So is there anything a Democrat for office HAS to support or agree with?

[vi5]

I'm just curious if there is anything left.

I know everyone loves to pull out that Will Rogers quote about not belonging to an organized political party because he's a Democrat.
I know everyone loves to say we are a "big tent".

But I also see a lot of "Well this person votes with the Democrats 75% of the time!"
I see a lot of "Well this person is just doing what his/her constituents want!"
I see a lot of "Well, this person comes from........"

But if every Dem is allowed to have their own issues that they can buck the party and the platform and the majority opinion or whatever else......how do we get anything done?

Senator/Rep A can vote against the rest of the party on pro-choice legislation because of their conscience? It's o.k. because he's great when it comes to the Environment!
Senator/Rep B can vote against against the party on environmental regulations because he lives in coal country? It's o.k. though because he's great when it comes to choice!
Senator/Rep C can vote to against the party to undermine unions because he lives in a state that supports "Right To Work"? It's o.k. though because he's great when it comes to gay rights!
Senator/Rep D can vote for anti-gay legislation because he comes from a heavily religious state? But it's all good because he supports single payer!
Senator/Rep E supports charter schools because their public education system is not great? But hey, he's a big supporter of gay rights.


See what I'm getting at? The only way this doesn't happen is if we end up with 65 to 70 seats in the senate, which as much as we all want to hope and dream and work for that, is highly unlikely. And in the absence of that, will everyone get veto power based on their own pet issue/constituents/region/etc.?

And yes, I know that a majority of Dems regardless of their individual stances gets us Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer. But if as a result everything has to be watered down or compromised or completely neutered to please SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, then what does that get us?

And yes, I know the Supreme Court and I don't at all discount that. But I'm just wondering if there is anything any more that we as a party MUST stand for without question. I used to be able to rattle off any number of things, and not require any caveats or ".....but"'s. I'm not entirely sure that can do that any more.

And here's the thing: I don't have an answer. I don't have a solution. I obviously want Trump out and the Republicans out of power. Without question. And I'm someone that has for the past 35 years voted for every Dem in every election, across the board and without fail and without question. And I can't see that ever changing.

But I also can't help thinking that the one thing we no longer expect our politicians to do is get out there and actually sell and promote and be proud of our policies and positions. It seems like what we are now o.k. with is not simply different positions and policies, which have always been there. But what we are o.k. with is running and hiding from who the Democratic party is and what we have historically stood for, simply because.....I don't know......why? Because it's hard? Because you don't want Morning Joe to say mean things about you? Because you might have to actually point to facts and data and do some hard work? Because a constituent might yell at you?

Again....I don't know. I'm just venting. I don't expect any answers or solutions or......anything really. It's just all very depressing that for all this scratching and clawing and fighting and crap we have to do and put up with, the end result of that is at best just clinging on to marginal control without the hope of any major progress.

[WinkyDink]

1. I'd put FDR's New Deal first and foremost. Then Medicare/Medicaid; Civil Rights; Roe v. Wade;

Public Education; Unions and Workers' Rights; Environmental Protections; Separation of Church and State;

Oh, and that "G**d*** piece of paper" (tm GWB) called the US Constitution.

[spanone]

2. i'd add social security to that...but that's one hell of a list

[WinkyDink]

13. Thanks! (I figured "FDR" covered SS. :-) )

[spanone]

17. you are correct!

[vi5]

24. Too bad....

..I don't think our party has supported all of those things beyond simply "The other guys are worse!" for the better part of 25 years now.

[WinkyDink]

45. Completely untrue.

[brooklynite]

41. How many Democratic supporters of the New Deal also opposed Civil Rights?

[WinkyDink]

46. The query was for the present: "is". I'm not going back to "Lincoln was a Republican," either.

[Squinch]

3. Anyone who votes against my right to own my body loses my vote. I can't believe this

is still a question.

I also can't believe that there are Democrats who think a person's right to own their own body is secondary to anything else.

