That got us Trump. Thank you very much,

And I campaigned hard for the ticket, so I proved I was willing to accept some compromises.

Is there something wrong with wanting fewer compromises, though?

With not accepting that we will always have to compromise on everything we compromise on as a party now?

Is it inadmissible, for example to say we don't always have to be as hawkish as we were this year?

They can only rip others to shreds. It's ridiculous.

I agree there's a tiny number we can never win over, but there's a far larger group we can.

Comments like "we can't be purists" express a lot more dismissiveness than is necessary.

Why not, instead of that, frame it as "we will have the strongest principles we possibly can"?

It's not as though we actually gain votes, for example, by being as hawkish as we are on military policy.

I'm talking about the larger grassroots.

Not sure how you can exclude them when talking about the conversations.

People talk about politics off the Web all the time.

Over and over (and over) again.

shouldn't be treated like they're making a big deal over nothing.

We can't win by reducing the whole argument to "it's enough to just elect a Democrat".

Voters won't elect us just to get the R's out in name.

I'm wondering why so much concern is showing up on a daily basis. Who's stirring the pot?

But they may well not be your strong convictions. Where does that leave us?

If I vote against anyone who's strong convictions are not mine and you do likewise...well, we get Trump.

This is a discussion board. That means we need to be able to have respectful exchanges of views on things.

What are we here for if we can't do that?

And there's nothing damaging in what I said in the OP.

Polls do support the idea that there is a huge pool of voters ready to stay home if they feel their party has abandoned them.

There simply isn't a large group of voters who are socially liberal but moderate-to-conservative on economics, defense, and the role of unions.

Of course there's a large group of voters like that. The USA is now pretty liberal, socially - look at the widespread acceptance of same sex marriage. But on economics, the normal American idea is "private industry must thrive to have a good economy", and "we need a strong defense" is standard too. Suggest cutting American defense spending to the 2% of GDP that most NATO countires are being nagged to increase to, and you'd get massacred at the polls. And 'unions' is a dirty word in the USA, compared to most of Europe.

I would say, however, that we can't AFFORD to be purists. Not at this point, anyway. The Republicans are currently at each other's throats trying to "out-conservative" each other. They fought the dirtiest fight they could and still can't figure out if anybody won.

Obama saved the country from financial implosion with a stimulus package half as big as he wanted because though it was less than he thought we needed, he compromised so as not to waste the country's time holding out for what he thought we needed. He didn't abandon his principles. He just faced reality. Same with the ACA. It's gotta hurt as President to face people and say, "I wanted to help you out, but couldn't." However, I wouldn't want to face my constituents and say, "I could only get you 75% of what I wanted, so instead, I got you nothing."

It's one thing to say that sometimes we won't get all of what we want.

It's another to say we shouldn't even TRY to get that.

And that, in fall campaigns against Republicans in close races, our candidates can't ever passionately defend our core progressive values and can't base their campaigns on trying to win the argument on the issues.

The other thing we need to do on that is, in situations where we half to settle for part of a loaf-on the ACA, for example, while I'm glad we got something small passed, we got less than half a loaf and most of what mattered, other than the pre-existing conditions, was given away-we need to base the next election campaign on mobilizing to fight hard for the rest, to get enough additional Dems elected to undo at least some of the compromises and to remove the flaws and the poison pill language. If we did that, we could turn the short-term compromises and partial victories into the springboard for fuller victories later.

We as a party need to find the way of saying "this is what we got now-but the fight isn't over", in situations like that, rather than "shut up and take what you're given".

"The longest journey starts with a single step." Since 1965, no further steps were taken until Obama managed to drag the country kicking and screaming to take that first step. No one on our side said it had to be the last. However, if the last two weeks are any indication, there is plenty of resistance to even keeping the ground covered by that first step. We dare not forget that. It's scary enough that we needed the likes of John McCain just to be able to keep our heads above water.

I also live in the real world.

I voted for our gubernatorial candidate, Ethan Berkowitz, and his running mate Diane Benson. I voted for our U.S. Senate candidate Scott McAdams. I voted for our congressional candidate, Harry Crawford,

I voted for our Democratic state representative from Juneau, Beth Kerttula.

And I campaigned for those people as well.

I was also a part, among other things in that era, of Diane Benson's congressional campaigns in 2006 and 2008.

Shelby Foote made a comment in the Ken Burns documentary "Civil War" that America became the nation that it is because of compromise. It is only thru compromise that legislation/ laws/ agreements get enacted without it very little gets done. In order to get something one needs to give something. We should expect compromise will need to be done with that in mind Democratic positions should start with everything that is hoped to be achieved.

