lol na, not everyone is a guilt-ridden white "progressive" that stuff like this works on.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The State of the Democrats
- Thread starter DigitalOp
- Start date
OP
OP
If youre trying to police people's language on an administration that lies and uses no filter, you absolutely need to sit down and shut up.
I don't know where guilt ridden and quoted progressive comes from, but it's clear how you feel about them.
You keep appealing to haughty idealism that can neither be proven or disproven.
Again, the reality is that in a two party system, you're voting republican by not voting democrat in 2018. Get with reality. I can play the haughty idealistic game too by saying if we lose the midterms and Trump doesn't get impeached, then the country will go full blown autocracy and 2020 won't even matter because we'll already be fucked.
I think there's some confusion because you seem to be arguing more against self-proclaimed Independents than moderate Democrats. The thread title and a large chunk of the OP target Democrats, but the points you've outlined in this post are more so focused on Independents.
Op the fact that you think Cortez's platform is valuable is basically a showcase in why the Democratic party is split 4-ways. Especially with your statement of abandoning centrists/moderates/blue dogs which the Dems can't afford to do.
1. Moderates/blue dogs
2. Establishment
3. Drug/hippie/vegan/green
4. Socialist/Communist
The Democratic party needed to start the recovery after Nov 2016. Instead everyone tripled down and it's becoming harder to get everyone to rally behind a single candidate.
Say what you want about Republicans but they always fall in line because they know whoever gets in will put in the policies or justices that everyone overlaps on.
Democrats don't do this. The damage from Sanders is getting worse and worse. When you look outside this board, heck, even in this board, you'll see that socialist positions are scaring the crap out of traditional Democrats and they are trying to block them out.
The more fringe single issue dems in the vegan/green/pro legalisation camp are going to likely rally behind a third party again as well because the establishment throws them under the bus.
Democrats are in a terrible position for 2020 right now.
If it were held today, the party would have a bigger split between the traditional and socialist Democrats, and the third parties would likely get even more vote than 2016.
We need a solution and no one is bothering to come up with one and it's just messing everything up. Even in this op there's no unity and your calling for abandoning.
1. Moderates/blue dogs
2. Establishment
3. Drug/hippie/vegan/green
4. Socialist/Communist
The Democratic party needed to start the recovery after Nov 2016. Instead everyone tripled down and it's becoming harder to get everyone to rally behind a single candidate.
Say what you want about Republicans but they always fall in line because they know whoever gets in will put in the policies or justices that everyone overlaps on.
Democrats don't do this. The damage from Sanders is getting worse and worse. When you look outside this board, heck, even in this board, you'll see that socialist positions are scaring the crap out of traditional Democrats and they are trying to block them out.
The more fringe single issue dems in the vegan/green/pro legalisation camp are going to likely rally behind a third party again as well because the establishment throws them under the bus.
Democrats are in a terrible position for 2020 right now.
If it were held today, the party would have a bigger split between the traditional and socialist Democrats, and the third parties would likely get even more vote than 2016.
We need a solution and no one is bothering to come up with one and it's just messing everything up. Even in this op there's no unity and your calling for abandoning.
A lot of these PoVs come from hard red or hard blue states where people can vote for whomever cause they know it won't actually matter.
The whole "ignore the obnoxious white swing voters" thing doesn't work in many of the states that have Senate elections 2 out of 3 national election cycles simply because of demographics. The median (25th-Michigan/26th-Arizona) state is massively more white than the country as a whole. Michigan is 79% white, Arizon is 78.4. The country as a whole is 62.0%.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
And here are some of the races up this cycle.
North Dakota- 88.7% non-hispanic white - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota#Ancestry
Indiana - 81.3% non-hispanic white - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana#Ancestry
West Virginia - 93.2% non-hispanic white - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia#Demographics
Vermont - 94.3% non-hispanic white - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont#Demographics
Missouri - 81% non-hispanic white - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri#Demographics
Montana- 87.8% non-hispanic white - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana#Demographics
An inclusion policy that only caters only to the most righteous and the most progressive will only see a narrowing of support over time. Especially if it takes the tone and tenor I often see online ("Anyone who doesn't agree with me on this particular issue is a garbage person").
