All I know is the clowns are to the left of me and the jokers to the right.
Democrats moved left, and center
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
All I know is the clowns are to the left of me and the jokers to the right.
VanPastorMan said:
Are you saying that the good Lord is sitting between the progressives and the socialists?
Makes perfect sense to me,
except that there's no room for VanPastorMan!
I didn't know that. That's huge. It changes everything. For both parties.
If that had been the case in 2016, I think things would have ended up far far different than what we have today.
Wasn't aware of that thanks. Still think you've got to win 1 of Iowa, NH, or South Carolina.
What it does is eliminate the come out of nowhere, win one of the first two and grow a national campaign strategy. One is going to need an organization in California from the beginning. And it is an expensive state to be in. Usually winning one of the early states was a ticket to the end, it may not be now.
I don't necessarily agree. I think you are underestimating momentum. If one or two candidates won all of the states through super Tuesday with the exception of Harris's home state, I'd think she is finished. Frankly, I'm not sure why they would attempt to compete in a current Senator's home state, unless the home state candidate was already eliminated. Seems to be a lost cause.
The day after Super Tuesday, news sites will list the candidates by number of delegates pledged. One will want to run well in CA as even the second place finisher (maybe even 3rd) will end with more delegates than the winner of Iowa or New Hampshire. Finish fourth of fifth in CA and your name will be way down that list by delegates and it won't appear to Joe Average that you have any momentum.
I do get momentum. In '84 when I was in Iowa for Hart, we were told that Caddell was saying that if we finished second in Iowa we would win NH. It seemed crazy to us at the time, but it worked. We finished 2nd by 30 points but won NH. But here was the catch, it was awful hard to push that momentum. After NH a small cadre of volunteers could not branch out to the big states. Winning NH or Iowa will be great. But March 3 is AL, CA, MA, NC, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA. One is going to need boots on the ground in a large number of those states. All the volunteers from IA and NH combined won't cover CA let alone the rest. Then on the 10th, one will have MI, ID, MS, MO, and OH.
The campaign is being front-loaded to make it harder to come out of left field. The longer the calendar, the more states the staff from IA and NH can get to and work. If one hasn't spent a penny in TX or CA before NH, they are going to have a hard time catching up in those two giant states. And SC is only 3 days before them, no way winning SC gets anyone money or campaign staff to help by those Mar 3 states. GOTV is important in primaries as well, and it is going to be very hard for a surprise candidate to have GOTV in very many of those March 3 states after spending all their time, money and effort in IA or NH. 3 Weeks isn't much time.
Momentum helps, but if no one campaigns in CA Harris can spend all her time and money campaigning elsewhere and still win CA. Someone is going to have to challenge her there. Otherwise she commits heavily to MA and VT and tries to win CA, MA, and VT and that's big in Democratic delegates.
You are right. I was thinking that contests are winner take all, which they are not. I think some on the GOP side are winner take all.
When are you going to regale us with more posts about the booming stock market and 4%+ (or was it 5%+?!) GDP growth that was right around the corner?
What do people think of small town mayors running for president? Rumor is that is why Buttigieg is not running for reelection.
I think it’s highly unlikely to ever be successful.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
That's silly. Where do you get your money? Every job has a source of money by which money comes into the organization. It's either government money or private. What I do has nothing to do with socialism. People are not forced by law to give me money. It's not government money I receive, but from the private sector. The pastor is called by the church and he accepts the call.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Market goes up and down. The economy is doing great. Actual jobs are up and unemployment is actually down. During the Obama years as soon as a person quit looking for work they were dropped from the totals. So the media made it look like the unemployment rate was going down. But actually those who didn't have jobs were ignored. The leftist media are ignoring them and the good economy today for political purposes.
I just wanted you to know that you're more likely to turn me into a liberal than Rock or Goat combined. Not that any of your are trying, but just by being.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Hank, why would you say that? What about explaining where funding comes from makes you say that?
He has a gift. He's proved to me that organized religion is a scam and he's a grifter.
To be fair, it's less about that particular post that just in general. But with regards to your actual post, that whole "tax free" gambit that the church has going on does strike me as quite a government benefit. I wonder what would happen it such tax benefits were to disappear?
The media didn't do anything. The govt monthly unemployment figures have been reported the same for decades (U3, U5, U6). You have any idea what those are?