[JCanete]

14. If we don't take money out of politics though, women's rights will always be a wedge issue that

is perpetuated because it, like other wedge issues, as real as their potential consequences, is intended as a distraction. I agree with you though, we can't go forward with candidates who lose us our own base to try to appeal to another group of voters. Even if I thought that was a smart way to take those particular voters in the right(as in left) direction(by not first effing with their core religious beliefs), EVEN on women's rights long term, I don't think it does the liberal wing of the party any favors when it goes to bat for candidates who look so bad on women's issues.

[Squinch]

26. My right to own my own body is not a wedge issue. It is no more a wedge issue

than is our opposition to slavery.

Using the argument that my ownership of my body is a wedge issue is letting them frame the narrative.

We have frequently won in the past. We have won not despite of but because of our staunch support of women's rights to own their own bodies.

And as you say, who are we going to support? Hobby Lobby Lucy who is Never.Going.To.Vote.For.A.Democrat? Or all those women who have voted for Democrats all along and will continue to do so.

[JCanete]

30. what I mean by a wedge issue, is it is being used, manipulated to drive a wedge and to get us to

fight over it, not that that we should choose not to fight back against this, but that that is its purpose. It should be settled, but money is willing to support candidates who attack on these issues because it focuses elections on a culture war and not a class war.

[Squinch]

31. But when WE fight over it we are contributing to THEIR narrative. Wedge issues are

just civil rights. So are "identity politics." The phrases "wedge issues" and "identity politics" are their invention. We should insist on calling them what they are, civil rights, and making it unthinkable that we would ever not support them.

This recent waffling on them can only hurt us, and hurt us badly.

[KingCharlemagne]

42. Ahem, Democrats were once the pro-slavery party. Slavery was most

definitely a "wedge" issue in the election of 1860.

[WinkyDink]

47. We once had Whigs and Tories, too. Then there was a revolution.

[Squinch]

56. You're hoping that buggy whip industry comes back, aren't you?

[Voltaire2]

4. 1. Trump is an abomination. 2. The Republican Party is responsible for Trump.

[NurseJackie]

5. ...

Well, that's politics for ya! Been that way all my life. You've got to give a little to get a little. Don't let perfection and purity get in the way of making at least a little progress. It's a much better option that standing still, getting nowhere or moving BACKWARD all in the name of vanity and pride.

(Excerpt)================================
But I also see a lot of "Well this person votes with the Democrats 75% of the time!"
================================
Yeah, and I see a lot of "... so let's primary him and nominate the the "perfect" progressive." (Followed by... "so what if he loses, at least we TRIED, right?" and "... even if he loses, at least we taught Manchin a lesson.&quot

This type of response is totally based on anger and emotion and frustration and revenge... nothing about it is thoughtful or strategic or politically wise. You'd think that full grown adults would have a better handle on their emotions, especially when there's so much at stake.

I'm not sure I'll ever fully understand the "logic" of WANTING to give up having the majority (or moving closer to having the majority) all for the purpose of revenge. How does that actually HELP anyone? It's just a variation of the idiotic Sarandonesque philosophy of "we must destroy it to rebuild it".

[Gothmog]

20. Great post

[JCanete]

21. the logic is wanting to actually have a majority, and sometimes, even when we have the D's, that is

a questionable assertion. That's my biggest problem.

You make plenty of good points, and I think there are reasonable people on both sides of this discussion. Its worth focusing on the best arguments and not the worst of them.

From my perspective, the question is the opportunity cost of keeping less progressive people in power, because they do a lot of harm to us and our party, and whether they do more good than harm is debatable. Locking these seats in without a primary and not giving people a choice is a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps these states philosophically red. It then becomes just more evidence of how conservative these areas of the country are, and since nobody is funding a more liberal message, its no wonder that that's the case.

