'Better Deal for Democracy'

Quote:

---

Congressional Democrats have unveiled their pitch to voters in 2018: They're calling bull**** on President Donald Trump's promise to "drain the swamp."

House and Senate Democrats rolled out their campaign platform Monday, taking aim at corruption and pay-to-play politics in Washington under the Trump administration. They're betting this message will help them win voters in the months leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, when the party hopes to regain control of the House and maybe even the Senate.

The plan is called "A Better Deal for Our Democracy" a spin on their economic platform, "A Better Deal" with proposals to protect and improve voting rights, new ethics laws, and campaign finance reforms, including policies that would make lobbyists' activities more transparent and tighten rules around bribery and fraud convictions.

---

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17376128/democrats-better-deal-democracy-midterm-2018

Anecdotally, I think minorities & women are plenty motivated, but the dems need to motivate the youth to actually vote (easier said than done), and to appeal to the independents. I don't have great faith this plan can turn the opinion of the independents. I would like to see them hit hard on net-neutrality to motivate the 18-35's, and I'd like them to promise to stabilize healthcare after conservative attacks to try and turn the independents.

What do you think should be the strategy to win over the moderates, and energize the base?

This is going to upset the apple cart, but if the Progressives don't back the F off, moderates either won't vote or they will go to the Dark Side.

This is a progressive in Nebraska who won a congressional primary. I can't find anything I disagree with, but yes I'm a progressive. I don't see anything a moderate Democrat can disagree with.

What do the moderate or corporate Democratics agree with or disagree with from what what Eastman backs? I don't think it's that different, but perhaps not a priority.

bearister said:

---

This is going to upset the apple cart, but if the Progressives don't back the F off, moderates either won't vote or they will go to the Dark Side.

---

So long as Trump eats cow poop on all four and then digs his own grave, I'm good.

Another Bear said:

---

This is a progressive in Nebraska who won a congressional primary. I can't find anything I disagree with, but yes I'm a progressive. I don't see anything a moderate Democrat can disagree with.

What do the moderate or corporate Democratics agree with or disagree with from what what Eastman backs? I don't think it's that different, but perhaps not a priority.

---

I would say wanting to move to popular vote instead of the electoral college would be a non-starter for many Nebraskans, and would turn-off a lot of moderates. A lot of Omahans believe they are in fly-over country already and no one cares about them at the national level, why would they then vote to reduce their own political power and become further overlooked? It is also never going to pass as an amendment to the constitution, so why bring it up?

As an aside, I would love to use the popular vote instead.

Another Bear said:

---

This is a progressive in Nebraska who won a congressional primary. I can't find anything I disagree with, but yes I'm a progressive. I don't see anything a moderate Democrat can disagree with.

What do the moderate or corporate Democratics agree with or disagree with from what what Eastman backs? I don't think it's that different, but perhaps not a priority.

---

It's not about moderate Democrats objecting to folks like Eastman, it's about appeal to crossover moderate voters.

Progressive Democrats seem to be doing well in the primaries in some rural areas. It's a great experiment to see if they can win. If they do win, it opens up a whole new strategy for democratic / liberal politics that would be great.

otoh, if they don't win - I'm a believer that the 2018 election is the most important election I've ever voted in. There is a chance that if Republicans hold Congress in this election, then by the time 2020 arrives the FBI and Justice Department will just be tools of the Republican Party (perhaps the Judiciary too). Democracy ceases to exist at that point - so, it's a helluva experiment.

Honestly, I find myself less interested in what the national party's "strategy" is, at least in the long term (for the record, I think pointing out corruption is fine -- not some amazing magic-bullet approach, but fine). The party will move where its voters want it to move, so the results of these primary elections and ultimately the midterms are the proving ground. If there is a clear message from voters for a more progressive agenda, then that's where the party will go. Early indicators are that this is where the energy is, and in off-year elections turnout is everything, so I suspect that's what will win. There's still time for this to play out differently, though.

I found that interview very interesting because I don't recall ever seeing a list asked and checked off like before on a news related show. The interviewer just went down a list. But I didn't see anything crazy there; healthcare, education, environment, the economy. Yes the popular vote in Neb in a fly over state could be questionable but If it's only referring to the presidential vote which doesn't change Neb politics that much. Local politics up to senate still stays pretty much the same. I could see Iowa not being happy since they lead with the caucus.

What does Neb gain from staying with the electoral college?

I think going full popular vote helps reduce potential foreign elections hacking like the Russkies. They were smart enough to target a few states within the electoral college system that tipped things. They figured out the system and how to play it. Gaming a few states was much easier than gaming the popular vote.