You seem to be operating from the perspective that there is some huge block of apathetic non-voting ultra-progressives who will only be engaged if their leftist concerns start to be addressed, and that will somehow make up for forfeiting the "middle".
Dems need to pick up more black votes in Michigan.
Dems biggest mistake in 2016 was trying to replace black votes with hisp/Latino ones and tripling down on social issues most blacks didn't agree with.
If you look at those last few states Trump won the amount he won by was so low just a slight uptick in black turn out would have won Hillary the election.
But ATM Blacks aren't a voting block that requires effort according to the Dems. They just expect our votes for free. Which resulted in a high flip to Republican, and a much higher amount of people staying home in 2016.
Nothing matters but winning elections. People in power do what they want. The sate of Dems should be to take notes form the Republican playbook and vote D no matter what the candidate because people in power bring change.
Ideas and platforms mean nothing if they can never be realized.
Ideas and platforms mean nothing if they can never be realized.
Not delivering on the economics/social programs side of his campaign rhetoric is what is going to destroy him in white areas. Jamelle Bouie's had a few pieces on this, I think this is the latest- https://slate.com/news-and-politics...d-on-half-of-his-promise-to-white-voters.html
Trump's populist platform was promising to be conservative on social issues and liberal on economic ones in a way that resembled old school white racist Dem union behavior. From a prior thread on the history of the Dem party - https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...on-the-history-of-the-democratic-party.31753/
But he hasn't delivered on anything but the social issues, except for w/ tarriffs, which are in the process of completely backfiring because we're in a service economy.
Oh yes, those corporate democrats in *checks map* Montana.
Kerry-> Obama had a huge surge in black voters, and we saw the same falloff the other direction in Obama->Clinton. Figuring out how to recapture that is a problem- one would be to run more black candidates, but "just run a black person on the ticket every time" isn't an actual solution to this problem because that candidate won't always be there.
Yeah I agree, average Americans have a terrible relationship with politics in general. In the last midterms the turnout was 36% I think, which is just stupefying considering how much is at stake.
But I do understand the sentiment to a degree. Just getting to vote is a much more complicated process than in most other developed countries. And the two-party system is just a terrible way to conduct any democracy and together with importance of private founding in campaigns, just a breeding ground for indifference.
As for the outside world, it's probably true that average Americans don't care, but I don't think it's true that it doesn't affect them. Just look at Trumps tariffs. But to the people that are already on Team Trump they probably either don't know or just think we should keep sticking it to all the other bad countries that keep "using" America (because selling their products in the US is apparently the same as stealing to businessman Trump..).
They can recapture it by actually addressing black issues and their cities instead if deliberately manipulating their base to not care about them and focus on every other minority for more votes
OP
OP
Am I conflating my terminology? My mistake.
The reason I mention moderate and establishment is in response to the criticism that Maxine received. Those Democrats criticizing her in an attempt to appeal to moderates is who I'm saying need to take a seat.
There is a huge sect of people (even on this board) who claim to be liberal but seem to have to criticize any response people have torwards the administration. That's who I'm talking about as well. They are absolutely Democrats, they vote Democrat but tend to be drawn to a negative peace.
They want the illusion of civility despite it not existing.
Establishment Dems prob should take a seat simply because the paradigm has shifted. People don't want corporate Dems anymore. It's been done to death, they not helping the core electorate.
I can agree to what you're saying. That's why this discussion is so necessary.
I so see what's so scary about Cortez's platform. The fact that is seen like that is part of what's missing me off. Yes, some parts seem pie in the sky, but obviously the focus is to work on the easiest things first.
