the same day.

You: "Democrats are dumb to impeach because only 37% of Americans support impeachment."

Also you: "Democrats can run on socialism because 30% of Americans support socialism."

Both true and correct statements. I think you are just letting numbers confuse you. Democrats already won twice on socialism via Obama. Don't let the numbers confuse you just because they are both on 30s doesn't mean they correlate

[AaronY]

Now that I think of it Nixon also signed OSHA into law too iirc

[DMC]

Stupidest comment on this thread. Rule #1: NEVER ABANDON YOUR BASE.

TBH don't know if ppl like you are this stupid or you'll just like to push Democrats to the right for strategic reasons cuz you know that will make them more shitty and improves the chances of Repugs winning.

Obama was a Republican and your side still called him a "commie" :lol

No you fucking clown, I was talking about voters switching sides, not politicians.

[Spurtacular]

Not Present.

:rollin

[spurraider21]

Might want to check the numbers on that claim, hoss.
he's referring to the square mileage tbh

[DMC]

Might want to check the numbers on that claim, hoss.

Are you saying the majority of the country is urban?

[DMC]

he's referring to the square mileage tbh

I am actually referring to the number of individual townships and small rural areas that actually get out to vote. If you want to ignore those people, go ahead, make that mistake again.

States are full of small towns and villages that have stories like steel mills closing and such, and these don't seem to matter as much because those affected aren't part of a protected class, most of the time, and because the town itself is individually insignificant statistically. It doesn't sell copy to talk about Joe Bob's job going away. Not sensational enough. Big media likes to report on what sells copy, and people read what concerns them and their own areas.

[spurraider21]

I am actually referring to the number of individual townships and small rural areas that actually get out to vote. If you want to ignore those people, go ahead, make that mistake again.
its not the townships that vote, or counties that vote. it's people. there are all those maps of how trump won some absurd percentage of counties, but its the individual votes that represent the will of the people. one person, one vote, etc.

its not about ignoring people from those towns. its about attributing the right amount of weight, which should be done by population. a rural town with a population of 350 isn't going to have equal say as the town next door with 4,000 people. nor should it.


States are full of small towns and villages that have stories like steel mills closing and such, and these don't seem to matter as much because those affected aren't part of a protected class, most of the time, and because the town itself is individually insignificant statistically. It doesn't sell copy to talk about Joe Bob's job going away. Not sensational enough. Big media likes to report on what sells copy, and people read what concerns them and their own areas.
i dont deny that those towns have stories, and those people's struggles are every bit as real as somebody from a bigger city. sensationalism isn't the factor, either. its just a matter of assigning weight to individuals, not some artificial lines on where a town/city/county ends

[DMC]

its not the townships that vote, or counties that vote. it's people. there are all those maps of how trump won some absurd percentage of counties, but its the individual votes that represent the will of the people. one person, one vote, etc.

its not about ignoring people from those towns. its about attributing the right amount of weight, which should be done by population. a rural town with a population of 350 isn't going to have equal say as the town next door with 4,000 people. nor should it.


It's about ignoring the plight of the towns, as I said already, and the fact that they are often swayed by populists. Going too far left scares them into a "Revelations is right" mindset.


i dont deny that those towns have stories, and those people's struggles are every bit as real as somebody from a bigger city. sensationalism isn't the factor, either. its just a matter of assigning weight to individuals, not some artificial lines on where a town/city/county ends
You didn't say anything I didn't already say. It's about selling the most copies of a story, these days that's clicks, and Joe Bob's friends and relatives aren't going to get them there but multiply Joe Bob x all the rural dwellers in the US and you have a formidable group who's voice is often so silent that polls won't capture it.

[spurraider21]

It's about ignoring the plight of the towns, as I said already, and the fact that they are often swayed by populists. Going too far left scares them into a "Revelations is right" mindset.

You didn't say anything I didn't already say. It's about selling the most copies of a story, these days that's clicks, and Joe Bob's friends and relatives aren't going to get them there but multiply Joe Bob x all the rural dwellers in the US and you have a formidable group who's voice is often so silent that polls won't capture it.
towns dont vote. the individuals do

[ElNono]

but multiply Joe Bob x all the rural dwellers in the US and you have a formidable group who's voice is often so silent that polls won't capture it.