On the flip-side, yes, the question of whether a candidate is doing more harm than good is moot in the face of a republican opponent for whom the answer to that question is forgone. When given those two candidates, I would prefer the Democrat every time. But what is wrong with primaries? If a more liberal candidate wins in a primary that means that his message is resonating with the democratic voters there, and THAT needs to be noted. If ultimately that candidate underperforms in the GE, then that could be a result of the state being too red, but the effort itself could bring in a new generation of voters who might respond more enthusiastically to that kind of messaging. It could inspire all kinds of activism at the grass-roots who aren't forced to choose between republican and republican light(no false equivalence here, we know republican light is far less bad for you, but the distinctions are far more easily lost on the general public, at which point the fight gets decided by personalities, and on dogmatic grounds like having always been a lifelong R voter).

We might disagree about whether a more progressive or less progressive candidate would have won what was otherwise lost in any real world example, or visa-versa, and we might disagree about whether or not making our brand better--more consistently on our side against exploitive corporate interests--would appeal to red-state voters and help us long term, or whether or not somebody like Manchin is a net positive, but most of us on both sides of this debate are interested in what is an effective strategy towards a better, more progressive world. I don't think promoting primaries rises to the occasion of outright revolution or letting it all burn down--quite to the contrary--it suggests an investment in the political process and the Democratic party, rather than a cynical disregard for government or an exodus from the Democratic tent.


edit: in before your LOL.

[vi5]

28. Exactly....

I couldn't have said what you said any better.

My other problem is that this entire argument is predicated on the idea that all of this only applies to Dems and not Republicans. I thought that kind of double standard was frowned upon.

Republicans primary their perceived RINO's all the time and win.
Republicans demand near lockstep adherence to a set of core issues, and win.
Republicans run conservatives in blue states and win.

Yet we are told time and time again that Democrats can't do this, and that if we do it's a death sentence.

As I said in my OP this is all also predicated on the idea that we cannot expect Democrats to actually sell, run on, and be proud of their accomplishments. And this again lets Republicans dictate the acceptable terms of debate.

[mythology]

35. You have a very odd definition of all the time

In 2016, 5 House incumbents were defeated in a primary, 3 of which were due to redistricting (one of the races was between two incumbents). That's the same percent as over the last decade. 2 of those 5 were Democrats (both involved the incumbent being indicted on multiple felonies).

https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_primaries,_2016

Where Republicans wind up with increasingly conservative members of Congress is running more extreme members in safe conservative districts but most of that are in open seats due to retirements or somebody being elected to a higher office.

Just because Eric Cantor lost doesn't mean it happens all the time.

[brer cat]

22. Well said, Jackie.

If one waits for purity, we will never again have a majority Democratic congress. There is also the fact that circumstances, viewpoints and priorities change over time.

[Dem2]

37. Boom

Well said.

[mhw]

54. + a million NurseJackie

With them its not about "us".
Its all about, " Me Me Me."

You speak the truth.
Thanks

[stevenleser]

6. Let's put the question back at you. Who makes the cut in your world?

I have an issue with every Democrat that ran for office. And yet I support almost all of them. I also have an issue with almost everyone at any point in the left spectrum.

I have many more issues with right wing candidates. So should I vote for or enable the right wingers because no one is my perfect candidate on the left?

[Demsrule86]

8. Exactly right.

[vi5]

9. I notice you didn't answer my question.

My question wasn't "Well will Republicans be worse?"

We're in this shit state we are in largely because too many people rightly or wrongly feel that our platform begins and ends with that question.

As for who makes my cut, I think I made it perfectly clear that I have voted for every Democrat since my first vote in the mid 80's. So they all make my cut.

But there are a lot of people that actually want something to vote FOR. And to know that this person is going to fight for those rights and not just drop them when it becomes politically expedient for them to do so.

So should I assume that your answer is that there is no issue that members of the Democratic party HAVE to stand for?

[vi5]

23. So your answer is "nothing"

There is nothing anyone with a D after their name can say or do that you would not support.

