Political Crossfire Forums

The entire centrist branch of the Democrat Party - embodied by the Clinton's - needs to be purged.

This will not lead to immediate electoral success. In fact, it will probably lead to immediate losses, and a stronger but more moderate GOP over the short and medium term.

However, it is necessary to do this in order to rebuild the party into a grassroots organization that represents more than liberal Wall Street executives and the wealthy, do-good professional class.

Guys like Spider and Dylan rightfully belong in a conservative party that is not insane. They are basically classical liberals, not progressives. America needs a progressive party, not GOP-lite (minus social issues, and with slightly more welfare). The nature of America's polarization demands a realignment in the political parties, and that can't happen until the liberal elitists decide to stop f**k over the DNC into eternity with their "moderate" bullshit. The only time that moderate, unifying message "worked" was Obama, and not only did that require the most charming Presidential candidate in modern American history, but it also led to even greater electoral losses.

Purge the elite from the party. Build it back up on a truly national, progressive basis. The demographics of the US are changing to such a degree that if the DNC is willing to take hits for awhile, in order to really reform, they could have the opportunity to become America's default ruler (similar to the Liberals in Canada). But that is only if they stop getting in the way of youth and youth-led movements, if they stop trying to enable political dynasties (f**k Joe Kennedy III? You can f**k right off), if they stop behaving like the embodiment of liberal elitists, and if they stop taking a shit on all progressive policy as "impossible to achieve" just because they don't know how to actually win.

Classic example is universal healthcare. "Americans will never accept this, it is just a sword to die on" howl the moderate Democrats, as Donald J. Trump gets elected to the highest office in the land after insulting and attacking the entire leadership of the GOP, as well as every principle associated with the GOP over the past thirty years.

lol yeah i saw it. he was her "faith adviser" too

98% correct Philly (I don't think she was "tragically misunderstood", people understood her just fine which is why so many people don't like her, and also why she was a horrible candidate from the get-go). you want to know something else that's scary? I've read people saying that since Clinton won a majority of the vote she should be viewed as the main contender for next election

Btw, that "We're So f**k" thread that is over a year old, and keeps getting used to discuss whatever the latest outrage is among the shitlibs, is absolute trash. Possibly the worst thread in PCF history, counting all its iterations. This thread is now officially where the smart people on the forum come to have open-ended discussions about American politics.

I think the stratification you're seeing within the Democratic party further supports the notion that the structure of government needs reform. The two party system is failing to account for nuance - demography is changing people's perceptions along with social mobility. You just can't lump together these varying groups into one party and expect it to work because there will always be a reversion to the mean in order to get a given policy into place. Universal healthcare was considered too taboo by the Obama admin and so they went with ACA. It was a step that I think even Obama admitted he hoped would lead to Medicare for all.

The unfortunate reality for either party is that they have elected representatives in purple/mildly blue/mildly red states and if they want to keep those seats then they have to moderate their stance on any given piece of legislation that might alienate their base. We need to take specific note: this was not always the case. This is a relatively new development - it used to be that Dems and Repubs would vote together on several issues (like a budget) through compromise. But because the filibuster is real and because they need 60 votes the goal revolves around getting 60 votes which absolutely means that centrists have more power until they're eliminated. Getting to 60 determines whether or not you pass anything.

As for the Clintons...I've already made a thread outlining my thoughts on her. She needs to go the f*ck away.

Part of the issue, I think, is this obsession with a reconciliation that will never come. If Democrats want to win and change minds, they have to exercise that extreme caution with their policies, that way they can pull in enough moderates to win elections, make their case, etc.

The ACA alone is proof-positive that this approach does not work. It was the definition of a "moderate" policy, known for being implemented at the state-level by the 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney. They bent over backwards to accommodate Republican concerns, adjusting several parts of the bill. Then once the bill passed, the Republicans proceeded to attack it mercilessly for years and years, despite the fact that it was objectively better than the old system (though still objectively worse than single payer).

The Centrists wasted precious political capital reforming a healthcare system in a way that virtually guarantees it can be f**k with and defacto destroyed by every Republican Governor, Senator, Congressmen and President, forever. And why? To "unify" the nation under the bill? To help people by concerning yourself with reconciliation instead of passing policy that actually has a chance of surviving and thriving?

This is the system you want to fight so hard to protect - the one you didn't even want, but "moderated" into some high-minded compromise that proceeded to get wrecked by the group you compromised with?

First thing that has to go is this idea that Democrats ought to moderate their positions in order to win seats. It simply has to go. A party that will always bend over and be respectful and compromise when faced with a party like the modern GOP is utterly useless. Not sure if you realized, but there are actually very, very few Republicans operating in good faith at the national level. At the local and state level, certainly, you can find good reps on both sides. But at the national level, the GOP is essentially a criminal organization. They will attack everything you do in the same malicious way, and so compromising what you are doing in order to accommodate the people who believes these simplistic attacks makes no sense. Not strategically, and not electorally. Instinctive moderates will like you because they don't have a backbone and think that compromise will always lead to the best policy (which is absolutely f**k retarded, as anyone who has ever had to design by committee knows). But actual moderates, people who are ideologically here nor there, as well as the massive block of leftists who hate your candidates... they despise this. They think of Hillary Clinton, who will say anything to win and then waste their entire time in office on half-measures that will immediately be reversed or gutted when they proceed to lose the next election.

Gut the DNC. Lose some elections because you're too "radical," take some chances, shake things up, try out real community organizing... what does it matter, you've already given up the vast bulk of the country anyways?