I will vote Democrat over bigotry. Until bigorty is defeated and common sense is the baseline.
But you are 100% correct that Dems don't rally like Republicans do. They fraction off.
That is a state and local issue. Not a national one. Those are the elections most likely to impact people and also the ones people are least likely to vote for. (And yes, machine politics suck and are a big part of the issue in many cities)
a lot of it simply has to do with the pendulum swinging the other direction, as it is wont to do after two consecutive presidential wins.
i don't mean to handwave problems the party is having but at the same time being on the "losing" side is never fun, it was always going to be rough go after november 2016
i don't mean to handwave problems the party is having but at the same time being on the "losing" side is never fun, it was always going to be rough go after november 2016
No screwing over blacks for other minority groups to get votes is a national issue not a local issue.
Dems will lean over for rust belts at times but they won't for blacks, meanwhile they don't care that a lot of policies they support hurt those black communities because they assume they got the vote anyway.
Keep in mind that just a small uptick in the black votes would have won Hillary those last three deciding states.
The fact you kind of dodged the issue in your post is kind of part of the issue.
No. They vote with their wallets. They're not some huge unknown factor. Not calling them names and shaming them helps a lot also. Promise them tax cuts and jobs. Promise them money for school and that you'll fix potholes and crime.
People act like this was the first election we've ever had. We've known how to get these votes. Dems just decided they were too good to play the game.
The moral high ground is great but people like tangible things. Morality doesn't mean anything politically when our polarized system is a constant back and forth of ideologies. People know that at best you'll get 8 years before republicans demolish it. You can't promise them a better tomorrow when we've been doing this shit forever. You can promise them lower taxes and better schools.
That you think Dems were "screwing over" black voters to chase latin voters is crazy, and the same type of "omg they're talking about ____ and not paying attention to ME!" stuff that many white voters espouse and are rightfully slammed for. And is why candidates running in heavily white areas have the most milquetoast campaign ads imaginable.
There was a drop in black turnout because Obama wasn't on the ticket. That was inevitable no matter if Bernie or Clinton won. It's a question of to how small you could make the drop, not avoiding the drop altogether.
No there was low black turnout because of the history of who was running,intentional attempt at voter replacement, tripling down on issues that blacks did not support it hurt their communities, and the second 4 years of Obama ending with the communities and Jon's in worse conditions than the 4 years before.
Look back at new coverage of the black votes the week and month after the election.
You really think Blacks didn't show up JUST because Obama wasn't on the ticket? Ignorant.
It also doesn't explain that increase in the republican vote as well. You think Blacks voted republican because Obama wasn't on the ticket?
Screwing Black people over will doom you in 2020 if you keep pretending it isn't happening.
Voter replacement? Who the hell talks like...
Ah.
Do you have numbers on this? I wasn't aware of a significant uptick in Republican votes by black folks. I'm curious to see how much of an increase there was.
There a reason you dodged that factual statement and veered off course to a piece of a post that was taken out of context?
I see you're going the dishonesty route
What about moderates in heavy red areas and democratic socialists like Ocasio in heavy blue areas?
This is what they're already doing. (Also, what O-C herself supports doing.) The issue is that the national messaging ends up having to go lowest-common-denominator in order to allow the moderate Ds to not get dragged down by it.
This entire OP is completely focused on national elections, which, in turn, is part of the problem. If we're talking presidency? Then absolutely we need someone who is progressive, but like Obama can also sweet talk the rural moderates. If we're talking congressional races in places like Massachusetts, New York, California, Washington and Oregon? Yes, we need to push unabashed progressives there as well because it will work there. Hell, even in state races too, especially in state/local races.
But the fact of the matter is you're not winning anything outside already-hyper-liberal places with a strategy like this. This strategy is a recipe for disaster in any places that isn't the West or East Coast. Whether you like it or not, we need moderate democrats in states like Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, and the like.
