Dems Rebuild

[commando]

seems legit

 

[RedDenver]

I don't know how sensible abolishing ICE would actually be.

What I do know is that it's probably a good headline for the Republicans because it doesn't sound good. They were already saying the Democrats want free and open borders. And it's probably not a good way to win the House.

Do you think?  This is the party that didn't bat an eyelash when Trump floated out that he wants to abolish the EPA and Dept. of Education.

Does anyone really think that "abolish ICE" or "support ICE" is going to change the minds of any Republicans?

And it's pretty sad if advocating for getting rid of a government agency that separates families is somehow a "losing" strategy in American politics when the other side is advocating getting rid of a bunch of government agencies. At least "abolish ICE" is a clear and bold message, which the Dems haven't had in forever.

 

[Mierin]

seems legit

Damn. They're going to have to cancel now that he's onto them.

 

[TGHusker]

Here is something the Dems need to be careful about - allowing the pendulum to swing too far left.  This will

be a difficult task in light of the repulsive feelings there which towards Trump.  But even in this environment

some see Bernie as not 'left enough'.  If the party goes full bore to the left of Sanders, it will be a disaster come 2018 & 2020 for the Dems.

https://newrepublic.com/article/149378/bernie-sanders-not-left

It’s certainly true that Sanders is to the left of most Democrats. But contrary to how he’s often portrayed in the media, he is not a doctrinaire leftist. His principal benefit to the left has been to mainstream certain beliefs—namely, that access to health care, education, and living wages are rights, not luxuries. But Sanders is not a revolutionary. His views aren’t even entirely consistent with democratic socialism, the political tradition he claims. It’s one thing to call for breaking up the big banks, and quite another to call for the nationalization of private industries.

Sanders isn’t just to the right of the average American socialist; he’s to the right of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the U.K.’s Labour Party. While nationalization is a key pillar of the party’s platform, it is ground politicians in the United States still fear to tread. In similar fashion, Sanders has yet to put forward a coherent leftist vision for foreign policy, a needless failure considering socialism’s historical commitment to the prosperity of working people around the world.

Sanders is mostly an accurate diagnostician of American problems, and his prescriptions are simple ones: Tax the rich, expand health care, and pay people enough to feed their families. But these are radical positions only because the right wing has so successfully embedded hostility to welfare and government services in American political life. In previous eras, Sanders would have been a relatively mainstream politician.

“Bernie Sanders’s socialism is Eisenhower’s and F.D.R.’s world if Reagan had never happened: economic security updated by the continuing revolutions in gender, cultural pluralism, and the struggle for racial justice,” Jedediah Purdy wrote for The New Yorker in 2015, when Sanders was ascendant. Sanders points out cracks in the order of things, but seeks to patch up the cracks rather than change the order itself. That’s a renovation, not a revolution.

 

[TGHusker]

Here is another article that points out the 'Dark Blue Wave' of progressives that is trying to push the party more to the right.

https://www.axios.com/2018-midterms-democrats-progressive-moderate-blue-wave-58edf3be-e2db-4d3b-ac6b-42697c7edfc0.html

The dark blue wave ... Democratic Socialists of America, which endorsed Ocasio-Cortez, is a growing force within the party. Its membership has ballooned from 7,000 to 37,000 members since the 2016 election, per NY Times.

• The group supports things like Medicare for All and abolishing ICE, which more and more Democrats are embracing, like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Mayor Bill de Blasio.
  
• Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a leading progressive group, has launched a campaign to tarnish the New Dem brand of centrist House members.
  

The other side: After more moderate candidates like Doug Jones and Conor Lamb helped Democrats pick up seats in unlikely places, the party saw them as a path to the majority. They didn't consider how President Trump has radicalized candidates on both sides.

Be smart: Democrats need to unite the competing wings of their party before November if they want to win, but they're missing a central figure who can pull that off.

 

[RedDenver]

If the party goes full bore to the left of Sanders, it will be a disaster come 2018 & 2020 for the Dems.

I keep seeing this sentiment, but there's no evidence that this is true. I mean, it could be, but that same thinking would have said that the far-right would be an election disaster for the Repubs but in actuality the far-right politicians have been winning more and more since 2008. It could be that the far-left would be an election disaster for the Dems, but it's equally possible that it's a winning strategy.

