The GOP shifting further to the right??? How much further can they get? Also, how are Dems supposed to have an actual agenda if the tent has to cover the span of non destroying gov't/America conservatives, corporate dems, and the left base? I would love to hear how that works! Haven't we had enough moving to the right in the last 30-40 years? You "centrist" types right now should really be the Republican party if things were sane. What is a "centrist" position in our political climate right now? Opinions on issues are essentially divided and a middle ground doesn't really exist between let's destroy government and let's not, let's give people healthcare.

LOL you can also vote Trump again in 2020.

There's obviously plenty of room in the big tent for centrists, Bernie supporters, and BETRAYED Trumpkins. But it has to be that, people who think they got snookered by Trump's pro-worker rhetoric.

Trying to play to like, PizzaGate believers and ****? No sir. The demand from the population is going to be for the adults in the room to provide concrete improvement in their material condition. Anything else will fail. Third way triangulation just lost, it's dead, never again. But the left hasn't spent 40 years training its base to believe conspiracies, so we can't try to embrace that, that land is already claimed.

We're going to lose again lol

lol! YOU COULD BE PALMIERI BRO

You keep on saying **** like that, but because you're a ****ing internet libertarian with no understanding of intraleft divisions because those aren't covered honestly on InfoWars and the_donald, it makes no ****ing sense.

See, when you accuse me of being a secret centrist, uh, I'm not. I have a ****ing track record of arguing for progressive positions.

You have a track record of smugly contradicting libtards:

How many times did you correct someone who accused Hillary of breaking the law with her email server by noting that she wasn't indicted?

(also your position on whether "cheating" happened sure gets a lot more ****ing expansive when it comes to the DNC cheating Bernie, amirite? ****ing transparent)

Like I said, your homework remains disagree with a single ****ing Trump supporter on the merits of literally any policy. Let me know.

Lol, David Brock struggling with his newest outfit must be stressing you out.

As for the email thing, there was never any need to do so because you were right there making that same point every single time! (And of course you continued the lie that HRC had turned over all work-related emails)

Please, quote Chait some more, continue to follow the Third Way, continue to contradict yourself on Hilary being a great candidate or a bad candidate or would be a good president or would be a terrible president, Correct That Record!, and please, tell us all about how Occupy Wall Street were a bunch of morons that affected nothing and should be ashamed of themselves, you lefty you.

Not a centrist! Fly Wasserman Schultz! LOL! My homework! lolol.

Hey here is some homework for you, get a consistent position you flip-flopping liar.

The fact that she received 2,191,869 votes in the five boroughs in November, compared to 467,254 for Trump, is probably a decent indicator. She also beat Bernie in April in all five boroughs, none of which were all that close. The only place in the city she's disliked is the bottom 2/3 of Staten Island, where about 20% of the population, if that, will show up to vote in a Mayoral election.

Dan, I hate those people, so you're not like hurting my feelings. You're a Ron Paul 2012 guy who latched onto Bernie because he was "anti-establishment" but you obviously do not have sincere progressive or socialist values. Rather, you have pretty typical right-wing-media-consumer cultural gripes.

So like I said, homework is due. Any ****ing time. You won't because you can't. Your actual principles are in there somewhere, and those principles are Youtubes about how the Confederacy gets a bad rap.

Literally the only search result for "minimum wage" in HastenDan's posting history is him backtalking Goofy about reparations in the context of attacking Hillary. It is absolutely not advancing the idea that a higher minimum wage is good or anything, because let's be honest, the Peter Schiff youtubes that Dan 100% consumed religiously between 2007-2015 weren't real positive on that subject!

To be fair, you'd need to also include his posts from his previous account in your search.

What did you lie to Fredo about, Fly? Is this genius confusing sarcasm, outrage, and hyperbole for insincerity?

Agree strongly with the conclusion of this article. This recent election should be a slap in the face that most people are dumb and crave simple solutions.

I have posted about this a number of times but I really hope a Democrat tries a tax plan that simply raise taxes on the rich and gives the money to everyone else. Revenue neutral. No need to complicate things more than that.

The phrase revenue neutral has already made it more complicated than like 90% of voters would care to deal with.

One of the ongoing traps that Democrats are frankly clearly too dumb to avoid is their intense need to sell their policies as not just good net policies for the population, but policies that are good for EVERY POSSIBLE PERSON.

