• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Tim Pro Life Pro Trade "Korrupt" Kaine (yawn)

When it the last time that an extremely progressive Democrat won the WH?

Do a better job. Get a candidate established and running early so they can build some name recognition.

Convince more people that socialist redistribution polices are the way to go. I remain skeptical.

If we're talking about campaigners, extremely progressive campaigns won as recently as 2008 and 2012. Unfortunately that extremely progressive campaigner made Timothy Geithner (what an asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Treasury Secretary and then loser centrist shitlibs defeated EFCA, which was perhaps the best legislation proposed at any point in my lifetime.

You don't sell the redistribution. You sell progressive policies on appeals to the middle class's (american not marxist usage of the term) own naked self interest. Our system sucks out loud. Everything is garbage. Have you had a baby recently? Try to figure out in advance what that'll cost you. And fuckin Obamacare, if you're on your parent's insurance and have a kid married at 24, it's not covered (this did not happen to me but that's how it works, and God have mercy on us for enabling so much suffering through our own stupidity). It is much easier and better lower the Medicare age to birth and raise taxes.
 
i know Obamacare is a mess. I am still technically covered by an ACA individual plan right now although our new small group plan should be effective 11/1.

Obamacare is the reason that Dems are the minority party in the house until 2030 at the earliest probably.
 
Last edited:
Do a better job. Get a candidate established and running early so they can build some name recognition.

Who is supposed to do a better job?

One of the issues with this is that Hillary Clinton has effectively stunted party mobility since 2008. Now that it's probably safe to close the book on that failed candidate, perhaps the party can begin empowering some legitimate progressives for 2020. I'm skeptical if the DNC chair is someone other than Ellison, but it's necessary in order to take on a candidate like Trump (or - shudder - Pence) in 2020. Enough with the centrist neoliberal bullshit. It's a losing position - 2000, 2004, 2008 (because Obama demolished DNC-pick Clinton), and 2012 (because Obama once again ran on a progressive platform) - and Obama's embrace of these time-and-time-again failed policies has guaranteed a Pub majority in Congress for awhile.

Minus that remarkably efficient stretch when Dean was in charge, the DNC reminds me of how Billy King runs NBA teams.
 
Clinton certainly shares responsibility for her loss. The deplorables comment hurt her and her past caught up with her with all of the leaks. She never connected with the Sanders supporters. Maybe asking Bernie to be her running mate would have been a better choice.

But the reason Obama governed more centrist than he campaigned is the reality that he didn't have the votes. He was more progressive in his 1st two years and it led to a huge Pub landslide in 2010 which neutered him the rest of his presidency.

I am OK with Ellison. I think the progressives are going to find out that the people they think are supermen are going to have to compromise to get anything done. Will they revolt on them when that happens?
 
Tim Geithner would later write a book in which he characterized his decision to bail out banksters and leave homeowners to be cheated as "courageous"
 
Your candidate shat the bed, had an impossible strategy that would never work (and didn't), and now we're gonna blow the 2C carbon budget and have public schools covered in swastikas. You should either own this disaster or fuck yourself.

While she wasn't my candidate, yes, she did shite the bed in several different ways. But I still maintain that Bernie would have lost as well. I agree he plays much better in the rust belt than Hillary does. But he isn't winning VA (I live here, trust me), and he's not competitive in NC or FL. His pro labor and big govt positions also don't win the states Dems are gaining in out West, so he'd lose CO & NV. If he sweeps PA, OH, MI & WI, he's still only at 268. You can't write off the gains we're making in some of the Southern and Mountain West states by running someone that far to the left. And as our population continues to migrate South and West, it's going to make GA, TX and AZ competitive if you run candidates who can play well to those states.
 
While she wasn't my candidate, yes, she did shite the bed in several different ways. But I still maintain that Bernie would have lost as well. I agree he plays much better in the rust belt than Hillary does. But he isn't winning VA (I live here, trust me), and he's not competitive in NC or FL. His pro labor and big govt positions also don't win the states Dems are gaining in out West, so he'd lose CO & NV. If he sweeps PA, OH, MI & WI, he's still only at 268. You can't write off the gains we're making in some of the Southern and Mountain West states by running someone that far to the left. And as our population continues to migrate South and West, it's going to make GA, TX and AZ competitive if you run candidates who can play well to those states.

Dems carried NV because of the Culinary Union, so I don't allow that contention.
 
Dems carried NV because of the Culinary Union, so I don't allow that contention.

Good point about the SEIU. So yeah, Bernie doesn't play well with the prevailing Western libertarian thought, but the SEIU counters that and that could still be winnable for Sanders. So if he sweeps the rust belt and takes NV, he can reach his ceiling of 274. That's likely the same ceiling that Sherrod Brown will be facing if he's the nominee in 2020.
 
Back
Top