Andrew Yang and his progressive policy proposals https://www.yang2020.com/policies/but I completely agree that progressive ideas beat moderate incremental agendas.

Trump doesn't have to be popular...he just needs to win in three states ...WI, MI and PA.

So, at least you did that correctly. And, as yours is short enough in thought to fit neatly on a bumper-sticker, I can readily understand why you use it.

Picking the right candidate will be critical for winning the rust belt, and Biden has proven to be a weak front runner. Bernie or Elizabeth are likely the best choices.

No objective evidence to support the premise, but I'm sure the typeface is hip and trendy.... 'cause that's all a lot of people need.

Cause I see that a lot with no basis in reality.

I'm inclined to agree with every word you have said here.

We are of course working under the assumption that Gabbard or Williamson won't be the candidate.

And that was only one. Hillary Clinton made a single speech in Michigan.

https://hillaryspeeches.com/speech-archive/2016-2/october-2016/

Clinton ran an infuriatingly inept campaign against Trump. Warren has proven an extremely campaigner and would hardly make such amateurish mistakes.

Take a look at a gif comparing Trump's last 10 weeks to Clinton's.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-10-weeks-of-2016-campaign-stops-in-one-handy-gif/

And I would not be surprised if Warren picks someone like Sen. Sherrod Brown to balance her ticket. Both tough fighting populists.

But choosing Sherrod Brown as VP would not be ideal because we may need him in the Senate.

Biden is not Sec. Clinton. As long as he weathers the fake Ukraine RW-ginned up 'scandal', he will be fine, IMHO.

Denying the antecedent... it's not just for grade-school kids anymore, as the marketing has reached the hip and cool kids too!

Or are you just hoping people believe this falsehood and vote for your guy?

According to last polls I saw. Sanders lead over Trump was larger than Biden's in one of the state's.

You're assuming the state of the race is static, and won't change over the next year.

A lot can happen very quickly- take the past two weeks for example.

be 2016 again...where we win the popular vote but not the EC. Biden is the strongest candidate to beat Trump...Warren is being pushed by the media but if you look at the states we need in terms of politics...she is not the nominee we need.

Only fear based defeatism.

What feels "safe" may actually be the most risky.

Blue Wall she will win both the popular and the EC vote. Easily. When Trump campaigned there he campaigned on some progressive ideas. It was all bullshit of course, but enough believed his lies.

Ideally, I would like to live in a Universe where people like Robert Reich were common, not an exception.

Clear, calm, fact-based information presented in a respectful and intelligent manner.

This Game of Spectacles we have now is bizarre, taxing and unproductive. It deflects from truth, clarity and pragmatism. It goes for the emotions more than it informs us and challenges our thinking.

If you do a marathon of Robert Reich short videos, you might see what I mean. Compare it to the overload of talking heads and politicians today. Refute his points, if you like. At the very least, they are worth refuting.

Thanks for posting this one. I hope many people watch it and the others.

are a sizable minority of our party, have pushed definitions out of whack.

If one is not for ten to twenty proposals that will cost multiple trillions and have low potential to be implemented, one is centrist, read Republican lite.

If one wants to protect, shore up, the existing social safety net and build on Obamacare to get to
universal health, one is not even a liberal anymore.

If one talks about the need for healthy, large investment in our infrastructure and a more moderate
student debt relief program, one is a stodgy regressive. Only those issues selected by a so-called progressive must be focused on.

An education plan must offer free college to all, rich and poor alike. If a candidate wants investment in the colleges themselves, that would not represent social democracy and not be bold and new enough.

Forget the deficit or how Americans will respond to much higher taxes, the only way, in addition to
wealth tax that the select 10-20 programs can be paid for. Realistic thinking about the economy and what we need to spend as we go ahead to fulfill our party agenda, a path to citizenship for 11 million and a process for Central American migrants, for instance, is reactionary in nature. 200 billion must be spent on XYZ crisis de jour.

I deplore the labels. They are devisive and often do not act as good descriptors. Let’s get a democratic president first and foremost. All candidates will have to operate in the possible world, not the aspirational. So whether left to center, centrist, left to left there will be built-in limitations, constraints. Shifting the party, and the country, and the house and senate to progressive’s ideals will take more than the next two terms,

That is a RW talking point. It is the greedy elites and their subordinates among cons, evangelicals and others who have done that by screwing over the middle class and poor, and done everything they can to prevent true democracy from working. And no, tweaking things just a little is not going to fix the economic inequality or healthcare or our democracy.

And if you truly "deplore labels" than stop using a talking point that is often heard out of repub mouths about how far left the Democrats have gone. It's bullshit. Some of us are trying to fix what Reagan, the wealthy elites and Tea partiers have broken and that is by fighting them, not running away from Democratic principles that go back to Roosevelt.

ethos, and mine, and his supporters, are so far from tea party and Reagan that your sense that only progressives fight for opposite policies makes no sense to me. I am fully up on Biden’s proposals and none are elitist, for the benefit of the greedy, all can be considered liberal.

