Let me uncomplicate it. The Democratic Party is two parties: a progressive party and a conservative party. The Republican Party is a corrupt white supremacist death cult. In 2018 vote for the Democrat.https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/975335417129058309 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @JuliusGoat
The big problem with this is that the conservative part of the Democratic Party holds all of the leadership positions, and opposes the progressive Democrats as strongly as they oppose Republicans.
4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @ScubaForDogs
That’s why I recommend running progressive candidates whenever possible in as many primaries as possible. Some will win, and even if most don’t, the party will have to notice.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @JuliusGoat
This is like word for word what I believed in 2008, but not anymore. The party leadership actively opposes progressive policy and candidates. We can potentially win primaries under the right circumstances, but its always at a disadvantage, and leadership never changes/moves left.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScubaForDogs @JuliusGoat
Ask yourself this; how on earth does the Democratic Party establishment look at the 2016 election and NOT decide to radically change things? Not only that, but to basically lock out the only faction of the party with any enthusiasm? Is winning elections even a goal of theirs?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @ScubaForDogs @JuliusGoat
I would hardly say the Sanders wing is the only wing with any enthusiasm. HRC just couldn't wring the same enthusiasm as Obama out of Obama's coalition. Which like, duh. Currently centrists are VERY energized. See: special elections, primaries.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @JuliusGoat
Do you really need to maintain Pelosi and Schumer's hold on the party to keep those centrists energized though? These voters are usually people that brag about how they'd support ANY candidate the Dems pick. Why not make changes to attract leftists that vote 3rd party or abstain?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The problem with winning in 2016 was clearly that the Obama voters, and people in the rust belt, abandoned Clinton. So why not address their concerns instead of just deciding that we Dems didn't actually lose and that no changes are needed?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ScubaForDogs @JuliusGoat
Oh yeah sure I'm totally with you, I'd love to see the party become more progressive. I just get a little skeptical about attributing the energy in the party to the so-called "Berniecrats," because I think it sells a lot of the hardcore Obama volunteer types short.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Obviously the Obama types are an older and blacker demo, and I am concerned that we not sell their concerns short as we remodel the party, especially not in favor of wooing Obama - Trump voters, whose interests and preferences diverge pretty sharply from Obama - none voters.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
To say nothing of the Obama - Hillary voters, particularly older black women, who, imo, have never gotten their due as far as directing the policy priorities of the Democratic coalition.
-
-
Replying to @csilverandgold @JuliusGoat
Rather than try to tailor our politics to appeal to specific demographics, imho we should adopt and aggressively promote policy that has broad appeal across all demos. Everybody responds to more money in their pocket, affordable housing, actual healthcare reform.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.