 

[TGHusker]

I keep seeing this sentiment, but there's no evidence that this is true. I mean, it could be, but that same thinking would have said that the far-right would be an election disaster for the Repubs but in actuality the far-right politicians have been winning more and more since 2008. It could be that the far-left would be an election disaster for the Dems, but it's equally possible that it's a winning strategy.

I say that because I think the country is still more 'center' focused politically and there is too much 'red' on the map. The repubs will stir the pot big time with charges of socialism, etc.  I think that will be difficult to overcome - unless Trump hate really stirs the pot if he is still on the ticket. 

It could be a winning strategy if we follow the ever wider pendulum swing - since GHWB we have alteranted and have swung ever further left and then right wt each president.  GHWB - then Clinton (Moderate Dem), then GWB (more conservative than Dad Bush), then Obama (more to the left of Clinton) then Trump (wildly more radical) next???

For America to gain some sense of normality, we really need some strong centralist leaders to rise to the top - center right to center left.   It is hard for a 'moderate' to gain traction - we normally don't think of moving the ball forward with a moderate or great excitement with a moderate - but I'm thinking in today's fractured culture we need one so we can catch our breath, understand who we are as a nation, reunited us and pause and think where we need to go as a country.  It may be wishful thinking but one can only hope. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I keep seeing this sentiment, but there's no evidence that this is true. I mean, it could be, but that same thinking would have said that the far-right would be an election disaster for the Repubs but in actuality the far-right politicians have been winning more and more since 2008. It could be that the far-left would be an election disaster for the Dems, but it's equally possible that it's a winning strategy.

Maybe it's possible the Dems could pick up a few seats here and there with a far left agenda.  BUT....they could dominate with a left/center agenda.

There are one hell of a lot of people like me who are stuck in the middle and looking for someone they can support.  If the Dems go far left, it's just one more election I have nobody to support.

 

[RedDenver]

Maybe it's possible the Dems could pick up a few seats here and there with a far left agenda.  BUT....they could dominate with a left/center agenda.

There are one hell of a lot of people like me who are stuck in the middle and looking for someone they can support.  If the Dems go far left, it's just one more election I have nobody to support.

I suppose it depends on what you consider "left/center" vs "far-left". Here's some polling numbers for what the Washington Post defined as "far-left":

But what about those “far left” issues? Well, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy—which is, of course, what Kara Eastman proposed—is a quite popular position. The latest polling on this was a CBS News poll from last year (10/27–30/17) which found 56 percent in favor of raising taxes on large corporations, and 58 percent wanting higher taxes for “wealthy Americans.” This was, of course, before the massive tax breaks given to corporations and the wealthy by the Republican Congress.

As for marijuana, broad majorities are in favor of legalizing it, according to polls by Quinnipiac (63 percent, 4/20–24/18), CBS (59 percent, 4/11–15/18), Pew (61 percent, 10/25–30/17) and Gallup (64 percent, 10/5–11/17).

Universal healthcare is not quite as popular as pot, but it’s also pretty popular. When Gallup (11/2–8/17) asked, “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” 56 percent said yes. Kaiser (10/5–10/17) found 53 percent in favor of “having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.”

With universal background checks, we actually have polling on the impact that position would have on people’s likelihood to vote for a congressional candidate. “Would you definitely vote for or definitely vote against a candidate for Congress who wants to require background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales?” the Marist poll (4/10–13/18) asked. Eighty-six percent said they would vote “definitely for” a candidate who took that “far left” position.

 

[TGHusker]

I suppose it depends on what you consider "left/center" vs "far-left". Here's some polling numbers for what the Washington Post defined as "far-left":

As for marijuana, broad majorities are in favor of legalizing it, according to polls by Quinnipiac (63 percent, 4/20–24/18), CBS (59 percent, 4/11–15/18), Pew (61 percent, 10/25–30/17) and Gallup (64 percent, 10/5–11/17).

I think the marijuana issue is more of a Libertarian issue than a far left issue. 

I don't see universal background checks as far left.  Banning all guns would be far left in my opinion. 

Raising taxes on wealthy and corporations - would be leftist - far left would be confiscation of wealth and nationalization of corporations.  Of course that may be Soviet style left which is more left than what we are talking about. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think the marijuana issue is more of a Libertarian issue than a far left issue. 

I don't see universal background checks as far left.  Banning all guns would be far left in my opinion. 

Raising taxes on wealthy and corporations - would be leftist - far left would be confiscation of wealth and nationalization of corporations.  Of course that may be Soviet style left which is more left than what we are talking about. 