Trump and his policy roll back, blatant corruption and full Ayn Rand suck off along with the pay gap examplified by CEO pay, a continued gender wage gap, the out break of male sexual harassers, a totally fuucked up healthcare system and a whole generation facing an old fashion shyt sandwich says it's time for change.

The question is about momentum, I think there is a progressive push. But 90% of the media is corporately owned, so that will come into play. Conservatives might stay home or not so how do moderates with full pocketbooks pumped by the Trump window of greed vote? Their pocketbook or for the future?

For this shift to really hold however, I think Trump needs to do something completely stupid...like getting indicted and impeached. Neither might happen before the midterm but he's still pushing the conservative cart to the cliff's edge.

sycasey said:

---

The party will move where its voters want it to move, so the results of these primary elections and ultimately the midterms are the proving ground. If there is a clear message from voters for a more progressive agenda, then that's where the party will go. Early indicators are that this is where the energy is, and in off-year elections turnout is everything, so I suspect that's what will win.

---

Results so far still continuing to prove this assumption right.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/22/politics/democratic-primaries-tuesday-georgia-kentucky-texas-arkansas/index.html

Centrists are gonna screw us.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

Anarchistbear said:

---

Centrists are gonna screw us.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

---

I find this interesting yet worrisome, though I do wonder how people identified themselves. Were they given the options of Far Left, Far Right, and Centrist, as I would imagine most people do not think of themselves as extreme. I could see people identifying as conservative or liberal yet still saying centrist if their only other options were Far Left and Far Right.

golden sloth said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Centrists are gonna screw us.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

---

I find this interesting yet worrisome, though I do wonder how people identified themselves. Were they given the options of Far Left, Far Right, and Centrist, as I would imagine most people do not think of themselves as extreme. I could see people identifying as conservative or liberal yet still saying centrist if their only other options were Far Left and Far Right.

---

There's a link to the paper in his article where he does address this and his methodology. He was aware of this trap and back validated by other means.

It's not that surprising though. Centrist, educated elites have always been the backbone of authoritarians. Trump's supporters are solely characterized as uneducated and poor Ish- not true. He won whites with college degrees. How often have we heard the " I don't like his tweets but his policies are necessary" line.

In fact, Trump's no outsider, he's as American as apple pie and has been at the center of corporate and media life for a long time where he's been fawned over by both.

Centrist want it both ways, which is possible when everyone compromises and an agreement can be reached. The extremes don't get everything they want but centrist get most of what they want: both sides. And the center, like the middle class, usually has the most to lose...and those folks are more willing to bow to authoritarianism to keep it all, or some.

Well the "everyone compromises" is no longer...yes due to the extreme right...and thus the centrist are the tipping point. Sort of like Kennedy in the SCOTUS, before Trump appointed Gorsech (sic).

golden sloth said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Centrists are gonna screw us.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

---

I find this interesting yet worrisome, though I do wonder how people identified themselves. Were they given the options of Far Left, Far Right, and Centrist, as I would imagine most people do not think of themselves as extreme. I could see people identifying as conservative or liberal yet still saying centrist if their only other options were Far Left and Far Right.

---

I wonder if it's that "centrists" get frustrated by the partisan fighting faster and are more likely to "check out" of the process entirely. Meanwhile, people with a clear ideology and goals are willing to keep trying.

That's an interesting study. In America, if you don't believe in democracy you are not a centrist - I don't care what you call yourself.

Centrists are often seats of power more interested in order than freedom. Our corporate leaders are centrists as is most of the media.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Read another article today on the democratic strategy for 2018:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/8/17434132/democrats-economic-agenda-strong-economy-donald-trump-steny-hoyer-2018-midterms

Quote:

---

Democrats say Republican tax cuts are hurting more than they're helping

In 2016, Trump campaigned on a message that the economy had left behind a lot of people (specifically in the white working class). Despite the economy's strength under both the Obama and Trump administrations, those anxieties have not disappeared in the year and a half since Trump was elected.

Now Democrats are making the economy a huge focus. House and Senate Democrats unveiled a platform that focuses largely on increasing the minimum wage, putting a dent in rising income inequality, and solving the crisis of unaffordable housing. To underscore that point, Hoyer and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) recently launched a "Pathways Out of Poverty" listening tour, visiting communities around the country who are devising their own solutions for upward mobility.

---

Unless the stock market crashes (as some conservatives are yelling about [see below]), I think the economy is a difficult argument to make this election cycle. Republicans are better at messaging and they will destroy the democrats message if the dems end up arguing the subject directly. The only way I see using the economy as an issue is if they take the somewhat abstract idea of the economy and reframe the question as 'Can you buy a house?', 'Are you prepared for retirement?', and 'Can you pay for your kids college?', then use those questions to highlight the 'The Rich are getting richer, Are you keeping up?' argument which I believe is better than income inequality (which I find too generic to be effective in messaging). This is not to say there are not other issues they can campaign on.

