Moderate Democrats (also liberals)

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I do admit my strong belief that things would be better now had Hillary won.

You mean that Tim Kaine would be president?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Once again, just because some folks identify as something doesn't mean that they all agree on what this thing is, or that the wording is anything more than self-serving posturing. You might identify yourself as a giant blue carrot, but I'm not obliged to find the concept useful.

I've met quite a few "progressives" who consider themselves "moderate". Bernie is a case in point. In their world view, it's the Clintons and the Shummers of this world who are extremely pro-business and extremely anti-people...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

In most policy issues I side with the Democrats.

Well then, there you go. Voting was never meant to make people "feel comfortable". It was meant to help select governments that would have some legitimacy. Likewise, political parties are not meant to make anyone feel comfortable. Their role is to take amorphous, somewhat vague, complex and contradictory political wishes and aspirations of the citizenry, and change that into coherent policy proposals that can garner a majority and be implemented. That process is inherently painful, like any decision-making process that involves more than one person...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I've met quite a few "progressives" who consider themselves "moderate". Bernie is a case in point. In their world view, it's the Clintons and the Shummers of this world who are extremely pro-business and extremely anti-people...

Ok, so in American politics when you have a candidates such as Bernie Sanders and AOC, and then Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer.

What would you label them to demonstrate a difference in positions?

And how would you label them to differentiate them from Trump and Ted Cruz?

In this very thread I've been called a conservative if not a republican, despite agreeing with 95% of the democratic party platform. Do you think my policy positions line up more with Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

But had Hillary won, the Clinton wing of the Democratic party would have become insufferable.

In what way? I know today's progressive views on Hillary but in what way do you think her wing of the party would have been insufferable other than she would have happened to have won? No offense but sometimes you come off as "Mary, Mary, quite contrary.."

2 Replies

@revelette1,

Seems more likely to me that the political atmosphere could have been even worse had she won, assuming the congressional results were the same. The GOP would be having hearings and investigations around the clock. She'd be constantly on the defensive and the Democrats would be divided, demotivated, and demoralized. Trump would be running around the country screaming about the "stolen election". I doubt that the "Clinton wing" of the party would really assume control as much as just concentrate on circling the wagons. Her impeachment would seem like an act of mercy.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I don't even know what you are saying Olivier. I don't owe my vote to anyone. Parties and candidates have to come to me to ask for my vote.

If the Democrats drive away too many voters, they will lose. That is their problem not mine. Whether the Democrats deserve someone's vote is up to them for whatever reason they feel is reasonable. I have always voted consistently for Democrats... I am not expressing my discomfort with the party. If enough people feel as I do, that the Democrats are leaving them behind, then the party is going to have problems.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I would used leftist vs centrist, or socialist vs centrist if one wants a little more precision. Even the term "progressive" is too weaponized for my taste. It implies that none of the centrists want any kind of "progress", since they are not "progressives". Therefore it's also self-serving and more confusing than illuminating, just like "moderate" IMNVO.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

Hillary's campaign, and the movement behind it, was based on two things.

1) Identity Politics. Her slogan was "I'm with Her" (the worst political slogan in the history of democracy) and the main political argument was that she was a "supremely qualified woman".

2) Deplorables... the idea that people who don't accept her philosophy are morally defective.

The liberal movement running the Democratic Party is based on a narrative that White Men are privileged and are actively oppressing women and minorities. The problem with this is that it alienates large portions of the public; when White coal miners in Ohio and Pennsylvania hear this... they rightfully feel it is nonsense to suggest they are privileged.

My problem with this is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party puts the narrative above actual policy positions. They are more interested in demonizing segments of the American public then they are about actually solving problems.

This is my opinion, of course... but if enough people feel alienated by the Democratic party, Trump will win again.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

And one more thing... Feminism has come to dominate today's Democratic party to the detriment of every other issue. It is an angry feminism based more expressing outrage then on addressing policy issues that actually help women.