Not sure sure about that. While rural population covers about 97% of the nation, it only accounts for less than 20% of the population (roughly 60 million people).

Of those, you have to subtract ineligible voters (children, etc), plus their turnout numbers which are actually no different than those of non-rural voters.

(Census bureau numbers here: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html)

This can probably be calculated, but their incidence over a federal election is likely to be roughly 20% also. If you split their voting into 70%-30% between parties (IIRC, last presidential election was 66% GOP vs 34% Dem), that would be a 24 million vote advantage.

Now, 138 million people voted in the last presidential election, so the incidence of those 24 million votes would be roughly 17%. It's likely no slouch on highly competitive states, but overall, I don't know I would really call it formidable.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that while the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace.

[boutons_deux]

"the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace."

bullshit

Rural Depopulation in a Rapidly Urbanizing America

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation (https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation)

Rural America has been depopulating for 100+ years, matching urbanization.

In rural counties, there's no god jobs, no future, poor education, health care unavailable nearby, etc.

[Spurminator]

Are you saying the majority of the country is urban?

By a mile.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html


Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population.

[Winehole23]

By a mile.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.htmlDMC seems to be upholding the sacred democratic principle of one acre, one vote.

[DMC]

towns dont vote. the individuals do

No shit Philo. When you get a clue and a couple elections under your belt, let me know, you pedantic, naive fuck.

This "whitelash", do you think it comes from Starbucks?

[DMC]

Not sure sure about that. While rural population covers about 97% of the nation, it only accounts for less than 20% of the population (roughly 60 million people).

Of those, you have to subtract ineligible voters (children, etc), plus their turnout numbers which are actually no different than those of non-rural voters.

(Census bureau numbers here: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html)

This can probably be calculated, but their incidence over a federal election is likely to be roughly 20% also. If you split their voting into 70%-30% between parties (IIRC, last presidential election was 66% GOP vs 34% Dem), that would be a 24 million vote advantage.

Now, 138 million people voted in the last presidential election, so the incidence of those 24 million votes would be roughly 17%. It's likely no slouch on highly competitive states, but overall, I don't know I would really call it formidable.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that while the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace.

"The electoral system magnifies the voices of the poor, sparsely populated and conservative countryside at the expense of voters in densely populated cities who tend to be richer, racially diverse, and liberal." - The Economist

" In the roughly 3000 counties beyond the 100 largest, Trump trounced Clinton by about 11.5 million votes. In the decisive states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the electoral map was a sea of Republican red interrupted only by lonely blue islands in big cities and college towns. " -The Atlantic

A state has only so many electoral votes. If that state (California, for example) is historically blue, having 100 million more democrats won't change anything. However, in the pink states where rural turned suburbanite voters reside, the tide can change based on how scary the left seems to get. Some socialism seekers seem to think that the democratic base would love nothing more than a socialist agenda, nothing more than the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, 50% income tax and free healthcare for all, but the democrats aren't all gender fluid loving folks. There are plenty midwest farmers who are staunch dems who are also Christians and gun owners/hunters and see farm subsidies as a reason to remain a democrat, but if the left goes too far with the anti-American rhetoric with people like Talib and AOC, they are going to risk putting those aforementioned folks in tough positions.

This is why someone like Biden is a frontrunner. Show me an extreme left position that can become a frontrunner in the DNC. They shit on Bernie for a reason.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Oh wow I'm supposed to listen to a bunch of Trump voters who said center-right Hillary Clinton was too far to the left for them? What a disaster that would be if the Democrats focus on courting that 30% that will never leave Trump.

more like 40%

[Millennial_Messiah]

"the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace."

bullshit

Rural Depopulation in a Rapidly Urbanizing America

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation (https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation)

Rural America has been depopulating for 100+ years, matching urbanization.

In rural counties, there's no god jobs, no future, poor education, health care unavailable nearby, etc.

it's for people who like/don't mind driving long distances to the city in order to save big money on rent/house price/property taxes.

[Winehole23]

it's for people who like/don't mind driving long distances to the city in order to save big money on rent/house price/property taxes.Not everyone who lives in the country has a city job to drive to, silly.