I should also mention, my questions may just be rooted in California biases, and our issues with housing prices. Other than a few major cities, I don't know if other areas of the country have the same issues.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Centrists are gonna screw us.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

---

We have Bernie and his crybaby supporters to thank for tRump. tRump is making it very clear in Canada that Putin owns him. Free college? Not on my dime. I would gladly pay for free certificates in a trade. Far too many kids spend 4 or 5 years in college drinking beer and coming out with knowledge that has zero market value. I'm not paying for that. You want to be an Anthro or Psych Major? You pay for it. Oh, and while you're at it,

Definitely need more psych or anthropology majors and less business and legal majors. It's the latter who have driven the country off the cliff. What we need is some new Red Guards. Re-educate James Comey and Mark Zuckerberg in some pig farm.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Definitely need more psych or anthropology majors and less business and legal majors. It's the latter who have driven the country off the cliff. What we need is some new Red Guards. Re-educate James Comey and Mark Zuckerberg in some pig farm.

---

Well, I agree with you that a Renaissance education would result in a better balanced citizenry. I was able to get one at Cal because I had an end game. Most kids that go into those majors now end up at the reception desk crying about student debt but having no marketable skills to get the scratch to repay it. Get a certificate in a trade or learn how to code so that you can make enough money to pursue your passion as a hobby. Guess what. Very few employers are willing to pay you a living wage to pursue your passion.

Fortunately for the Democrats, Trump has decided to bring health care back into the news again, which is the single worst issue for Republicans.

Dems are all over the board...the leadership have not learned one thing from the trump loss ...

One person is advocating for the Dem's to start fighting dirty. Some of the proposals were downright stupid, but there were some interesting quotes:

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-republicans-trump-election

Quote:

---

Sean Illing
I definitely want to get into some of these structural barriers, but let's be clear about this point you're making. A lot of people still think there's some meaningful connection between policy outcomes and voter decisions, but there's a good bit of political science research to suggest that's just a fantasy.

David Faris
Right. People just don't seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.
So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And it's like that with a lot of policies voters simply don't connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.

I think the idea that we're going to deliver these benefits to people and they're going to be like, "Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that you've done, let me return you with a larger majority next time," is just nonsense. It's the wrong way to think about politics.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do things for people, but we've got to be serious about how elections are won. And they're not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins.

---

Quote:

---

Sean Illing
In the book, you say that Democrats are engaged in "policy fights" and Republicans are waging a "procedural war." What does that mean?

David Faris
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that it's extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.

Since the '90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, we've seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate.

---

Midterms are always about opposition/referendum against the party in power. It's been like that for 30-40 years and now it's the GOP/Trumpies turn.

I think you play this full blast: TRUMP is bad for democracy, free trade (Hellow G7), the economy and from all reasonable evidence so far; 22+ indictments, 5 plea deals, 1 guy already did prison...and more is coming. Play healthcare card too. Play the treason card. Play the Russkies screwed American democracy.

Right now the GOP and Grump are taking major heat on the separation of kids from their parents at the southern border. The logic on this is easy...most everyone has kids, or were once kids...and they understand separation is basically a hardcore fascist move that only cccksuckers and mother****ers advocate, and that would be Trump, Sessions and the Nazi Miller.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!

Congress may snub Trump on wall, risking shutdown

Quote:

---

Senate Republicans privately acknowledge that they're unlikely to pass a funding bill that will satisfy the president.

---

It seems Trump wants his wall and the GOP don't want to give it to him...so Trump shuts down funding...in SEPTMEMBER, rightr before the mid-term elections. Swift move Ex-lax...gonna crap all over yourself and the GOP.

And finally...oh my, the Dems have figured something out:

It's Not Collusion, It's Corruption

Quote:

---

Democrats want to highlight Trump scandals in their push for Congress this falljust not the one that has dominated headlines and threatens his presidency.

---

Wow, this is actually sound strategy. Ditch the Russia talk and go with the corruption that's apparent, Pruitt and the swamp monsters, the Trump charity, conflict of interest, Emoluments Clause, Jared and Ivanka making $85 mil last year, and of course the pay to play back channel Russkie stuff.

Another Bear said:

---

Right now the GOP and Grump are taking major heat on the separation of kids from their parents at the southern border. The logic on this is easy...most everyone has kids, or were once kids...and they understand separation is basically a hardcore fascist move that only cccksuckers and mother****ers advocate, and that would be Trump, Sessions and the Nazi Miller.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!