As PanickyFool pointed out, the Democrats still don't control the majority of governorships or state legislatures. And yeah, some states seats are flipping in response to Trump, but what about AFTER he's gone? How do we stop people from not caring anymore once he's no longer in office?
If we take Alabama's senate race as an example: Do you really think Doug Jones would have won parading himself as a hardline progressive? No. If you watched his political ads or interviews, he consistently touted himself as someone who will "reach across the aisle," "stop dividing the country," etc. Are you arguing that we should dump candidates like Jones or Manchin? If so, that's fine, but you need to be prepared to lose a LOT, perhaps even more than the last 10 years or so, while the Dems build up "proper" progressives, especially in red states. And that could take decades for that strategy to come to fruition.
Again, if that's what you're advocating for, that's fine, but realize that while that happens Republicans will be running wild doing god knows what. Who knows if the damage they'd do in that time would even be reversible in our lifetimes.
More like Republicans are happy.
This is virtually impossible given America's system. All this would do is split the left vote assuring Republican control.
We need to focus on pushing the Democrats further left, just not as hardline as you suggest.
But the fact of the matter is you're not winning anything outside already-hyper-liberal places with a strategy like this. This strategy is a recipe for disaster in any places that isn't the West or East Coast. Whether you like it or not, we need moderate democrats in states like Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, and the like.
As PanickyFool pointed out, the Democrats still don't control the majority of governorships or state legislatures. And yeah, some states seats are flipping in response to Trump, but what about AFTER he's gone? How do we stop people from not caring anymore once he's no longer in office?
If we take Alabama's senate race as an example: Do you really think Doug Jones would have won parading himself as a hardline progressive? No. If you watched his political ads or interviews, he consistently touted himself as someone who will "reach across the aisle," "stop dividing the country," etc. Are you arguing that we should dump candidates like Jones or Manchin? If so, that's fine, but you need to be prepared to lose a LOT, perhaps even more than the last 10 years or so, while the Dems build up "proper" progressives, especially in red states. And that could take decades for that strategy to come to fruition.
Again, if that's what you're advocating for, that's fine, but realize that while that happens Republicans will be running wild doing god knows what. Who knows if the damage they'd do in that time would even be reversible in our lifetimes.
More like Republicans are happy.
This is virtually impossible given America's system. All this would do is split the left vote assuring Republican control.
We need to focus on pushing the Democrats further left, just not as hardline as you suggest.
Why didn't the Dem leaders support Ocasio then, but the other guy I never remember the name of who lost?
OP
OP
The thing is, those people exist. I'm friends with alot of them. We share the same values. They are progressives.
They don't vote. Why?
Because they know this country is full of shit. They feel their vote doesn't matter, (it kinda doesn't when you really get to the numbers depending on state) Politicians like, and they do. And most importantly these parties never target the issues important to them.
They don't openly target black voters. People actively campaign against raising the goddamn minimum wage. It's insanity.
Theyre completely disillusioned with the system. I dont blame how they feel one bit. There is a huge portion of Americans that feel that way.
Target them. Make them care. Cortez's platform made them pay attention. That's what they want. They want someone who wants a better country. Who's an outsider without the baggage of a career politician.
I feel like we make this harder than it needs to be.
And that's the push and pull that dissuades people from engaging in the first place.
People want better schools and paved roads. Republicans come right in and pull all the funding. Feed it to the military. Feed it to their lobby buddies.
Scream about the budget but give corps trillion dollars tax cuts.
People are tired of that regressive shit.
They're also tired of Dems who may have the nice platforms, but they get into office and pussy foot and parlay with the same Republicans who block their shit. Always asking for Repubs to come to the table yet when the situation is the opposite, Repubs tell Dems to piss off and steamroll them legislatively.
People are tired of that weak shit. They just stop getting involved when they comprehend the cycle we live in.
Yes Trump got more than Romney in general and Trump got 13% of black males in the split.