[NurseJackie]

25. Compared to the "L" or the "I" or the "G" or the "R" ... that's absolutely correct.

No matter what, I'll always support the DEMOCRAT. I'll never "not-vote" for the Democrat.

I'll never do anything, nor take any action, nor any inaction (such as not voting), nor write-in any non-Democrat's name, that would give any mathematical advantage to anyone who's not the Democrat.

(Excerpt)==============================
There is nothing anyone with a D after their name can say or do that you would not support.
==============================
Realistically, that's correct. I'm sure you could come up with some extreme fantasy hypothetical. And if it comes true, then I'll reconsider at that time. Until then, I vote for the Democrat.

[bettyellen]

27. Basically their perks are more important than civil rights and health care ...

[NurseJackie]

32. The far left needs to "fall in love"...

... but to defeat the GOP we all need to fall in line.

[bettyellen]

34. Not women and POC, we understand our liberty is on the line- im fed up with that not being priority

Number one. Seriously dudes gotta take it seriously .

[NurseJackie]

38. Yep.

[WinkyDink]

48. OP said he was "venting." He is asking for our opinions of a minimum, not "perfection." Jeez Louise.

[Demsrule86]

7. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security...of course. But really

we will have some moderates in red states...we have a good platform, but we can't elect people who adhere to that completely in red states...but no endorsements of those who are against core issues like reproductive rights.

[Demsrule86]

10. Also those who threaten to take their ball and go home and vote for Greens or any third party...

are not the base. The base by definition consists of loyal Dems who would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican or enabling said Republican by staying home or voting Green. The base are not those insisting that the Dem party in a time of complete powerlessness (brought on by those who complain in some cases)has to re-invent itself with an important election this year (governor's/specials) and one that will determine the course of Trump's presidency a little over a year away. We win the House or Senate, we shut Drump down. The base votes for the candidate with the "D" next to his/her name.

[mvd]

12. Well, there are some things I would really like them to have

They include:

- keeping FDR's new deal alive: strengthening social security, being for worker's rights, restricting corporate power

- making the rich pay their fair share in taxes

- keeping a strong safety net

- supporting affordable health care for all and bringing prescription drug prices to reasonable levels. If not single payer, I want to hear how the plan accomplishes those things

- being pro-choice

- supporting LGBT equality

- limiting corporate money in politics

- protecting the environment

- being for privacy protection

- investing in infrastructure and public education

- big reform of student loans

- separation of church and state

- being against needless war

- being against the death penalty

I am for reasonable gun control, but am open to opinions on this.

[treestar]

15. There does not need to be any one thing we all agree on

To make up a party, it takes people with a lot in common on the issues. There's that complaint about not being in lock step. No two people agree on everything, let alone a political party with millions.

[vi5]

29. Republicans do

How many Republicans do you know that would support tax increases?
How many Republicans do you know that would support a big cut in military spending?
How many Republicans do you know that would support universal health care?
How many Republicans do you know who support tighter regulations on corporations or Wall Street?

And if you can think of one or two, do they get veto power? Do they get to draft the legislation related to any of those issues?

[mythology]

36. 20 of them voted against the AHCA

John Boehner resigned because he couldn't wrangle them. The Republicans had to pull the original version of the AHCA because they couldn't get the votes. Look how long it took Republicans to elect a new speaker after Boehner resigned.

Consider this comparing John Boehner to Nancy Pelosi as a leader:

The most recent example was Boehner's attempt to pass a three-week extension of funding for the Department of Homeland Security, a move aimed at buying time to quiet conservatives' concerns with a funding bill that didn't include the repeal of President Obama's executive actions on immigration. The measure failed as 52 Republicans rebelled to vote "no," joined by all but 12 Democrats. Boehner was forced to put a "clean" DHS funding bill on the floor (one without any mention of Obama's executive actions) and that passed with the votes of every one of the 182 Democrats in attendance.

