Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[Barrister]

At this stage, I am pretty sure that any sort of moderate Democrat would be painted as some sort of extreme radical. The trick isn't to find some sort of Republican that would run Democrat. That won't happen. The trick is finding a Democrat that is passionate, has a clear sense of what they stand for, know how to answer to the death cult, and authority cult of the Conservatives (and just isn't content to whine about it), and isn't a fucking billion years old.

I don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Now obviously, while Joe Manchin is a great candidate to run in WV, he's not the kind of candidate you'd run in California.  But I think he is an example of a moderate candidate who can win in an otherwise red state, and why you should run a purplish candidate in purplish states.

Just look at Beto O'Rourke.  Running as a centrist he came very close to defeating Ted Cruz in Texas.  Then he went and ran for president and decided he had to go hard-left.  It didn't work but now he's on record saying "yes I will take away your guns".  That's going to just kill him in his gubernatorial race in November - but it sure makes it easy for him to raise money from progressives.

When you describe "a Democrat that is passionate, has a clear sense of what they stand for" - you're calling for a base turnout strategy.  'We just need to get our voters to the polls'.  I think the evidence that a base turnout strategy works for Democrats seems to be lacking.

[Josquius]

So the argument is less the Democrats need to move to the right and more they need to ruthlessly crush every politician within the party who does not strictly tow the party line?

[crazy canuck]

Beto ran a hard left presidential campaign? 

[Iormlund]

I don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

[Habbaku]

I don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

He's the kind of guy who votes with Biden 95.5% of the time.

[Barrister]

I don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

He absolutely should not be the face of the party.  He's out of step with his party on some important issues.

But Donald Fucking Trump won West Virginia by 68% to 29%.  Yet Joe Manchin won as a Democrat.  Without Joe Manchin it's not that the WV Senate seat would be held by a more liberal Democrat - it would be held by a Republican.

The Democratic Party should run solid progressives in solidly progressive areas, and Joe Manchin-types in conservative areas.

[The Minsky Moment]

Part of the problem is talking about the "center" as though that is something that still exist in American political discourse.  As if there is a coherent continuum of policy positions running neatly from left to right and as if voters are making there decision depending on how candidates line up on preferred policy.  As an approximation to reality I suppose that worked well enough back when I was kid in the 80s but as a description of political reality now it fails.

One of the two major parties has no policy platform anymore.  They literally stand for nothing other than retaining power. How do you triangulate that?

The Democrats have plenty of policies that are popular in red states.  Affordable health care, child care, taxing billionaire hedge fund guys, cleaning up Wall Street.  But people who like that agenda still vote against because they don't like Hillary's pants.

[Iormlund]

I don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

He's the kind of guy who votes with Biden 95.5% of the time.

He also voted with Trump for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, which is a lot more pertinent to this thread.

PS. I don't like FPTP systems, but I love that you guys can track votes like this.

[Barrister]

Part of the problem is talking about the "center" as though that is something that still exist in American political discourse.  As if there is a coherent continuum of policy positions running neatly from left to right and as if voters are making there decision depending on how candidates line up on preferred policy.  As an approximation to reality I suppose that worked well enough back when I was kid in the 80s but as a description of political reality now it fails.

One of the two major parties has no policy platform anymore.  They literally stand for nothing other than retaining power. How do you triangulate that?

The Democrats have plenty of policies that are popular in red states.  Affordable health care, child care, taxing billionaire hedge fund guys, cleaning up Wall Street.  But people who like that agenda still vote against because they don't like Hillary's pants.

"American political discourse" though is different from "American politics".

There's still a centre out there, just the two parties aren't speaking to it.

So take those popular policy positions and run with them - I'm not suggesting the democrats become the GOP-lite.  But back off on some of the culture war fights you can't win.  Make sure voters know you support border security, although you support more legal immigration.  You want police reform, not abolition.  You support trans people, but not trans athletes in competitive sports.  You believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

[Oexmelin]

Or, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

[Barrister]

Or, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

[Iormlund]

Or, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?

[Barrister]

Or, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?

You call them what you want.

But it's counter-productive for Dem politicians to think of them that way because they're trying to get these people to vote for them.

[DGuller]

Or, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?

It's not a question of correct or wrong, it's a question of winning elections.  Sometimes your boss is backwards and dim-witted, and it's a terrible situation, but generally speaking calling him backwards and dim-witted won't make it any better.  That doesn't mean that he isn't, but even the most convincing argument to that effect won't help you with the big picture.  The big picture is that you need to find a way to get your dim-witted boss to not make a catastrophic decision.

[crazy canuck]

Part of the problem is talking about the "center" as though that is something that still exist in American political discourse.  As if there is a coherent continuum of policy positions running neatly from left to right and as if voters are making there decision depending on how candidates line up on preferred policy.  As an approximation to reality I suppose that worked well enough back when I was kid in the 80s but as a description of political reality now it fails.

One of the two major parties has no policy platform anymore.  They literally stand for nothing other than retaining power. How do you triangulate that?

The Democrats have plenty of policies that are popular in red states.  Affordable health care, child care, taxing billionaire hedge fund guys, cleaning up Wall Street.  But people who like that agenda still vote against because they don't like Hillary's pants.

"American political discourse" though is different from "American politics".

There's still a centre out there, just the two parties aren't speaking to it.

So take those popular policy positions and run with them - I'm not suggesting the democrats become the GOP-lite.  But back off on some of the culture war fights you can't win.  Make sure voters know you support border security, although you support more legal immigration.  You want police reform, not abolition.  You support trans people, but not trans athletes in competitive sports.  You believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

That is exactly the GOP lite you say you are not advocating for.  Why, for example should abortion be rare?  That is the kind of logic that renders abortion services rare to non existent.