Recent pull in the last year indicate a very gradual but notable increase as well which may explain why there a bunch of black Republicans everywhere on the street/news/YouTube.
For the same reason doctors/lawyers have heavy union restrictions on criticizing other doctors/lawyers, screenwriters don't like criticizing other writers in public, and Reagans commandment was "thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."
Going after another party member takes an extreme situation, in large part because if the primary challenge wins, you have to work with the person!
The other guy had been in congress for decades.
Because he was an 18-year incumbent, and the Democrats, for better and worse, tend to respect seniority in their ranks.
Tired or not a new party won't work with a country this divided down the middle.
With this many voters dismissing the other side any new party with overlap with one if the two main parties will split that parties vote.
Hence the situation we are now in.
Just to reiterate what Kirblar is saying, even the young risk taker knows what the path forward is:
Edit: Not that it's relevant to the discussion much, but god damn do I love this person.
Hillary just failed to campaign in critical states period.
She was off trying to run up the perceived scorecard in Arizona instead of shoring up her flank in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Which conceivably would of included appeals to working class and minority voters had she done so.
The fallacy here is thinking that a change in messaging/policy will automatically raise black turnout in places like Wisconsin or Michigan while maintaining the same level of turnout everywhere else in her coalition. Or that the only tenable path to victory is the path you assert. We honestly don't know and any assertion is at it's core somewhat speculative.
In an ideal world Hillary spends a lot more time in those weak spots, more heavily embraces a populist message, and the Comey letter doesn't drop and Trump is probably just a goon trying to make TrumpTV a success with the help of Russian state media sponsors.
People need to recognize that what works in a district in the Bronx or LA is not going to work for a Democratic senator running in West Virginia. It's just not. And the party has to find a way that they aren't at each other's throat trying to push out the part of the coalition that may not be ideal, but is necessary to advance any comprehensive agenda.
I think what is true though, and Bernie and Trump has sort of helped prove it, is that there may be some overlap in policies/rhetoric that traditionally Democrats thought were once untenable in rural parts of the country but actually have broader appeal than common wisdom assumed. And appeals conservative Dems thought necessary to success but might not be so important.
However you are never really going to get Joe Manchin, or people trying to win in situations like him, to take on the social platform of Cortez or be expected to shut up and let Maxine Waters be framed and distorted by Republicans and their propoganda machine as the voice of the left. Their self-preservation depends on not getting into that trap. What you can hope to do is create an environment and message for the Manchin's that allows the Joe Manchin's to get on board in terms of needed votes to getting policy across the finish line like criminal justice reform, immigration reform, and healthcare. To give them a set of narratives that can translate to those more conservative areas of the country that defend the left flank and don't require inter-party criticism as a means of self preservation on their end. Republicans and their fall-in-line support base feed on that shit.
They are also necessary to use as a part of a coalition that advances structural reforms to make it so the next group of Democrats can be more progressive or so you don't need to pander to the Joe Manchin's of the world as much and get more progressive policies next time. Like advancing statehood for Puerto Rico/representation for DC, campaign finance reform, getting Supreme Court seats and stacking the lower courts, gerrymandering reforms, winning at the state and local levels and so on. In the short term you need the Joe Manchin's, but hopefully you tally around a platform so that in the long-term you don't, and ou inflict enough procedural and structural change that you force the right to move toward the center.
I think what is true though, and Bernie and Trump has sort of helped prove it, is that there may be some overlap in policies/rhetoric that traditionally Democrats thought were once untenable in rural parts of the country but actually have broader appeal than common wisdom assumed. And appeals conservative Dems thought necessary to success but might not be so important.