Congress may snub Trump on wall, risking shutdown

Quote:

---

Senate Republicans privately acknowledge that they're unlikely to pass a funding bill that will satisfy the president.

---

It seems Trump wants his wall and the GOP don't want to give it to him...so Trump shuts down funding...in SEPTMEMBER, rightr before the mid-term elections. Swift move Ex-lax...gonna crap all over yourself and the GOP.

And finally...oh my, the Dems have figured something out:

It's Not Collusion, It's Corruption

Quote:

---

Democrats want to highlight Trump scandals in their push for Congress this falljust not the one that has dominated headlines and threatens his presidency.

---

Wow, this is actually sound strategy. Ditch the Russia talk and go with the corruption that's apparent, Pruitt and the swamp monsters, the Trump charity, conflict of interest, Emoluments Clause, Jared and Ivanka making $85 mil last year, and of course the pay to play back channel Russkie stuff.

---

I can get behind this strategy, I think it could play well to the middle, but they need some nifty slogans. Sadly, I feel like whoever has the better slogan is more likely to win. Make America Great Again was a great slogan, as was Yes We Can. I don't know but maybe something like Take America Back or Take Our Country Back.

Agree...Take Back America for the People...or something.

I can see ads about all the corruption, how money they've pulled down...with a nice slogan. While nailing him for false promises. I think the Dems have to take the gloves off. Just throw everything at the GOP, see what sticks and hurts.

Quote:

---

Out of 2,002 Republican and Democratic adults (including 1,608 registered voters) surveyed by the Pew Research Center from June 5 to 12, immigration emerged as the top issue they most wanted to hear 2018 candidates talk about. In fact, about one in five voters mentioned immigration more than mentioned either health care or the economy.

Republican voters or those who lean Republican were slightly more likely to mention immigration as their most important issue than their Democratic counterparts; 21 percent of Republicans mentioned immigration as their top issue, compared to 18 percent of Democrats.

Health care was the next most important priority for Democratic voters, while Republicans were focused on the economy and economic issues. Democratic voters were twice as likely as Republicans to mention health care as a key issue.

---

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485162/pew-research-center-poll-immigration-issue-2018-midterms

A couple of thoughts: (1) It saddens me that gun control has once again disappeared essentially giving the NRA another win and nullifying the Parkland kids' efforts, (2) Although I believe income inequality and affordable housing are important issues, unless the economy tanks from the tariffs, the conservatives have the better talking points regarding the economy, (3) It would be nice if government corruption and the environment at least registered.

Sadly immigration and "race" or "otherness" has always been a big issue in the U.S. Before Latinos being hated upon, there were Asians and before them, the Irish and Italians were both badgered and slammed for being different. Italians weren't even considered white, and the Irish were still looked down upon due to their history with the English. Unfortunately race is the story of America, and it can't escape it.

Guns violence however can be broken. Won't be easy but generational shifts will help, but really need one big key lawsuit to wound the NRA and gunmakers.

Immigration is a nuanced issue. Separating families is a big mistake as Trump demonstrates.

Gun control in the age of Trump is a non starter. It's a local issue

It appears beyond the Strategy of 'Message', they need to focus on voter turnout of young people (yes, perhaps a white whale).

Quote:

---

Democrats are winning over younger voters by huge numbers, but as a highly contentious voter turnout-dependent midterm election inches closer, there's a serious question whether these young Democrats will come to the polls.

A recently released poll from Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlanticconducted in June showed only 28 percent of young adults, ages 18 to 34, say they are "absolutely certain" they'll vote in midterms, compared to 74 percent of seniors.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/18/17585898/young-voter-turnout-polls-midterms-2018

To all those who care, spread the good word of this link: https://vote.gov/

Turnout in 2014 midterms was about 35%. This is the whole ballgame.

golden sloth said:

---

It appears beyond the Strategy of 'Message', they need to focus on voter turnout of young people (yes, perhaps a white whale).

Quote:

---

Democrats are winning over younger voters by huge numbers, but as a highly contentious voter turnout-dependent midterm election inches closer, there's a serious question whether these young Democrats will come to the polls.

A recently released poll from Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlanticconducted in June showed only 28 percent of young adults, ages 18 to 34, say they are "absolutely certain" they'll vote in midterms, compared to 74 percent of seniors.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/18/17585898/young-voter-turnout-polls-midterms-2018

To all those who care, spread the good word of this link: https://vote.gov/

---

I recommend reading the rest of the article. The overall % of young voters is important, but less important than the turnout relative to the usual midterm election.

Quote:

---

And it's actually a big improvement for Democrats compared to past midterms. In the 2014 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the Senate, only 13 percent of young voters participated, according to the census.

---