An good example of this is the ACA. President Obama should have started out the debate for ACA with single payer/public option being on the table. Unfortunately that option was remove from the debate before the first meetings ever took place.

Last edited Wed Aug 2, 2017, 02:46 AM - Edit history (1)

And it's about finding the language that keeps faith with the base and the activists and keeps them in the fight, rather than being dismissive of them and making it sound like they were silly to ever expect anything beyond a partial victory.

I voted for Howard Dean largely because his criticisms reflected my own. I also voted for John Kerry in the GE. I once voted green because the Democrat was anti-choice and was not even campaigning. Otherwise I've voted for the Dems candidate.

I think Bill Clinton said something to the effect that primaries are a time to fall in love, but we should fall in line when it comes time to vote in the GE. Voting compromises can make a person feel icky and I get that. But, I also think we have a responsibility to each other. There are a lot of us and there is a lot of variation in our deal breakers. In the end, it is not only about each of our deal breakers. It is also a matter of caring about each other and trying to pull together enough supporters to promote the common good.

But there shouldn't be pressure before the convention, during the primaries, to make our policies as bland as possible.

And in the fall, we should spend at least some of the time making a positive case for progressive policies and defending those policies when they are attacked. Barack Obama won by doing that, by campaigning in the fall as at least something of a progressive.

We lose when we campaign under the assumption that most of the country is well to our right and that we can only win by default rather than by trying to win the argument. The voters don't hate what we stand for and they don't expect us to be ashamed of our principles.

But what happens in states and the districts within them is a tone they set for themselves. It may not necessarily match the national agenda. If we are still on the abortion contoversy, there are some prolife Dems who I desperately wish were still in the MO general assembly.

You can not be a purist is the real world. The policies and/or platform being advocated by Ken have not worked in the real world in the past and will not work in the future.

You've never had any reason to try to personally discredit me.

You did not disclose that you have been virulently anti Kamala from the beginning.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029401463#post140

And instead framed your posts as if you were a dispassionate observer.

I simply felt her views on the issues were less progressive than we needed...and that was based on hearing about what Left people in California said about her at the time I wrote those remarks.

I don't exalt her, but I also don't hate her.

And it's troubling to me that she is popular among big donors-the group that always pushes for the party to adopt the most conservative policies possible-that want more right-wing trade deals, are the most open to more military intervention, especially in the Arab/Muslim world, and that are fixated on anti-progressive goals like putting deficit reduction first as a budget priority.

If she's nominated I'll support her. I campaigned hard for HRC and would do it over again.

But as a progressive, if a more progressive candidate runs against her in the primaries, I'd have to support that person in the primaries.

Are any of those unacceptable things to say?

a dispassionate observer.

And I started this thread by condemning the people attacking her on Twitter. I meant that and still mean it.

I'll support her if she runs and is nominated.

You are the one who initiated a long series of PMs with me and then blocked me after I pointed out why your claims and/or policy positions were wrong. I am free to make my own evaluation of your posts and PMs and to disagree with your assertions and positions. Here, your policies and/or platform planks will not work in the real world and have been rejected by voters in the real world. You are free to advocate a platform of ideological purity and I am free to disagree with that platform based on my experiences in the real world.

I am busy in the real world on a number of issues. Both the local Indivisible group and another local grassroots group are forming state law PACs to try to change things. This is very encouraging to me. It may be time to start to gear up voter protection operations for the Nov. 2017 elections. It will be interesting to see what the Corpus court does on Voter Id.

Have fun.

Last edited Wed Aug 2, 2017, 03:15 PM - Edit history (3)

I'd be glad to have an actual debate with you.

I blocked you on pms because you refuse to actually debate me on the level of ideas. Instead You malign me on a personal level. You accuse me of being delusional and you accuse me, with no justification, of lying about my decades of campaign work.

There is no excuse for you doing any of that.

Everyone on DU is on the same side, we all have as much right to post here as you do, and we are all entitled to at least a basic level of courtesy and respect.

I've told the truth about my years of political involvement. I've expressed respect for what you do in Texas. If I've shown you that courtesy, I'm entitled to it from you in return.

Ken you started a rather long and amusing PM exchange with me and then ran away when I disagreed with your proposals and claims. I really do not care what experience in the real world that you are claiming. You are welcome to make such claims and I am free to make my own determinations about these claims. My disagreements are really as to your proposals and whether these proposals would work in the real world. I have been on my county executive committee for ten+ years, serve on various committees at the state convention (ten hours in a rules committee meeting for the state party convention was really an experience) and been a delegate to the national convention. This is in addition to helping grassroots groups form their own PACs and in addition to helping run the voter protection operations for the entire state of Texas last cycle (I had to be the one to call the Texas Sec. of State office with issues which was a joy) and working on the poll watcher program for a major county.