However you are never really going to get Joe Manchin, or people trying to win in situations like him, to take on the social platform of Cortez or be expected to shut up and let Maxine Waters be framed and distorted by Republicans and their propoganda machine as the voice of the left. Their self-preservation depends on not getting into that trap. What you can hope to do is create an environment and message for the Manchin's that allows the Joe Manchin's to get on board in terms of needed votes to getting policy across the finish line like criminal justice reform, immigration reform, and healthcare. To give them a set of narratives that can translate to those more conservative areas of the country that defend the left flank and don't require inter-party criticism as a means of self preservation on their end. Republicans and their fall-in-line support base feed on that shit.
They are also necessary to use as a part of a coalition that advances structural reforms to make it so the next group of Democrats can be more progressive or so you don't need to pander to the Joe Manchin's of the world as much and get more progressive policies next time. Like advancing statehood for Puerto Rico/representation for DC, campaign finance reform, getting Supreme Court seats and stacking the lower courts, gerrymandering reforms, winning at the state and local levels and so on. In the short term you need the Joe Manchin's, but hopefully you tally around a platform so that in the long-term you don't, and ou inflict enough procedural and structural change that you force the right to move toward the center.
Thx, a lot more udnerstandable.
Damn.
She had a message, and lots of policy to back it up. She's just not a natural politician and I would argue misread the pulse of the country in how she tailored her campaign. And objectively failed to identify where her electoral strengths and weaknesses were. We can speculate what changes could of yielded different results, but you seem to be doggedly convinced your subjective assessment is unequivocally correct and that's just not really worth engaging with.
Though at the end of the day 77,000 votes across three states cost her the presidency, and there is pretty solid evidence that it was taken from her, despite her failings, by something out of her control in the form of the Comey letter.
Thanks for the info. I poked around a bit and noticed the support among black women was abyssmal (4%) on election day.
I noticed this in a Pew article:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/?amp=1
Does the uptick in black males voting Republican not correlate with Trump performing better than Romney with males in general?
For the record I am all for black folks getting better representation on a national level and lending them greater support. I think taking them for granted is immoral and foolish on a practical level. I'm just curious about this specific data point and what it indicates.
This is one thing I don't understand. How can you be against better roads? Do the rich have secret underground roads we don't know about or something? Doesn't matter who you are, we need better infrastructure. Rich or poor, your car is getting fucked up by potholes and upshoots.
Schools I get. The rich republicans send their children to expensive private schools while the rest get sent to public/underperforming/failing schools that keep them under-educated.
It's amazing that the same party Eisenhower belonged to can be so against infrastructure (and so pro-military industrial complex).
Don't try to circle your way out. She had no message for quite a few groups and Republicans took advantage of that. You seem to be deceiving people that you agree she had flaws but ignoring her biggest ones in order to deflect the reality her failure was much more significant then you want it to be.
What "message" did she have for Blacks or the working class? What message did she have for the states she "ignored" or "campaigned in the last minute" because it would effect her political strategy if she didn't.
If you aren't able to explain to me in an elaborate manner that she indeed had a message for those groups and how then she never had one.
Some Democrats on Bernie's side believe she didn't have a message, tell me, explain what this message was without trying to circle out of the conversation by acting as if you have any clue what you're talking about after checking a thesaurus.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right but it seems you have decided to jump to that conclusion anyway so please explain away.
OP
OP
Thanks for this.
I think the hardest pill to swallow is the idea that such a platform wouldn't fly in Middle America.
It's specifically made to help everyone. It's asinine that people refuse it, and I tend to believe it's simply due to party lines. Without a doubt people would support it if a Republican brought it to the table.
That's just fucked.
I believe Cortez's platform can scale to statewide levels. Some parts would take more priorities than other depending on region but overall it's a plan to help people.
Things like :
A real infastructure and maintenance plan to create jobs and maintain them for years to come.
Stimulus package for education
Specialty programs for STEM
Liveable wage prorated to state level economy
A working healthcare plan
Seeing people oppose these things make you want to say Fuck It. It makes no sense to be opposed to such ideas unless you're just a Luddite or you're honestly jealous you didn't propose them yourself.