[ElNono]

"The electoral system magnifies the voices of the poor, sparsely populated and conservative countryside at the expense of voters in densely populated cities who tend to be richer, racially diverse, and liberal." - The Economist

" In the roughly 3000 counties beyond the 100 largest, Trump trounced Clinton by about 11.5 million votes. In the decisive states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the electoral map was a sea of Republican red interrupted only by lonely blue islands in big cities and college towns. " -The Atlantic

A state has only so many electoral votes. If that state (California, for example) is historically blue, having 100 million more democrats won't change anything. However, in the pink states where rural turned suburbanite voters reside, the tide can change based on how scary the left seems to get. Some socialism seekers seem to think that the democratic base would love nothing more than a socialist agenda, nothing more than the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, 50% income tax and free healthcare for all, but the democrats aren't all gender fluid loving folks. There are plenty midwest farmers who are staunch dems who are also Christians and gun owners/hunters and see farm subsidies as a reason to remain a democrat, but if the left goes too far with the anti-American rhetoric with people like Talib and AOC, they are going to risk putting those aforementioned folks in tough positions.

This is why someone like Biden is a frontrunner. Show me an extreme left position that can become a frontrunner in the DNC. They shit on Bernie for a reason.

Those 11.5 million votes statistically are not significant as a sample of the voting electorate. They're actually less than 10%... we can split them by 50 to get the general median per state, but it's statistically the same incidence.

In all the pink states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, that you mention (Florida too, I might add), there's also one or more urban areas. The reason Trump won there, like in the Rust Belt in general, has very little to do with rural people, but the fact that a lot of urban and suburban people actually voted for him (for reasons we've gone through a lot of times here).

I know there's some romanticism about the 'silent majority', the notion that there's some passive, but major force in the shadows... that is demonstrably false. The numbers just don't add up. It probably was true 30-40 years ago, not today. And the trend is that it's gonna continue to dwindle down.

I don't particularly care too much about the staunch democrat or the staunch republican. Those are, roughly, 30% of the electorate in either direction. And to be fair, Trump had to sell quite a bit of anti-free market to win (the Rust Belt con about manufacturing is well documented, same for the cheap/best healthcare, that his trust fund buddies were gonna lose money, etc etc etc). Obama was gonna close Gitmo too... campaign spiel is just that. I would agree Bernie would probably be a guy that would have a hard time moderating his speech past the primaries, but on the other hand, I don't think any of the others would.

But it's too early anyways for any kind of substantive analysis, tbh... until we get some votes coming in the primaries, we won't really know what the real pulse is.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Not everyone who lives in the country has a city job to drive to, silly.

so essentially they're either dirt poor or retired old fogies

[Winehole23]

so essentially they're either dirt poor or retired old fogiesnot sure if serious

[Millennial_Messiah]

not sure if serious

who else would actually want to live in the country? seriously

[Capt Bringdown]

Nixon started the EPA and passed several expansive amendments to the voting rights act in 1970 including lowering the voting age to 18 iirc. Also, Republicans were overwhelmingly pro-abortion back then (it was looked at a limited government thing) so if you have any understand of history saying someone is similar in the political spectrum policy wise to early 1970s republicans is not really some massive insult. Youre just projecting that you have no understanding of America history at all.

Nixon obv was a racist POS based on the tapes (he was for abortion in cases of rape and if a black married a white iirc lol) and paranoid but policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican

Not sure if you are responding to my comment. If so, your ad hominem tantrum is bizarre.

The context of this thread is the establishment/centrist idea that policies such as Universal Health care and a guaranteed income are "too left" for Democrats.
Hence, my point, that historically speaking, these "too left" ideas were put forth by a Republican icon 40+ years ago.

This demonstrates how far the Overton Window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) has shifted to the right in the past 40+ years. Both parties are beholden to market-centric neoliberal (https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism) ideology with regards to government solving problems such as health care and unemployment.

(me)Today's neolib dims are to the right of Richard Nixon = (you) policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican
On some issues of course. Ask the Cambodians or Laotians about how Nixon was "pretty great."

It is the centrist, neoliberal dims who are objecting to "too left" ideas such as universal health care. Do you see the irony?

[AaronY]

Not sure if you are responding to my comment. If so, your ad hominem tantrum is bizarre.

