I didn’t necessarily mean that they have to compromise their beliefs, but at least be able to work with them. As horrible as these last few years have been, we need a way to fix it. Digging in and refusing to work with anyone that doesn’t have the same beliefs as us is a good way to make it worse.
Obama was very much a moderate centrist. He should have been a republican's dream of a democratic president they could work with. And how well did that work? It didn't, instead they spent eight years drumming up their racist base and bragging about how they were purposefully doing nothing to get as little policy done as possible.
The problem with trying to be a centrist in this environment is how extreme the right has become. If they say kill all the Jews, you can't come in as a centrist and say hey, let's only kill half the Jews.
Our right has basically turned into Nazis, while our "left" is the rest of the worlds right. So no, I no longer support neo lovers centrist because it doesn't work
Thats not being centrist. That’s being spineless. Being willing to try to work with someone doesn’t necessarily mean you have to compromise your own beliefs. It’s knowing when to try to compromise, and knowing when to walk away.
figmentPez
Staff member
And what action have Republicans taken in recent memory that gives you any indication that they've left an option other than to walk away?
I'm still surprised this behavior didn't immediately initiate a process of systematically removing each and every obstructionist, the same way you would go pull the stumps/stones out of any field where you intended to sow crops.
--Patrick
I can’t think of any, but that doesn’t mean we stop trying. When we do, it’s just going to get worse. If nothing else we can say we tried.
figmentPez
Staff member
The problem with this is that there is a cost to continually trying. Making the effort, only to have the football pulled away, has a cost. We can try to keep up appearances, but that's only giving them what they want, and getting less than nothing in return.
If I hear "we can work with republicans" that means "I will accomplish absolutely nothing."
This false logic in reverse is exactly why moderate republicans are now all-but-extinct.
Going ever more partisan is not coming to solve anything. You may disagree with these people, but there are, unfortunately, many relatively moderate people who, given that choice, WILL choose the fascist over the communist.
The only solution is to change voting to something like ranked choice.
figmentPez
Staff member
Really? The senate vote to cover up blatant corruption says otherwise. They had a choice, and they chose to back the corrupt leader who is abusing his power.
And not working with them will?
figmentPez
Staff member
If it means a candidate that actually inspires people to vote, YES. The problem is that weak candidates who bow and scrape to Republicans in the hopes of getting crumbs are not candidates that get people to the polls. If there were strong candidates who inspired people to actually show up and vote, this country would shift back to the real center pretty quickly. Getting Democrat control of the House, Senate, and Presidency is a real possibility, and could get shit done fast.
That works for people who will vote Democrat no matter what, but what about the people who are either independent or republicans who don’t like trump? Do you think a candidate like Bernie inspires them at all? I’m democrat and while I’d vote for Bernie if he’s the candidate there’s nothing about him that inspires me. Honestly he comes off as just another angry old rich white guy to me. His message comes off as “If you don’t agree with me screw you!” Not exactly inspiring or inclusive to me.
figmentPez
Staff member
Congrats, you've just made quite a strawman. There's a difference between not even trying to cooperate with corrupt Republicans, and not cooperating with actual moderates. You're right, Bernie does come across as angry (though every single person who is not a corrupt Republican has very good reason to be pissed off right now), but my stance is not about Bernie. My stance is rejecting the idea that moderates actually want someone who will cooperate with the faux center that Republican repeatedly lie about the existence of. (Do note that there are no moderates with the Republican party. Zero. Nada. They do not exist. There is not a single Republican in office who is a moderate.)
There's a difference between "This is moderate politics, and we will stand for that, we don't need to cooperate with corrupt idiots who are trying to promote a Trump dynasty." And "We're going to pull the entire country back to the center by pushing for our own personal ideals at any cost and expecting things to even out in the end."
I consider these people lost causes. The people that lost the election in 2016 were the people that voted for obama and then stayed home. I'd rather have someone who inspires them than run with Jack Johnson or John Jackson.
I think that had more to do with everyone being so tired of Hillary, and the general thought that there was no way Trump would win, so staying home was more of a protest vote. But maybe you’re all right, and it’s not worth trying to appeal to the center. It just doesn’t speak to me.
I am confident that we don't even know what the center is anymore, so trying to appeal to it is fruitless. I am all for parties having to cooperate and compromise, but it's not going to happen right now. The separation didn't happen out of the blue, it's been steadily getting worse for the last 40 years. Saying "Oh we should keep trying to compromise," while the Turtle in the Senate literally lets bills pile up rather than risking people crossing the line and voting for them speaks volumes. If all those "moderates" and "Republicans who don't like Trump" choose to not vote instead of voting Dem, it's as good as voting Dem at this point. It's the people that actually care about removing Trump as the #1 priority that the Dems should be courting.
Last edited:
The problem is that the GOP doesn't want to go left. At all. They haven't been progressive since LaFollette got kicked out.
I honestly don't think there are any "moderates" anymore. Even the times I saw the media interview "moderates" it ended up being a gaggle of generally well off white families that 90% of the time voted Republican.
The win or loss is going to come down to democratic voter turnout in a few key states. This is why whoever wins the candidacy needs to whip those "purple" states into a frenzy.
This is what Obama did, and the main reason he held two terms. Hillary just looked at the polls, saw some of those states as "safe" and proceeded to ignore them in favor of more wealthy donor states, thus tens of thousands of voters decided to reward that by just not showing up. I did the math, and if Trump battled Obama with any of Obama's numbers from either of his elections in every battleground state, Trump would have lost by a landslide.