Those along with free college for everyone and the government guaranteeing jobs.

These are the areas where you're losing me.

 

[RedDenver]

I think the marijuana issue is more of a Libertarian issue than a far left issue. 

I don't see universal background checks as far left.  Banning all guns would be far left in my opinion. 

Raising taxes on wealthy and corporations - would be leftist - far left would be confiscation of wealth and nationalization of corporations.  Of course that may be Soviet style left which is more left than what we are talking about. 

I agree that the Soviet Socialism version of the left is insane, but that was also an authoritarian regime and those are terrible regardless of political spectrum.

But the things you mention as not being far-left: legalize marijuana, universal background checks, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations - that's much of what the progressives on the left like Bernie Sanders are advocating. Now they also want universal healthcare, free public colleges and trade schools, and living wages, which may be where you aren't comfortable, but I think generally that Americans aren't that far apart on economic issues, and the polling says they tend to be left of the politicians on most economic ideas. This article has a long list of polling on various issues but here's some highlights:

The Economy

• 82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
  
• 69 percent think large businesses have too much power and influence in Washington.
  
• 78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
  

Inequality

• 82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
  
• 66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
  

Money in Politics

• 96 percent of Americans—including 96 percent of Republicans—believe money in politics is to blame for the dysfunction of the U.S. political system.
  
• 84 percent of Americans—including 80 percent of Republicans—believe money has too much influence in politics.
  
• 78 percent of Americans say we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money in politics.
  

Taxes

• 80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
  
• 76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
  
• 87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
  
• 67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
  

Minimum Wage

• 66 percent of Americans favor raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.
  
• 59 percent favor raising the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.
  
• 48 percent support raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. (A  survey of registered voters found that 54 percent favored a $15 minimum wage.)
  
• 63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.
  

Health Care

• 60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
  
• 60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
  

 

[ZRod]

Those along with free college for everyone and the government guaranteeing jobs.

These are the areas where you're losing me.

I'll just jump into the fray here, but I think free higher education at public universities for anyone who wants it should be something we strive for. I know the line about how some are immature and won't try hard thing, but what is wrong with trying to over educate the population? Clearly there are too many idiots around these days with flat earthers and anti-vaxers.

A jobs guarantee while impractical is a thoughtful idea. It's not like you can just move out west and stake out a new claim to land these days.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'll just jump into the fray here, but I think free higher education at public universities for anyone who wants it should be something we strive for. I know the line about how some are immature and won't try hard thing, but what is wrong with trying to over educate the population? Clearly there are too many idiots around these days with flat earthers and anti-vaxers.

I am all for reducing the cost of higher education...especially at our public institutions.  But, I'm a firm believer that 18+ year old people are adults and at that point, they need to have some skin in the game.  Right now, way too many of our HS kids are just putting in their time because they have to be there.  If you offer free college to them, that attitude just goes on for 4 more years.

It would take some major convincing to make me support this.

 

[TGHusker]

I'll just jump into the fray here, but I think free higher education at public universities for anyone who wants it should be something we strive for. I know the line about how some are immature and won't try hard thing, but what is wrong with trying to over educate the population? Clearly there are too many idiots around these days with flat earthers and anti-vaxers.

A jobs guarantee while impractical is a thoughtful idea. It's not like you can just move out west and stake out a new claim to land these days.

That goes to the big point of restructuring education in the USA.  There are High Schools that have programs in which a student can graduate wt both their HS diploma and also an Associates degree or a Tech School degree/certificate.  The nation would be better served and students better prepared for the real world if all schools offered such programs and mandated all students go through a program that took the student beyond just a normal HS diploma.   With on line studies this is not that difficult in today's world (unless your student is in year around sports - trying to get to the NBA or NFL).  Granted, some of us didn't know what we wanted to be when we grew up until ... well pass our grown up years. So, I don't want the schools or anyone else dictate who is going to be a doctor and who will be a carpenter, etc - but I think we need to more aggressive in preparing students for the real world.  Free education after HS would be a hard sell to me. Who gets to go to Harvard (or your normal expensive State College ) and who goes to Valley City VoTech.  The inequity of costs would be hard to reconcile.  I think the better tactic would be to reduce the cost of college. In the day of high tech, do we really need the current model - large expensive buildings, over paid instructors - many who are tenured and therefore difficult to remove if performing poorly, college courses that are meaningless social experiment junk.  While the Chinese are sending their students to Harvard to learn math, science, engineering, we are sending our Sally Janes and Billy Bobs to State U to learn all kinds of crazy things such as these few listed below.