The context of this thread is the establishment/centrist idea that policies such as Universal Health care and a guaranteed income are "too left" for Democrats.
Hence, my point, that historically speaking, these "too left" ideas were put forth by a Republican icon 40+ years ago.

This demonstrates how far the Overton Window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) has shifted to the right in the past 40+ years. Both parties are beholden to market-centric neoliberal (https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism) ideology with regards to government solving problems such as health care and unemployment.

(me)Today's neolib dims are to the right of Richard Nixon = (you) policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican
On some issues of course. Ask the Cambodians or Laotians about how Nixon was "pretty great."

It is the centrist, neoliberal dims who are objecting to "too left" ideas such as universal health care. Do you see the irony?
Lol I never did anything at hominem at all nor was what I said a "tantrum"

It's shifted right on some issues but way, way, WAY left on others such as gay marriage, pornography, film and tv censorship, race matters such as having a black president of the most powerful nation on Earth for the first time in world history, more social acceptance of various lifestyles, etc it's amazing how Bernie Bros who literally hate this country with a passion try to minimize those things.

Imagine being a gay person..youre treated like dog shit from the beginning till 2013 then you can get married and accepted. Seems like a big deal but not to The Bernie Bros who in my experience mock people for pointing out good progressive accomplishments like that

The highest minimum wage ever in history adjusted for inflation was $8.69 anyway btw, wages were bound to drop per capita when women pursuing careers massively increased the labor participation rate, etc.

Things are somewhat worse and I want to change and help working people which is why I vote Democrat but when people cry like a bitch and act like 1870s coal mining days its beyond eye rolling levels.

Also I said Nixon was good for a Republican for the reasons so mentioned and which you were obviously wholly unaware of. there are always going to be Republicans and unlike a Bernie Bro I know they are never going to be Democrats so as a Democrat I have lower standards for them

[Spurtacular]

The highest minimum wage ever in history adjusted for inflation was $8.69 anyway btw,



And is that using a baseline of the national law min wage or the min wages from state to state?

Because plenty of states have much higher min wages than the national min wage.

I think you maybe got snowed, Y.

[ElNono]

I'm gonna pile on, and present:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/us-minimum-wage-by-year/index.html

[Spurs Champs99]

The Republicans are too right wing.

The Democrats are becoming too left wing.

Some of the progressive left policies are good: single-payer healthcare, etc.

But what I cannot stand by the far left is the white shaming, the woke stuff.

If you run a identity politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

There is nothing wrong with centrism.

Middle of the road means not extreme.

[TheGreatYacht]

The Republicans are too right wing.

The Democrats are becoming too left wing.

Some of the progressive left policies are good: single-payer healthcare, etc.

But what I cannot stand by the far left is the white shaming, the woke stuff.

If you run a identity politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

There is nothing wrong with centrism.

Middle of the road means not extreme.

Both sides are about identity politics and fear mongering. The right does it with muslims and Mexicans. The left does it with whites.

Centrism is what got us Trump. The Democrats are too far right. Until we have a majority of Democrats like AOC, Ilhan Omar and Bernie your statement of "Democrats are too left-wing" is null.

[boutons_deux]

"Centrism is what got us Trump"

your fucked takes are approaching pgardn level

[TheGreatYacht]

"Centrism is what got us Trump"

your fucked takes are approaching pgardn level





https://youtu.be/6ggzNu6sUIk

https://youtu.be/qeyESTwub5Q


Here is your lovely Obama. Prove me wrong dipshit. Or are you a Demotard like PeeGarden?

[Spurminator]

But what I cannot stand by the far left is the white shaming, the woke stuff.

If you run a identity politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

Which Democratic politician do you see running a campaign full of white shaming and "woke stuff?"

[baseline bum]

If you run a identity politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

Worked for the GOP in 2016.

[Spurs Champs99]

Worked for the GOP in 2016.

The Democrats do it with minorities, whites are still the majority.

With minority identity politics, you bring up stuff that has nothing to do with real racism.

That's why Democrats lost in 2016.

Saying that white men should be castrated and all this other crap does not win elections.

Republicans use white identity politics, but you don't see them saying that black men are this, that.