I've given it some thought and some centrist positions are:
- Pro-choice and pro-birth control
- Pro-growth economics
- Reduction in debt during growth periods
- Repeal of tax cuts on top 1%
- Infrastructure investment to support future economic growth
- More efficient government
- Free, transparent financial markets with limited, but rational regulation (e.g. I don't believe in much in the implementation and principles of Dodd-Frank, but I also don't believe there should be zero regulation)
- Programs that alleviate skills mismatch and assist to train displaced workers for new, productive careers
- Increased investment in people and resources for proactive segments of government (e.g. FDA) that would hasten the approval process, without compromising consumer interests, and combat healthcare costs
- A healthcare approach that incentivizes (through reward or punishment - prefer reward, but I recall psychology studies demonstrating punishments are more effective) personal accountability and choices
- Increased spending/funding on school meals to provide healthier options; along with mandatory
- Acceptance of gay marriage
- Eliminate financial fundraising for political office (look I align with a Democratic Socialist stance!)
- Limitation on guns available to the public
- Limitation on government entity direct investment (e.g. DOE, SBA)
- Legalization of Marijuana
- Student loan forgiveness
- Free college
- Lighter sentencing for violent criminals
- Financial support of transgender surgery
- Free healthcare without a detailed plan of funding, operational implementation, efficiency metrics and governmental accountability for those metrics and inclusion of personal accountability into the equation
- Regulations on CEO pay
- Regulations that force diversity in the workplace, educational system, etc. (e.g. quotas)
Doing the math, you appear to line up much more with Democrats. What do you consider yourself?
A centrist. I care more about the economy than social policies in general, so that skews my perception. I tend to view things from a pro-growth conservative POV (e.g. not a fan of taxes, but didn't think the latest reduction needed to hit the ultra wealthy) on the economy. The only social issues I tend to side with conservatives on are pro-Israel ME policy and pro capital punishment (though I'd limit the scope some after watching Making a Murderer).
But, I despise the far right as much as the far left.
Thanks. I feel the same about many of the issues. I choose the term independent because I have particular views on issues that bounce between the “sides”. I would also argue that the Democrats are a more centrist party at this time. The GOP caters to the far right is a much greater fashion than the Democrats do IMO, especially the evangelicals.
So you're a mainstream Democrat. Most of your list of positions are anathema to today's GOP.
Free college is happening in many states right now. That doesn't mean Indiana University will become tuition-free, but options for students to attend community college and then receive tuition assistance to complete a four-year degree are promising.
Student loan forgiveness is also a complicated issue. There are many layers. We should begin with for-profit colleges that prey on people promising great outcomes without delivering.
I'd say you're more progressive than conservative.
Uh, yeah. I support most of the same things he does and oppose most of the same things as well. Why aren't we all "mainstream Democrats" if we agree on these? It's either because we don't or we disagree on how to do these things.
Or maybe, for whatever reason, you just won't admit that you're now Democrats. Your positions may not have changed, but the GOP's have.
Hardly. I totally disagree with Democrats on how to achieve many of those things and more and more Democrats are all in for some of those things I do not support in the least. The GOP has changed, especially under Trump, and I'm not for a lot of what they're doing now, but the Democratic party has been moving left at the same time and is far more to the left than when I switched parties. Mostly, I'm between parties now and don't fit into either.
The basic political mistake Democrats make is focusing on the indigent at the expense of the middle class. Republicans do the opposite politically -- they focus their rhetoric on the middle class but their policies primarily benefit the rich. The ultimate irony is Reaganism's rising tide lifting all boats. That's precisely what Democrats should do, with the rising tide being policy benefiting the middle class.
The whole notion of left and right is essentially a red herring created by crafty Republicans and ignorant Democrats. The basic economic thus political reality is 1%ers versus the rest.
Not really. It depends on weighting and I wasn't as exhaustive with fringe ideas that I despise.
Thanks for clearing this up. I always thought preachers were called of God. But you seem to suggest preaching is just another typical employee employer relationship.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
It's not typical. I've had jobs before and I can say that the relationship with the church is far different than a secular employer. From a legal standpoint It is an employer/employee relationship or it's a self employment situation. Depending on which state you live in determines this most of the time because of tax purposes.