However, I do think all of us on HP should talk course # 12 listed below. 

https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/life/college/weird-college-classes/


12 Weird College Classes That Have Actually Been Offered


To get you started, here are a few (very real) classes from recent years to inspire your search through the underbelly of the course catalog.


1. Surviving the Coming Zombie Apocalypse: Disasters, Catastrophes, and Human Behavior


This online course from Michigan State University looks at how humans behave during catastrophes and disasters.

Students navigate challenges as they learn about the planning and management that promotes group survival, and, more importantly, what a catastrophic event would mean for humanity.

(Also, it’s open to anyone who wants to take the course — college students and non-students alike!)


2. The Art of Walking: The German Novella


Centre College offers this course on walking, for those of us who never learned how.

OK, not really. It’s actually an exploration of German culture’s wandering traditions through literature and weekly hikes — so I guess there’s some thinking involved.


3. Introduction to Beekeeping


While we should all learn how help our very significant and very-quickly-dying-out pollinating friends, you could actually get college credit for it.

This course from Temple University teaches students the science and art of beekeeping, and explains the critical role of bees in our ecosystem.


4. The Science of Harry Potter


This course at Frostburg State University was the brainchild of Professor Plitnik (who sounds like he might be an actual Harry Potter character) and an exploration of the physics behind the magic throughout the beloved book series.


5. Lemonade: Black Women, Beyonce & Popular Culture


The University of Texas at San Antonio offers a class, that explores “the theoretical, historical, and literary frameworks of black feminism, which feature prominently in Lemonade,” by looking at black feminist literature, theory, film and music — pretty much everything Lemonade is.


6. Coffee 101


Exactly what it sounds like: This course from Oberlin Experimental College focuses on “coffee and its history for the average Joe” (I see your coffee pun).

Oberlin Experimental College has a whole program devoted to allowing people from the school and surrounding town to develop and teach not-so-ordinary courses. Honorable mention: Beginning Dungeons and Dragons.


7. How to Stage a Revolution


Ohio State University is busy training the next generation for revolt. Just kidding (maybe), but it does offer a course that looks at different revolutionary movements to better understand why some succeed and others fail.


8. The #selfie


Someday, when society as we know it lies in ruins, alien archeologists from 300 million light-years away will sift through billions of photos of duck-faced girls and shirtless dudes — and it will be just as weird for them as it is for us.

But that’s not exactly what this class, which was available at Duke University, touched on. Instead, it focused on the history of portraiture and the modern idea of “everyday life.”

I promise, the course sounds way more intriguing than the title would lead you to believe.


9. Tightwaddery, Or the Good Life on a Dollar a Day


“Money doesn’t buy happiness.”

Ah yes, wise words — and the entire premise of this class from Alfred University, where students learned that the connection between happiness and money is “a lie perpetrated by capitalists in order to sell their products.”

Which might be true, but the class explored the idea on both theoretical (through discussions about students’ relationship with money) and practical (through a study in how to live frugally) levels. It’s like Penny Hoarding 101!


10. The Politics of Kanye West: Black Genius and Sonic Aesthetics


A whole semester with Kanye West. Just imagine.

Yeah, OK — not my cup of tea.

However, the premise for this course from Washington University in St. Louis is pretty interesting. The class focuses on Kanye’s influence on music, fashion, politics and videography, and examines the way these things direct our views on fame, gender, sexuality and race. A really neat angle on a pretty eccentric guy.


11. Patternmaking For Dog Garments


The Fashion Institute of Technology in New York offers this class, which is exactly what it sounds like.

Students learn how to turn basic sketches into patterns for dog clothing, and it’s actually more complicated than you would think. Students use a doggie dress form to understand the slopes and body features of different dog breeds, so there’s a science involved.

And I mean, come on, this knowledge could come in very handy some day.


12. Wasting Time on the Internet


The University of Pennsylvania once offered this class, which aimed to reframe the idea of wasting time on the internet, instead calling the World Wide Web the “greatest poem ever written.”

Nice try, Penn. This is probably just an excuse to spend a whole semester watching cat videos.

And If you’ve made it to the end of this post, you’ve succeeded at wasting at least 10 minutes on the internet, so A+ for you!