By the way, Roosevelt was a centrist, pushed by events, external agitation, and a desire to continue to be in power to a more progressive agenda. However, that agenda excluded POC in Agriculture (65 percent labored in that area), and he also signed off on Japanese internment camps, an immigration policy lethal to millions of Jews, and refused to endorse an anti-lynching act. Once again, labels do not tell the whole story.

If I believed that implementing all Warren’s proposals was possible and would actually result in income equality, I would eagerly support them.

I am not the alert on people type and refuse to do so, but I don’t think it is at all kool to accuse anyone who does not agree with a particular policy set, campaign agenda, economic viewpoint of being like a Republican. If anything, your contending that proves my point that these political spectrum labels are not a very good thing. Surely we all have more in common with each other than we have differences.

I suppose that depends on your definition of liberal. And your definition of life-long. And if you ignore some of his positions in the past.


Was his stance liberal when he opposed same sex marriage, or when he reversed that stance to support it?

Was he a liberal when he supported the Hyde ammendment for 43 years?

Was he a liberal when he supported the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act which helped credit card companies and banks while shafting consumers?

Was he a liberal during most of his political career opposing marijuana legalization and being a "drug warrior?"


I guess 'liberal' is in the eye of the beholder.

legal nation-wide, evolved on Hyde while earlier on being strongly condemned by Catholic Church brass for his abortion stance, got into politics because of the civil rights movement and has
supported civil rights for decades—a reason AA voters favor him—going all the way back to taking on Reagan administration for its complicity in apartheid. Just a few examples.

Today Diane Feinstein endorsed him. Maybe she is no longer considered a liberal according to a new standard.

Yet no one faction of our party should decide who is a liberal and who is not. The definition does have a consensus of opinion behind it and a long tradition. Perhaps look at that definition:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=303258

lifelong liberal...

GHere is what your wrote:
"Progressives, who are a sizable minority of our party, have pushed definitions out of whack." If one is not for ten to twenty proposals that will cost multiple trillions and have low potential to be implemented, one is centrist, read Republican lite."

Those are the exact same talking points RWers use, whether you like to hear it or not; I didn't accuse you of being a repub, I said they are RW talking points and they are. In the seoncd line you are doing to progressives what you claimed I did. I do not think it's cool for you to accuse those who yo do not agree with by using the words you used above. I.E. physician heal thyself. And the alert thing goes both ways.

Also I am well aware of Roosevelt's history and he was not a centrist; his actions via the New Deal prove that and his ability to take on big business shows that. Your selective use of what he did at a time where he had to deal with Southern Democrats who controlled Congress shows you don't udnerstand the "whole story". He was simply not able to take them on over issues like lynching. You make it sound like he had unbridled power and that he was a racist who helped kill millions of Jews. We were alos at war. Before you start crying foul, here are YOUR OWN words in the post above: "an immigration policy lethal to millions of Jews". That is BS.

Again look to your words before crying foul.

segregation, the internment of Japanese-Americans and created the military industrial complex. We need to move forward with policies that work for the 21st century not go back to the 1930s.

ridiculous attempt at degrading him fo rwaritme 80 years ago. Also your hsitoruy is wrong. Roosevelt didn't "create the military-industrial complex." WWII did that and Roosevelt and Truman created a commission to prevent war profiteering. No one said anything about going back to the 30s. It's about core principles, you know like democracy and freedom. Or are those old-fashioned too?

Nice spin

His only presidential election gig was with Dukakis. Enough said.

Reich endorsed Obama.

He thought Obama was extreme left but was disappointed when Obama turned centrist.

(I'm nitipicking - and concede your wider point)

which could be influenced by his experience. That trope does not apply here.

In 2018, we flipped two seats from red to blue. Both Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred are being targeted by the GOP. In addition, the DCCC and the state party have identified 6 congressional seats that we can flip. If Warren is the nominee, then we can forget about Texas being a battleground state and forget about flipping any seats

and what does that mean.. straight up liberal..

ADJ: willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas:

Synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded,

Noun: a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise:

hope that helps

"We have to work our way to Medicare for all"
"Nobody will vote for free college"
"<hand wringing> <hand wringing>

Incrementalism has gotten us exactly nowhere in 40 years. Actually it's gotten LESS than nowhere. Wages are less today than in the 1970s. Health care and college expenses have become so immense that only the wealthy can afford them.

We adopt and repeat rightwing talking points like we're idiots. When will we ever wake up? It better be soon or else it won't matter anymore.

about change coming slowly, it is about asking for the least we'd possibly accept and then moving slightly backward, though not as far backward as the Right wing would have us go.

We need bold ideas, we need to demand more, so that if we do accept less, it isn't multiple steps backward.

Jeebus on a cracker, how did we create programs like Social Security and Medicare to begin with? They WEREN'T created by cowering in the corner hoping the mean gopukes would take it easy on us.

People admire strength. They like to follow leaders who are unflinching in resolve to fix this mess the last 40 years of "go along to get along" has brought us.