Those women dressed in white aren't addressing the issues behind Black Lives Matter. The Black Lives matter movement represents a injustice in society that is far more grave then the slights on White women... and there are specific policy changes to provide police training and accountability. The angry politics of White feminism have sucked up all the time and energy of the Democratic party.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

What I am saying is that, even in a multi-party system (and even more so in a 2 party system) voting is always "uncomfortable", because there's always something you don't like about any candidate you end up chosing over the others. There's generally a compromise being made by (almost) each and every voter. It's always mostly about the lesser of two evils in the end, whatever the system, wherever one happens to vote. Wholy positive adhesion -- "I just LOVE this candidate" -- only concerns a small minority.

So yes, the Dem party needs your vote, but you also need them, if you want to be represented politically. You need them to organize a primary process that will allow the coalescence of a majority behind a not-too-bad, combative and reasonnably charismatic candidate who can get the country rid of Trump.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I did not feel "uncomfortable" in this way voting for John Kerry, or for Obama, or for Elizabeth Warren for Senate. I am not saying that I need candidates to be perfect. I am saying that I was deeply disturbed by Hillary Clinton in a way that I haven't been for other candidates I vote for.

A part of that was the identity politics behind her sometimes nasty campaign. Another part of it was her history in the last Clinton administration. There are several policy issues too... but that wasn't it. It was what she represented and the problems with integrity that made me upset.

Again, this is my subjective opinion. But enough people felt the same way that now Trump is president.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I am saying that I was deeply disturbed by Hillary Clinton in a way that I haven't been for other candidates I vote for.

I feel the same way -- I distrust her on some deep personal level -- but 1) on the other side you had some sinister orange conman and 2) sometimes people rise to the occasion... Oddest things have happened than a not-entirely-ethical human being deciding to be a better self for a little while.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I would used leftist vs centrist, or socialist vs centrist if one wants a little more precision. Even the term "progressive" is too weaponized for my taste. It implies that none of the centrists want any kind of "progress", since they are not "progressives". Therefore it's also self-serving and more confusing than illuminating, just like "moderate" IMNVO.

Fine, I guess. I was using language that is common usage in American politics. If you prefer to use different language, then now I at least know what you mean. I don't like using socialist because I think it's viewed more derogatory than 'progressive'.

And, I view centrist as those marked "independent" on the chart I posted. People who hold significant policy positions in both parties and will bounce between voting for republicans or democrats in elections regularly. I know a lot of people in America are registered "Independent" but in reality they are just Democrats or Republicans who don't like something about the parties...they aren't people who are willing to flip across the isle and vote for the other side. I think there are roughly 10%-15% of the country who have positions in both parties though; I'd label them centrists.

I think I like Far-left, Left of Center, Centrist, Right of Center, Far-Right the most, but I'm not going to get pissed if someone uses other descriptions, especially when describing themselves. We all have a right to identify with whatever group we choose.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I would used leftist vs centrist, or socialist vs centrist if one wants a little more precision. Even the term "progressive" is too weaponized for my taste. It implies that none of the centrists want any kind of "progress", since they are not "progressives". Therefore it's also self-serving and more confusing than illuminating, just like "moderate" IMNVO.

The so called "Progressive' movement in U.S. politics is over a century old. It started with President Teddy Roosevelt, and legislation requiring improved industrial safety and working conditions and a system of national Parks and property reserves. It has morphed into a broad movement directed towards the improvement of living standards in almost any area of human life. solely through government action, intervention and management. At some point this kind of activity encroaches on basic freedom, and I believe that us the central underlying political issue associated with it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

1) Identity Politics. Her slogan was "I'm with Her" (the worst political slogan in the history of democracy) and the main political argument was that she was a "supremely qualified woman".

She was.

Quote:

2) Deplorables... the idea that people who don't accept her philosophy are morally defective.

This is a mischaracterization of her words. I really don't want to go to source and quote exactly what she said, but I will if you press it. But she meant that usually those who chanted the loudest at Trump's rallies had deplorable views. They were, his fans seemed to be alt-right nationalist for the most part before he was elected and regular republicans climbed on board. However, I remember when she uttered those words and my dad saying, that was a huge mistake on her part and I at the time didn't agree but now in hindsight, she did bring on her own damage with that word.

