How to fix the Democratic Party

[Corcaigh]

Taking race out of the picture ... if you simply took the best students academically, the top universities in Virginia would heavily skew female, and from the wealthier DC suburbs.

 

if you are a female from Northern Virginia your odds of getting into W&M and UVA are significantly lower than a male from another part of the state. 
 

My daughter was admitted to W&M and was very happy that the demographics of her class was not a carbon copy of Loudoun County, VA. Her college experience was not negatively impacted by the acceptance of males who were not the “best qualified for the job“.

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Corcaigh

[redskins59]

48 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Also saying that Mayor Pete (mayor of a medium-sized town) is more qualified to be VP than Kamala Harris (6 years as AG of the largest state, 3 years as Senator of the largest state) is ridiculous.  

 

IMO, Mayor Pete would have been a good candidate, being part of the LGBTQ community.  

He is a smart guy.  

Being the inclusive party that the democrats are, we should strive to include everybody.

Heck, everything in the country should be inclusive.  There can be negative consequences otherwise (like in  the TJ example).

It is easy to say "best" people, but people may not like the result. In fact, I will guarantee it happens.

Try to include everybody.

[skinny21]

52 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

In the example you cited with DOI, there’s a *really* good reason to appoint a Native American. The Bureau of Indian Affairs falls under DOI. They administer all the tribal land. 

This is an excellent point.  @Larry did the program make note of this, or put this forward as their major point of reasoning?

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

it shouldn’t be the first thing you consider though.

Generally speaking, I agree.  I believe there are exceptions though - such as making the SC look more like the make-up of the country, perhaps a minority as Secretary of HUD (if my assumption - that urban areas are predominantly POC - is correct), though for me, the prime requisite would be someone who grew up in an urban setting and has experience/education relating to the job.

 

I think it bears pointIng out that the GOP seems more likely to put someone in that has opposing interests to the job, hold views (relating the the job) opposite to the majority of Americans, or stand to benefit themselves or people they know financially.  Of course, this might not be a long term trend, but the difference between the Obama and Trump administrations couldn’t be more stark on this issue.

 

Personally, if this issue did tick me off, it would be ranked so far down compared with the list of things Trump and the GOP have done that I’d have trouble finding it.

[redskins59]

3 minutes ago, Corcaigh said:

Taking race out of the picture ... if you simply took the best students academically, the top universities in Virginia would skew heavily female, and from the wealthier suburbs.

 

if you are a female from Northern Virginia your odds of getting into W&M and UVA are significantly lower than a male from another part of the state. 
 

My daughter was admitted to W&M and was very happy that the demographics of her class was not a carbon copy of Loudoun County, VA. Her college experience was not negatively impacted by the acceptance of males who were not the “best qualified for the job“.

 

Well, I think you are right about that.

Not just wealthier suburbs, but they also favor private schools.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

IMO, Mayor Pete would have been a good candidate, being part of the LGBTQ community.  

He is a smart guy.  

Being the inclusive party that the democrats are, we should strive to include everybody.

Heck, everything in the country should be inclusive.  There can be negative consequences otherwise (like in  the TJ example).

It is easy to say "best" people, but people may not like the result. In fact, I will guarantee it happens.

Try to include everybody.

I agree. I really like Mayor Pete. But he is not more qualified than Harris. If you put their experience on a resume and didnt tell the reader anything about their personal characteristics, they would say the Senator from CA is way more qualified. So saying, as the OP strongly insinuates, that he is better suited to the job and was passed over only due to some insidious reverse sexism is silly. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

 Yeah, the GOP wants to get rid of ACA, Medicare, SS, abortion, gay marriage, and on and on. They just get what they want.

yes, you made my point.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I agree with Larry and @Springfield.  

 

For me, the issue with the Democrats/liberals isn't necessarily the policies, it's how they're packaged and how they're presented.  "We know what's best for you, and we know what's best for everyone," is how it's always come across to me, shortly followed by "We're educated, and we live in big, culturally diverse cities."   The arrogance is a turn-off.  