Honestly, this seems to be the general trend. Every election always comes down to whether democrat voters decide to bother or not. If they do, the democrat usually wins. When they don't, the republican usually does. A lot of this is because democrats are, or at least people that lean left, actually far more numerous, but also a lot more picky about their votes. This is a big switch from republicans, who will often vote for their candidate no matter who he is.
The win or loss is going to come down to democratic voter turnout in a few key states. This is why whoever wins the candidacy needs to whip those "purple" states into a frenzy.
This is what Obama did, and the main reason he held two terms. Hillary just looked at the polls, saw some of those states as "safe" and proceeded to ignore them in favor of more wealthy donor states, thus tens of thousands of voters decided to reward that by just not showing up. I did the math, and if Trump battled Obama with any of Obama's numbers from either of his elections in every battleground state, Trump would have lost by a landslide.
Honestly, this seems to be the general trend. Every election always comes down to whether democrat voters decide to bother or not. If they do, the democrat usually wins. When they don't, the republican usually does. A lot of this is because democrats are, or at least people that lean left, actually far more numerous, but also a lot more picky about their votes. This is a big switch from republicans, who will often vote for their candidate no matter who he is.
I just want to point out that all of you are conflating two things: being moderate, and trying to compromise.
A compromise is when neither get what they want, and you settle on something halfway. Being moderate is wanting something that's not at either extreme.
These two are related and one can mask as the other, but they're really not the same.
Plenty of issues where my personal preference is left-of-center, but far from left. Any topic I choose could be ground for debates, but eh. Some people want black t-shirts. Some want white. As a compromise, you might settle on grey. It's still perfectly possible for other people to have a preference for grey!
Admittedly, this has in modern history been abused by the right to find a middle ground between grey and black, settling on charcoal, only for the next cycle to look for a compromise between charcoal and black, etc.
The other side might be trying to push for Vantablack these days, which might freak people out who prefer charcoal or grey. You won't win those back by going for Spectralon. You might be able to win some of those back or convince the grey to come to your side by offering some light grey tint, though.
Because there are simply more people that want Vantablack than there are that want Spectralon - and everyone who wants eggshell or ecru or grey or taupe is left with an impossible choice. Yes, the charcoal people who are helping Vantablack are starting to look mighty dark - but you still have to take into account the people having a different preference.
A compromise is when neither get what they want, and you settle on something halfway. Being moderate is wanting something that's not at either extreme.
These two are related and one can mask as the other, but they're really not the same.
Plenty of issues where my personal preference is left-of-center, but far from left. Any topic I choose could be ground for debates, but eh. Some people want black t-shirts. Some want white. As a compromise, you might settle on grey. It's still perfectly possible for other people to have a preference for grey!
Admittedly, this has in modern history been abused by the right to find a middle ground between grey and black, settling on charcoal, only for the next cycle to look for a compromise between charcoal and black, etc.
The other side might be trying to push for Vantablack these days, which might freak people out who prefer charcoal or grey. You won't win those back by going for Spectralon. You might be able to win some of those back or convince the grey to come to your side by offering some light grey tint, though.
Because there are simply more people that want Vantablack than there are that want Spectralon - and everyone who wants eggshell or ecru or grey or taupe is left with an impossible choice. Yes, the charcoal people who are helping Vantablack are starting to look mighty dark - but you still have to take into account the people having a different preference.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Granted, it's been a few years since I seriously looked at the polls, but last time I looked (which granted was early in the Obama administration) more people "identified" as conservative than liberal. I think the split was something like 40% conservative, 35% liberal, 25% moderate/independent. Granted, it's a poll and people could lie, but I think the McCain candidacy demonstrated that Republican voters have the same inclination to stay home on election day if their candidate is uninspiring.
Thing is, I think lately they're all on the "take our country back" warpath, and as has been repeatedly noted, all they care about is defeating democrats, and not who they are actually voting for. So, maybe you're right about the "democrats are more picky" part.
One thing to be aware is that a lot of people that identify as "moderate/independent" usually still lean one direction. I identify as an independent voter myself because I don't really buy into the entire DNC platform enough to call myself a democrat, but they cover more of my bigger issues then republicans, and don't feel as grossly corrupt after the Trump debacle. In the end, I vote for who I think is the better candidate, but 7 out of 10 times I find it's the democrat.
If we go by the PEW data since 1994, both sides were actually rather evenly split between 1994 and 2002 when taking into account "leaning" independents, but that has been shifting a lot in the last few years as more people seem to be dropping the republican title and more independents lean liberal. This is why I added "left leaning" people, it's not going to be up just to democrats, but anyone that leans to the left including independents. If they actually turn up, it's more likely they are going to win.
After the state party showed its true colors by screaming "FUCK OBAMA" for six years, I dropped my party affiliation. I'll fall in line behind whomever comes up against cheeto in November, but state and local, there isn't a one I'd piss on if they were on fire.
The only reason I'm still here is I don't have the means to leave.
Bloomberg sucks so bad.
GasBandit
Staff member
For any who wish to read the article, you can add the following filters to your ublock origin to disable the washington post's paywall from preventing your viewing.
Code:
||subscribe.washingtonpost.com/paywall/$subdocument
www.washingtonpost.com##.wall_background