That same basic game plan has played out time and time again since Boehner took over as speaker four-plus years ago. Boehner tries to find a solution that will win over a majority of the majority. Tea party conservatives revolt. Pelosi holds her caucus in line, refusing to throw Boehner any sort of lifeline. Boehner is forced to either pull the legislation before it ever makes the House floor (i.e. "Plan B" on the fiscal cliff) or watch as he is publicly embarrassed by losing the vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/nancy-pelosi-turns-75-today-shes-still-the-most-effective-leader-in-congress/

It amazes me how people let their perceptions overrule the actual objective record.

[WinkyDink]

50. Looking at the larger picture of Republican principles and voting records, I'd say they are pretty

consistent in what they are against and what they are for (tax cuts for the upper tier).

There were those Republicans who voted against the AHCA because it was not draconian ENOUGH.

[treestar]

44. They don't. But they vote Republican

even if they don't agree with the candidate on an issue. They don't require there to be a point of total agreement in order to get out and vote.

[WinkyDink]

49. 100% DISAGREE. If Democrats do not support AT A MINIMUM the New Deal and Medicare, they stand for

NOTHING.

[treestar]

51. Others will have a couple of different issues

Each person will have their own. No large group of people agrees on everything. Though I doubt there is a Democrat elected at a federal level who is against the New Deal and Medicare. But there might be some who aren't for single payer, for instance.

[WinkyDink]

53. Of course. One always considers one's constituents.

[gopiscrap]

16. yes that all republicans are worthless pieces of shit

who have no business anywhere near elected office that we'll get in the gutter with them and win at all costs just like (except for breaking the law) but we'll go right up to it

[Smickey]

18. Going forward,

All dems should verifibly support campaign finance reform. If we don't get money out of elections/politics little will change.

[delisen]

19. That thing is Human Rights Justice,and Equality

Everything else proceeds from these principles and this is from where the river flows.

There has to be a shared vision of what we want our world to be. At present we have no conversation about our vision.

The people have to build the vision. When the people do not build the vision, and the politicians fill that vacuum as best they can, and at the same time try to accomplish the nuts and bolts work of passing and enforcing law-democracy doesn't work.

When the people abdicate their responsibility to build the vision, they look for "Leaders" to do that for them.

Those who should be building the vision, instead reduce themselves to being followers.

Right now we do not seem to have a shared vision of who we are, and where we want to go

It takes agreement on a big picture.

[NobodyHere]

33. I'll vote for any D that I believe has reasonable integrity

[mythology]

39. This is objectively wrong

It's not that you support candidate A because they support the environment because you value it over say a woman's right to choose. You support them because they agree with you on issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc more than the other candidate. Nobody is going to agree with you on everything other than you.

There's also the unfortunate fact that the parties are more polarized than ever. So your claim that we are somehow having the party unravel by electing candidates that aren't committed to Democratic values is just objectively false. For example, not one House Democrat voted for the AHCA. But for the 1960 Civil Rights Act, 179 Democrats voted for it and 93 voted against it. 132 Republicans voted for it and 20 against.

Party line voting has increased dramatically. Here's an article with a really good visual representation of how inaccurate your theory is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/

[brooklynite]

40. So Barack Obama wasn't a real Democrat, since he didn't support marriage equality until recently...

[KingCharlemagne]

43. Capitalism is good. SocialismCommunism is bad. - nt

[beachbum bob]

52. Corporations are not people...

[JoeStuckInOH]

55. The protection and axpansion of all Civil Rights, Social Safety Net Programs, and the Environment.

In that order.

The bill of rights, personal freedoms, and other equalities under the law should be guaranteed for everyone at all costs (even those we think are dirtbags).

Social safety net programs and plentiful access to these programs are needed to maintain a civil society with control over poverty and crime.

The Environment. You can only profit so much at the expense of the eco system before it goes bankrupt.