This is probably the illusion that breaks when joining politics. You genuinely want to help others and people simply don't want your help for whatever reason.
It's akin to hooking someone up with an interview, buying them nice clothes, offering to drive them to the interview and come interview day, they choose to stay home and play video games.
Well fuck it then.
I think if Trump showed anything on that front it's that Republicans are more than fine with a lot of spending, completely down with infrastructure investment and a lot of populist policies that many perceived as non-starters to a conservative voter, just as long as they aren't offered by the evil tribe Fox News tells them is the devil... Or that when pushed between two candidates offering economic populism, or just an economic message vs culture war candidates, at least in a normal economy, the vast majority will break to the greater perceived ally in the culture wars almost every time.
Which to be fair is sort of the lesson of the Southern Strategy, at the end of the day if you make it a fight between an economic populist supporting civil rights vs a low tax offering Republican dog whistling racism, the south and rural America will end up choosing the racist 8 times out of 10.
Nah, it's hard unless you were following black movements and politics closely like I did but Black males were starting to crack under Obama 2014+. To avoid controversy many didn't agree with a lot of Obama's support for numerous groups and attacked him on his lack of fixing things. The African especially attacked him for working with Britain to uh punish countries for not doing certain things.
I believe Trump was possibly a combo between a protest vote and taking him up on his infrastructure policy and him "pushing back" on certain issues.
Of course, while significant and something to consider in the future for Democrats, the amount of Blacks that just didn't vote is actually much higher and is completely downplayed with certain outlets even fudging the numbers.
Both of those together could be worse if nothing is done about it by 2020. So far I have seen no attempt to rally. Black Women are starting to crack a little within the last several months now as well. But I don't think we'll see any significant result of that in 2020 short a dumb establishment move that alienates them.
I think the problem here is you are looking at. The list and saying it's good, but not considering what's needed to execute everything that's on the list.
For example, Cortez had free college on her platform. At the expense of what? That's what those middle voters are asking, and whatever answer there are given, their reesponse is no.
Then on top of that her platform also has abolish ICE which is a platform aimed at a specific group of people. Which many middle states and red border state's willimmediately reject.
This is why the Democratic move right on certain issues every election.
What you want is a Cortez like person to run all in on the far-left in 2020 which is not possible to win. So no real traditional Democrat is going to pick up that platform unless they need to in order to keep their seat due to a demographic change than go right back to normal once re-elected.
Now in my opinion I understand why you want a far-left candidate. But I think with the current divide in the Democratic party it's nothing more than a protest vote because the DNC will go with the candidate that moves slightly to the right. The DNC will not support the far-left candidate imo.
Circle my way out of what? You seem to be setting up straw men and sea lioning me over arguments I'm not really making. I've made a very specific argument and critique of your logic, and you haven't provided any sort of supporting evidence to back up any of your own assertions so I don't know what sort of entitled mindset you have to think I have to work to disprove something? Especially when what you are asking indicates a complete misread of what I have said. Saying something forcefully and being rude to people isn't evidence. If you claim Hillary didn't have a message at all that spoke to issues in the black community, you are objectively wrong(this is a brief but she did at one time have a large white paper available on her website as well). Now whether a message more catered around stuff like that would of won her Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is entirely speculative and has to be weighed against any number of counter-factuals that could go on forever. My point to you was to get so aggressive in your conviction of it being a problem exclusively of a lack of black messaging is a bit presumptive. Which was the point I made initially. That and it's a bit of seeing the forest for the trees when you say Hillary didn't pander enough to black voters in those states when she didn't pander to basically anyone there and that what ultimately cost her the election was out of her control(which you seem to agree with me about despite claiming I am saying otherwise). I'm actually agreeing in a sense that she didn't have much of a message for places like Wisconsin because she didn't go there. I'm disagreeing in the sense that we can know specifically what message or mix of messages(since no campaign really has one exclusive message, even if they have an overarching theme) would of yielded the highest rate of return.