Quote:

The liberal movement running the Democratic Party is based on a narrative that White Men are privileged and are actively oppressing women and minorities. The problem with this is that it alienates large portions of the public; when White coal miners in Ohio and Pennsylvania hear this... they rightfully feel it is nonsense to suggest they are privileged.

I don't know about you but I live in an area where there used to be a lot of coal miners and I don't remember too many white women coal miners. If they were managers, nine to one, they wouldn't have gotten the same equal pay as the white male coal miners. The chances of a black man or woman even getting a good paying position in coal mining company are even less than that. Identity politics are there for a need.

Quote:

My problem with this is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party puts the narrative above actual policy positions. They are more interested in demonizing segments of the American public then they are about actually solving problems.

This is an unsubstantiated opinion. Hillary Clinton has always been a hard worker with real issues that matter to people. She is just not a good politician and never has been.

Quote:

This is my opinion, of course... but if enough people feel alienated by the Democratic party, Trump will win again.

She won the popular vote by a healthy margin so many people did not feel aliented by Hillary Clinton. She had many problems but at the last minute Coney announcing the reopening of the stupid email investigation hurt her, plus she didn't compaign hard enough in the key swing states at the last of the elction cycle. She stayed in blue areas too much, areas she already won. Lastly, having Bill Clinton (although I still admire and like him personally) around her during the "Me Too" movement didn't do her any favors.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

This is a mischaracterization of her words.

I'm glad you said this. She was referring to the views expressed by the Trump supporters — anti-immigrant, anti-environment, bellicose nationalism, opposition to gun laws, etc — gather them all together and you have a "basket of deplorables". Yup, it was a mistake — just as it is to assume a certain level of maturity in USAmerican political campaigns.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

We can argue about whether Hillary was objectively a horrible candidate or not. She did lose to Donald Trump, but that is not the point. And what she meant by "deplorables" doesn't matter... although in trying to minimize this word you talked about "alt-right nationalists" which made me chuckle. And I would also point out that although I think Barack Obama was very intellegent his supporters never referred to him as an "supremely qualified African-American"... he ran on ideals, and policy goals rather than identity.

But all that is all irrelevant to my point.

My point is that Hillary as a candidate alienated me as a voter. The ideological narrative of her supporters did as well. I voted for her... but I hated doing so. Sure, this is my subjective opinion, but when you are trying to win an election the subjective opinions of voters are rather important. And there were many people who normally vote for Democrats that thought Hillary was a horrible candidate.

If Democrats want the best chance of winning the next election, I think they should choose a candidate who doesn't inspire this reaction with voters.

Lot's of normally reliably Democratic voters found Hillary Clinton to be a troubling candidate. That is her problem (not the fault of the voters she should have reached out to). No one owed her their vote, although at least from where I am sitting that seemed to be her message.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Hillary as a candidate alienated me as a voter.

Unfortunately, she had that effect on a few too many people, part of what led to her not winning. Bright and capable though for the most part.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

incremental changes..

I tend towards similar thinking. (Including half an apple being better than none)
My sort of wild liking of and support for Bernie Sanders caught me off guard. Similar has happened with Ocasio-Cortez. When I stop and think things through, it is clear they (and many others) are rushing too fast to achieve their goals. As you listed, incremental changes and improvements can add up to make drastic improvements. Small sure steps are better and safer and wiser than running along and missing the ruts in the road or not noticing a road has washed out, which leads to no accomplishments.

Overall, I lean towards the middle, sometimes more left, sometimes more to the right (as has been noted in my voting record). For President, with the exceptions of George W. Bush (both times) and John Anderson (the guy who ran as an Independent back in 1980), I've stayed on the Democratic ticket for votes. In general, even when they disappointment or anger me, for the nation I feel they are the better option.

1 Reply

Moderate Democrats (also liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know