 

Matt Taibbi is a bit of a whiner, but he wrote this article after the 2016 election and I liked it because instead of lashing out at people for electing Trump, he looked as to why it happened and accepted the blame for why that was:

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/president-trump-how-america-got-it-so-wrong-112032/

 

 

[Jumbo]

just for the record, i was gonna start one of these--i've long wanted to--but my call was to wait until after the election for a number of reasons

 

this is zero criticism of larry's choice of course

 

 just sayin i been wanting to do this and to thoroughly critique the dems, too, as i've done in brief, secondary, form many times, but i just think--and i don't use my take as some bar  for other peeps--it's  "eh"to me as an exercise at this time...that's just me....the dems have no shortage of shortcomings --inc major ones---and i'll get to it on the future, hopefully 

[redskins59]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I agree. I really like Mayor Pete. But he is not more qualified than Harris. If you put their experience on a resume and didnt tell the reader anything about their personal characteristics, they would say the Senator from CA is way more qualified. So saying, as the OP strongly insinuates, that he is better suited to the job and was passed over only due to some insidious reverse sexism is silly. 

 

Yeah, this is true. No way is Mayor Pete more experienced than Kamala Harris.

I think Kamala Harris was the best candidate for vice president. Who else would you pick?

There is a strategy here.  You want to motivate minorities to vote.  

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by redskins59

[CousinsCowgirl84]

22 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

How would you feel if best people are all Asians?  

Whites are already screaming about Thomas Jefferson high school. I read it in the forums all the time. I don't believe the "best person" crap you all are spewing.  You would change your mind in a hurry.

 

honestly, I think we should focus on why minorities aren’t always the best qualified.    But that has little to do with fixing the Democratic Party. 

[redskins59]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

honestly, I think we should focus on why minorities aren’t always the best qualified.    But that has little to do with fixing the Democratic Party. 

Of course, I agree with that.

However, you need to take into  account the fact that there are voters that need to be motivated.

A lot of minorities don't believe in LGBTQ issues.

What would happen if you pick Mayor Pete?  I think Trump wins.

I really like Mayor Pete, but there is homophobia in all communities.

[Captain Wiggles]

Damn did we already lose? 😬

[redskins59]

Also,

was Obama more experienced than Hillary?  Nope.

I supported Hillary, but guess what, in the presidential election, Obama received record support from minorities.

So come to think of it, in politics, you don't necessarily pick the most qualified.  You need to build a coalition.  So there is a calculation you need to make.  

It's not simple as "pick the best qualified".

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

Of course, I agree with that.

However, you need to take into  account the fact that there are voters that need to be motivated.

A lot of minorities don't believe in LGBTQ issues.

What would happen if you pick Mayor Pete?  I think Trump wins.

I really like Mayor Pete, but there is homophobia in all communities.

 

What makes you think Mayor Pete is more qualified that Harris?

 

Also, you do have to play politics. Nothing wrong with that, imo.  I’m sure Mayor Pete understands the situation, while the working go change it. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

Also,

was Obama more experienced than Hillary?  Nope.

I supported Hillary, but guess what, in the presidential election, Obama received record support from minorities.

So come to think of it, in politics, you don't necessarily pick the most qualified.  You need to build a coalition.  So there is a calculation you need to make.  

It's not simple as "pick the best qualified".

experience and qualified are different things, also. You can objectively say that Obama was more qualified a politician that Hillary. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[No Excuses]

Putting aside the race/gender stuff, my biggest gripe with the Democratic Party is that they govern as if they are afraid of wielding power and they are routinely on the initial losing end of policy debates, even though their preferred policies end up being wildly popular as time goes on. 

The Republican Party will fear monger over any policy action that aims to use government resources to make people’s lives better. Whether that’s expanding voting and civil rights, additions to the social safety net or building modern infrastructure. 
 