ENOUGH!! It's our time now. Enthuse the people with fresh ideas and give them hope that there's somebody out there with the strength to stand for them. You'll see turnouts like you never saw before.

'excitement' a candidate engenders won't change that...and the reason we go nowhere is because we have abandoned a big tent approach which is the only way we win. When we lost the blue wall states, we lost our means to a presidential win. And we will lose in 20 and 24 if we don't look at the truth and deal with it. If we lose in 20, we are fucked good and proper...I don't see an easy way back and we will lose more liberal policy. Also, I doubt Ginsberg can hold on and likely Thomas will be replaced with a younger GOP judge as well. This is not the year to try trot out every progressive policy we desire...as the country has moved right...center left at best. We need a perceived moderate...to win the states we need.

Sorry, it's been 40 years of repuke-like policies that have brought us to this cliff we're on. More of the same isn't the cure.

us pivotal elections...2000,2004,2010 and 2014 and of course they, completely ignoring the courts, attacked Hillary relentlessly in 16...many supporting Stein. It is not a failure of the big tent but a a failure of the left to vote blue no matter who...and losing another presidential election...which is winnable will only worsen everything.

When the left didn't get what they wanted in terms of a public option, they attacked Obama relentlessly...leading to the loss of the house and later the Senate...imagine what we might have gotten had this group been loyal...a public option during the term, dreamer legislation, immigration reform...the list is endless...so they don't get to blame others for what they themselves caused.

You will never win without a big tent approach as Dean showed clearly. The left can't attract enough votes to deliver the House, Senate or the presidency as we sit here today. With hard work, this can change. But running candidate that loses, only pushes the country further right. I am a progressive but I vote blue no matter who...I wanted a public option and I hate the TPP but I supported Obama because he was our Democratic President and better than any puke...the price of disloyalty to the party is that the Republicans win. And don't get me started on the states...we lost in 10 which was a huge deal as it allowed the GOP to use the census to rig the House and it will happen again if we choose a nominee who can't win a general or who has no coattails.

to reality.

Here's a hint for you: Democrats ARE the left. Your disdain for your own party is obvious.

Quit carrying repuke water already. We need strength of leadership. No more weak sauce "nobody will vote for leftists" crap.

All candidates would be a sea change ideologically. All democrats will recognize that. Our most "centrist" candidates policies will give one whiplash when compared to the current GOP.

golden past.

....<can't thinkg of the right word..... "positive" "helpful" (both too cheerful)>, that the wealth gap is occurring at the same time. On its own it wouldn't command the "now or never" response that climate change does, but since they are both facing us, let's address them both with big ideas, the only kind that will work at this point in history.

The center is a myth.

He’s a very effective cartoonist.

I like Reich, by the way, but what he is saying is nothing new. If you don't get elected, your ideas die on the vine. Biden's ideas basically encompass all of the good ideas from the other candidates.

Warren & Sanders don’t. Biden has no new ideas on healthcare, just to maintain the status quo.
I will vote for Biden if he’s the nominee, but I fear his ability to debate Trump without losing his cool will be his downfall. Warren (along with Harris) could devastate Trump in a debate.

to raise money for down ballot races. You need money to win an election.

Warren’s communications director, Kristen Orthman, confirmed she will not be taking part in big money fundraisers in the general election and will continue to not accept help from political action committees.



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/elizabeth-warren-says-she-wont-take-big-money-if-elected-nominee.html

We have to go for broke. This has gotta stop! (To quote my then 7 year old grandson when he hears that we're going to visit yet more painted monasteries in Romania.)

Link to tweet

Wishful-thinking prognostications: if wishes were horses.

As soon as you see someone claim mainstream Democrats are centrists, which is wildly wrong, you know that somebody’s either misunderstanding, or far more likely in his case deliberately misrepresenting, and often both.

However, mainstream liberals are very big on finding ways to work with people of different viewpoints because that’s how representative government of, by, and for the people HAS to work.

That is not the same as a “centrist” ideology blurring differences. And examination of liberal ideology these days, voter and legislative records, shows that there are very few people who could be called centrists.

That’s actually one of our nations significant problems. But liberals can’t go meet conservatives of these days on a lot of issues, they’ve become too extremist.

Last edited Thu Oct 10, 2019, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

centrist. Mainstream liberals have helped move our party and this country forward for decades.

like Reich in this case, who try to play us for fools, and even flat lie to us. It may work on the right, and it may work on the dissident and far left, and of course populists insist on it, but liberals despise it.

Some Democratic leaders still need to get real about that.

Eugene McCarthy was a liberal...LBJ was a moderate. I'm not looking to pigeon-hole any of the candidates as I don't think it helpful or productive.

This election needs to be about the people having a voice. It needs to be about getting off the treadmill of never-ending wars and regime change politics. It can't be about going back to anything...it's a new and scary world that requires grown-up choices. I ain't about letting four hundred unbelievably greedy people ruin our country and ruin the planet.

Moderates, at least. They were the wons that turned the numbers, in spite of AOC getting all the publicity.

Centrists will always win, that's the definition of the political spectrum working. That's how it is defined.