This thread is a great example. Ideological purity is great on an internet board but does not work in the real world. Do not expect those of us who work on campaigns or with political parties in the real world to ignore this. I really do not care what experience you are trying to claim but I do care if the proposals you are advancing make sense in the real world. For example, your concept that weakening the Democratic Party and strengthening third parties are good ideas was something that I strongly disagreed with. I am also willing to live with incremental change as compared to going backwards which we are now doing under Trump.

Go ahead and advance your agenda. The fact that you have an agenda is not a secret to anyone. Do not expect people to ignore their views as to whether such agenda will work in the real world. Again, I do not give a darn about your claims as to experience in the real world but I do care when you advance an agenda that will not work in the real world.

You are not the Great Cosmic Arbiter of Reality.

And I work in practical politics just as much as you do, so you don't have any reason to personally disparage me.

We are both in the real world...it's enough to say we have differences in opinion as to what is possible.

And as to "an agenda"...that is phrase that is both loaded and meaningless.

I have no HIDDEN agenda...I'm not supporting anything diabolical or evil or anything.

I've served on committees at state conventions, too. I've helped write Democratic state platforms. I've gone door-to-door, stuffed envelopes, made coffee.

If you want to make an actual argument against anything I support, then do that. But you don't need to insult me to do that. No one this board needs to insult anyone.

Your PMs and your posts give all of the data that I need to make my determination about your real world experience. It is your own posts and proposals that cause me to doubt or discount your claims. Again based on my real world experience, I find your proposals, platform and agenda to be silly and unworkable. The fact that real world voters have rejected these proposals affirms my opinion. As for your agenda, it is obvious to everyone. You are not fooling anyone pretending that you do not have an agenda.

Ken, you can make silly proposals to your hearts content to advance your agenda. Do not expect anyone to accept your claims that these proposals are realistic or make sense. I have strong opinions as to your platform and agenda and you have presented no arguments or facts to change my opinion. Ken you are making these proposals on an internet board but no one in the real world who used these proposals/platform/agenda has won. If you want to validate your concepts, find some real world examples where your agenda has actually worked.

Look at this thread. Your proposal for ideological purity did not garner any real support. I am not the only one who discounts or disagrees with your amusing agenda. Your apology thread for the Senator Harris incident did not help your case.

Nope. If any progress is to be made at all, compromise is going to be made a LOT MORE OFTEN than you seem to realize it needs to be made. It's just not realistic to believe or claim that such things are true.

In the real world of politics (not just online discussion forums) compromise, and the willingness to do so, isn't a "last ditch" thing.

It's something that should be done all the time. Give a little, get a little. Find common ground and move forward for the good of the country.

Being a "purist" means to stand still, accomplishing nothing (and then being PROUD that nothing was done.) Weird. Such notions are based in pride and vanity and that "winning-is-everything" and "compromise/common-ground is losing".

It's that kind of philosophy that makes people want to primary Democrats like Manchin. Policy-wise, he's not my choice... and obviously he'd never win in a state like, oh, Vermont... but West Virginia isn't Vermont. In West Virginia... he's THEIR choice and he's a Democrat! Still the purists want to primary him because he's not "pure" enough. They want to weaken him and run a "Vermont-style" Democrat, who would LOSE TO THE REPUBLICAN. Thus giving the GOP an extra seat in the Senate.

But, hey... those purists have their pride... and at least they stood their ground.

"It serves no purpose..." reads much like an implicit "demand for silence."

I suppose their six of one is much different than your half a dozen of the other; and it's quite important you continue to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself to while simulataneously moving the goalposts with every new OP.

Damned creative of you.

... unless one is quoting the words back to the OP in an attempt to illustrate how absurd it is to say such things in the first place.

I'm happy to see that others are noticing the same things I'm seeing and catching-on to the game playing.

Happy "hump-day", LanternWaste!

Like a living wage, strong SS and single payer health care. But Democrats all have to be purists when it comes to abortion and have declared themselves unwilling to vote for anyone who is not personally pro-choice. This after years of hearing "Always vote for the D because they are better than the R" (no matter how awful they might actually be). In reality, of course, every single candidate is problematic in some way to some people. My line in the sand is just that they say something more than stupid fucking platitudes or focus-grouped approved talking points (I'm looking at you, Jon Ossoff).

The candidates I support and vote for will be Democrats!

Period.

Given that US political parties are not parliamentary style parties, there is no required platform that all must support.