Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

U.S. Congress Part 116


thebluefood

Recommended Posts

There really is no excuse for this. They are risking being tragically out of touch with issues for their own younger and larger liberal base. 

 

You would think they would see the huge demographic advantage they have with voters in the 18-40 age range and structure leadership around maximizing this base. Instead, they nominate people from an era of liberalism that doesn't really fit the diversity of views and needs of their younger base.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Glad to see the conversation going again in here... was genuinely a little worried ithe thread had been de facto killed

Me, too. I haven't been able to visit the forum lately but I was worried when I saw it wasn't on the first page anymore. Thanks for keeping the conversation going, guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just House Democrats either.  And it's not really about age, Bernie Sanders was old but he was the political voice of Millennials and he was beloved.  Elizabeth Warren is beloved and she's 67.  It's about the politics.  And trust.  When Hillary won the nomination, I said "OK, I'll vote for her.  But Democrats are going to have to start nominating more liberal candidates."

 

The #1 reason I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary was because I wanted a true and reliable advocate for single payer health care reform in the White House.  Secondary reasons were that I wanted someone to truly go after Citizens United.  And I wanted someone more dove-ish.  And I was impressed by his vote against the repeal of Glass-Steagall (Nay to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act).  I trusted his political compass.  

 

Democrats need to be the true advocates for the left on these key issues because they have to be the battlegrounds for our political fights with the Right.  They're not the only three or four bedrock issues, but they're the ones where Democrats have been sketchy IMO.  If you concede that Single Payer is impossible before the fight, then we will never get ****ing decent and sensible health care in this country.  If you are seduced by unlimited money in politics, or bull**** trickle down and free market economic ideas that lead to deregulation of the financial services industry and open the door to obvious excess and exploitation, then the middle class and the poor will get exploited and crushed.  And if you get wrapped up in hysteria over terrorism and obsessed with proving the credibility of American hard and soft power around the world, you're going to get sucked into costly Imperialistic conflicts that are inconclusive and counterproductive.

 

There are other absolutely critical issues too: environmentalism and slowing man made climate change, fighting for the Civil Rights for ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT people, pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, and advocating for equal pay for women, improving her access to health care, and protecting their right to choose.  Democrats have a fairly pure record on these issues.  And these battles certainly aren't won and they can't ever be abandoned.  But Democrats need leadership that's also completely committed to fighting for the left on those previous issues I mentioned

Edited by stevemcqueen1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

There really is no excuse for this. They are risking being tragically out of touch with issues for their own younger and larger liberal base. 

 

You would think they would see the huge demographic advantage they have with voters in the 18-40 age range and structure leadership around maximizing this base. Instead, they nominate people from an era of liberalism that doesn't really fit the diversity of views and needs of their younger base.

 

 

Was thinking the same thing when I heard the news yesterday. I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I heard Pelosi trying to reassure everyone that they would be an effective presence in Congress, especially for the working class and the young voters they really turned off during the campaign.

 

While they *might* be a better alternative for the working class (though yesterday's Marketplace report on the EPA's report on pipelines makes me wonder how much better they are) the Democratic Party still doesn't impress me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that this older generation of Democratic politicians has conceded grassroots activism and riling up the base to right. Nancy Pelosi is not the person who will project a modern leftist vision of the country to a broad audience.

 

There seems to be a lack of urgency on the part of top Democratic leaders. It almost makes you wonder that they are ok with a Republican administration because ultimately the pattern of growth in this country, regardless of administration, has been one to enrich cities, the professional class and urban areas. And I doubt that Trump really is the populist that he says he is considering that his cabinet is stocked with urban elites.

 

The danger of this political game is that a real populist, who truly believes in some wildly destructive ideas, will come around and actually act on his base instincts. If the Democrats don't change their political tune in the next 4 years, I will almost be rooting for someone to come in and torch the entire thing down the ground.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a direct result of the Dems getting their ass handed to them at the state level nationwide for a decade plus.  They dont have an up and coming group of young Congressmen to move into leadership roles. 

I also heard yesterday (I think Matthews) say the real reason Ryan ran against her is because he's running for Governor and wanted to take away the GOPs ability to tie him to Pelosi.  Smart move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

This is a direct result of the Dems getting their ass handed to them at the state level nationwide for a decade plus.  They dont have an up and coming group of young Congressmen to move into leadership roles. 

I also heard yesterday (I think Matthews) say the real reason Ryan ran against her is because he's running for Governor and wanted to take away the GOPs ability to tie him to Pelosi.  Smart move.

 

Yep. Gerrymandering compounds this issue because the majority of Dems are packed into a few safe districts that tend to be dominated by the local political scene. Tough to find young candidates that can move up when the seats are occupied by a 60 year old member of that community that's been in local/state govt for 20 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

So are we back to thinking it matters what politicians say, what they've done in the past, etc?

So we won't post anything about any GOP folks who said anything in the 'past', right?  We won't bring up any past items during any hearings, any approvals, or just anything said in the past, while off camera, because now that it failed to work for Trump, it's not OK?  LOL @ #massive hypocrisy.

 

Like I said, it would be a massive problem for DNC, just like the Pelosi issue (and see how they've already tried to roll that back with 'limiting her power').  Like the congressman from the great state of Ohio said, Dems are no longer a National Party, just a party of the coasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...