One of the things that Bernie did was flat out say we'll tax the rich to give everyone health care and college. Easy pro and con to evaluate. You're either for it or against it.

Democrats get bogged down into these insane wonky details trying to appeal to the imaginary caucuses of deficit hawks and low-tax progressives, they try to sell their tax plans as "middle class tax relief" and ****, closing loopholes to maintain deficit neutrality while providing a means tested subsidy for state colleges and blah blah blah. No. That's too complicated!

The policy here is the government will give you health care. Where are we gonna get the money to buy you ****? Tax the rich.

What percentage and scoring it in a white paper and all that garbage is never breaking through the cable news networks, so uh, forget that part.

haha. but yeah on a serious note they could use a frank luntz type to simplify messaging as well. call it the robin hood plan or something.

YES! I said this in the Trump thread a while ago too! The majority of people do not follow politics closely or get wonky on the issues like a lot of Dems apparently think they do. You had Vox people who used to be for single-payer working hard as hell to discredit Bernie's plan because it wasn't wonky enough and fully outlined. These morons acted like they wanted him to have a full proposal that had already passed through multiple congressional committees and been worked on for a year before it could be said as a CAMPAIGN proposal. JFC

Any of you read George Lakoff's books? Came across him recently and read some of his blog posts on politics and Trump. He's a Berkeley cognitive science and linguistics professor. Pretty long blog post here but I found some of the stuff interesting especially halfway through until the end.
https://georgelakoff.com/2016/11/22/...jority-can-do/

Interesting read, recommended.

This tends to happen when the party continues to focus culturally on narrower and narrower segments of the population. Is it any wonder the majority feels left behind?

Yes interesting post. From the post:

Quote:

The Clinton campaign consistently violated the lesson of Don’t Think of an Elephant! They used negative campaigning, assuming they could turn Trump’s most outrageous words against him. They kept running ads showing Trump forcefully expressing views that liberals found outrageous. Trump supporters liked him for forcefully saying things that liberals found outrageous. They were ads paid for by the Clinton campaign that raised Trump’s profile with his potential supporters!

This strategy was clearly a loser. People want changes in DC and Clinton clearly represented the stud quo. This guy deserves a few kudos for not adopting the Dem party line on the Russians, Comey, etc.

Quote:

Briefly, the polls failed because they work by demography, using census data, and other readily accessible data. The census tells us where people live, their age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, marital status, income level, etc. These are objective data, and this kind of data is easy to get and sample. But demographic data leaves out what is most important in elections and in political polling generally: Values! One’s sense of right and wrong. That omission was crucial in this election.

It is not just crucial in polling. It is also crucial in journalism. Most people in the press also talk as if demography were the gold standard of political truth: the suburban educated women, the Hispanics, the white working class — all defined by demographics. But the relationship between voting and demographics is not one-to-one. This election showed that in spades. Many progressives think the same way: Demography and issues — issue by issue. Democrats looking for donors will ask, “What is your most important issue?” Instead, the values that define one’s deepest identity are what matters most. Polling issue-by-issue misses the overall values that are all too often primary in elections.

A clear repudiatin of "identity" politics.

That last paragraph makes a fundamental error in its conclusions. Issues and values are going to be highly correlated and have a high degree of causality and interdependence. If I know what issues are important to someone, I am going to be able to correctly predict their values with a high degree of confidence.

Lakoff, I wouldn't take him too seriously. I remember him during his 15 minutes of fame as the Dems darling boy. He has a tendency to babble and make sweeping statements that sound good but aren't supported. Pollsters are always in the market for better predictors--EVERYBODY is in the market for better predictors--yet what he posits are really just ideas which aren't at all tested.

Mostly though he was very, VERY out of touch with conservatives and perusing that blog post it doesn't look like that's changed. Wouldn't put any weight on his .02 on polling methodology. Also has a rep for being sloppy when veering into anything quantitative. I'm not sure if I read 2 or 3 of his books during his heyday with Dems but wouldn't read another.

I have no idea what this post means or even what party it's about.

Boy I can't believe the Clinton Foundation was going around doing all that **** about malaria as a scam. Profiting off the office of the Presidency is a terrible thing.