My barometer for Joe Biden is how quickly he moves on giving statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. There is not a single good reason to have American taxpayers who don’t receive  congressional representation. It’s not even given that Puerto Rico will be a blue state. Its current governor endorsed Trump.
 

Governing afraid of the GOP and its toxicity really needs to end, and I’m hoping the Trump era radicalized enough liberals out of the mistaken belief that compromise is possible. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by No Excuses

[redskins59]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What makes you think Mayor Pete is more qualified that Harris?

 

I don't think he is.    

There are other jobs for him.

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

experience and qualified are different things, also. You can objectively say that Obama was more qualified a politician that Hillary. 

 

How do you define "qualified"?  I suppose because Trump beat everybody in 2016, he was the most qualified?  

[tshile]

no one is saying Harris is or was unqualified. 
 

The issue that was mentioned was that Biden started the whole thing with “it will be a woman”

 

the issue is not that Biden selected Harris. 
 

Edited November 1, 2020 by tshile

[redskins59]

I will just mention what I want the party to do (which some people have insinuated here).  I  want the party to be ruthless.  Pack the court to name one.

But given the coalition they try to build, not sure if this is possible if Biden wins.

So they will probably continue as is. Nothing will be "fixed" or adjusted.  It is supposed to be the "moderate" party.

Now if Biden loses, the party will move left. There will be no choice in this case.

 

[Springfield]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

no one is saying Harris is or was unqualified. 
 

The issue that was mentioned was that Biden started the whole thing with “it will be a woman”

 

the issue is not that Biden selected Harris. 
 

And maybe that’s a personal choice for Biden. If so, then I respect that. If I were in his shoes, then maybe I would say “Well, the populous decided that I should be nominee for president. There’s enough white male presence here and I’d welcome a woman’s input as VP.” I can totally respect that.

 

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

[Larry]

40 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

This is an excellent point.  @Larry did the program make note of this, or put this forward as their major point of reasoning?

 

Dunno whether that was brought up.  (Interior being in charge of Indian Affairs).  I turned the show off when I heard it.  Yes, I was aware of that fact.  

 

And hey, if Biden were to trot out a qualified NA nominee for that position, I'd be really happy.*  

 

I just have a problem with the mental image of an org chart with a PostIt on it reading "NA only here".  

 

* Unless he was an anti-Redskins-name crusader.  (Yes, that's a joke.)  

45 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I think it bears pointIng out that the GOP seems more likely to put someone in that has opposing interests to the job, hold views (relating the the job) opposite to the majority of Americans, or stand to benefit themselves or people they know financially.

 

Yeah, the GOP has a policy that to be considered for a cabinet post, you have to have a track record of wanting to destroy the agency.  

[redskins59]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

And maybe that’s a personal choice for Biden. If so, then I respect that. If I were in his shoes, then maybe I would say “Well, the populous decided that I should be nominee for president. There’s enough white male presence here and I’d welcome a woman’s input as VP.” I can totally respect that.

 

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

 

I doubt that.  He probably thought he would get more votes if he made that statement.  It's just that simple. 

It's not White vs Black vs Brown vs whatever. Did anybody else say that?  It was just Biden I think. 

So one guy played politics.

 

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, Springfield said:

And maybe that’s a personal choice for Biden. If so, then I respect that. If I were in his shoes, then maybe I would say “Well, the populous decided that I should be nominee for president. There’s enough white male presence here and I’d welcome a woman’s input as VP.” I can totally respect that.

 

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

Yes. 
 

also worth considering:

I think everyone so far that has voiced criticism in this thread, is voting for Biden and likely other democrats and likely because they’re democrats (or because they’re not republicans, however you wish to see it)

 

the criticism is on the level of “I don’t like that they did/do that” and that’s about it 

[Springfield]

I could say the stupid things that republicans say about democrats to really get this thread poppin.

[Corcaigh]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

* Unless he was an anti-Redskins-name crusader.  (Yes, that's a joke.)  

 

 

 

[Hersh]

59 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

yes, you made my point.

they haven’t gotten rid of any of those things which is the opposite of your point.