GatewayRedbirds.com

pioneer98 wrote: I don't know if we can keep sending up centrist candidates and ever expect to get anywhere. All Republicans do is keep sending up candidates who are further and further to the right. And it's working.

It is not working at the Presidential level. It is working at the Congressional level where the GOP-dominated legislatures have drawn districts to guarantee a majority of safe GOP seats. It half works in the Senate - senators have to win statewide election.

This is why it is important for those getting behind Sanders to work locally. Very important.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

Schlich wrote:So the danger is the electorate becoming too far left of the Democratic Party establishment with majorities in the house and senate? What am I not supposed to like about that?

No the danger in front of you is that the electorate ISN'T with you on this right now and you don't want to accept it. Someone posted about the hair dresser saying universal coverage was giving something 'free' to people who didn't 'earn' it. The majority of people think this way. And they think this way because the Reagan revolution brought this idealization of the 'business entrepreneur', self-reliance as a governing principle, etc.

That has to change but it won't happen over night. It took over a decade to get the union-leaning working stiffs to abandon their New Deal leanings that were still present in the 60's to the point where they elected Reagan. its going to take a similar amount of hard work to get to a place where this country is ready for what Bernie Sanders is selling.

60% of Americans want universal health care. The problem isn't with Americans.

Schlich wrote:"Staying the course" means more embarrassing midterm defeats. No thanks.

To win the midterms means changing the congressional district boundaries which means getting control of state legislatures after the census is reported. You've got to think long term if you want real change.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

Schlich wrote:"Staying the course" means more embarrassing midterm defeats. No thanks.

To win the midterms means changing the congressional district boundaries which means getting control of state legislatures after the census is reported. You've got to think long term if you want real change.

Agreed? I mean isn't that obvious? I think that a Bernie Sanders presidency is the best chance we have to achieve this.

Schlich wrote: 60% of Americans want universal health care. The problem isn't with Americans.

Where are you getting that data? The latest from Gallop:







Link


I'll also add American's want a lot of things until they see the details like higher taxes. Opinions on healthcare are moving in the right direction, but we aren't there yet.

here: http://kff.org/uninsured/poll-finding/k ... mber-2015/

Michael wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:Another way of saying what I'm saying above is: Republicans don't ever have an internal debate about "Oh, is Ted Cruz too far to the right to get elected?" No. Their concerns are more like: "Is Trump too far to the left to get elected?" No one on that side ever worries that their guy will go too far and get stonewalled by Congress like we do on the left.

Again, I have to disagree. The Republican establishment backed Jeb! because he's moderate enough to appeal to the general electorate. Going in the this election cycle Republicans were looking to soften their stance on immigration, etc. Now they have two candidates they don't particularly care for and they're worried those candidates are going to hurt them in congressional races. The Republican party is a complete mess.

Jeb is getting killed and the Republican establishment is warming to Trump and Cruz.

This is kind of the story of the Tea Party as well. The Tea Party started out as a backlash against corporate interests (a.k.a. the Republican establishment) but is now largely endorsed by the same establishment. They realized it was all talk and the Tea Party politicians like Paul Ryan and Cruz himself could still be bought, and the 1 or 2 things they still disagreed on weren't that big of a deal. The Republican establishment has less of a problem adapting like this.

Meanwhile, the Democratic establishment is struggling with merely the suggestion that they should move left and adapt somewhat to Bernie.

Below is what the Bing prediction algo is showing. It's kinda like Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, but I believe the algo has a slightly better track record.






IOWA

DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton 50.1%
Bernie Sanders 46.8%
Martin O’Malley 3.1%

REPUBLICANS
Donald Trump 39.8%
Ted Cruz 30.5%
Marco Rubio 12.9%

NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEMOCRATS
Bernie Sanders 58.4%
Hillary Clinton 40.5%
Martin O’Malley 1.1%

REPUBLICANS
Donald Trump 40.2%
Ted Cruz 13.1%
Marco Rubio 12.6%
John Kasich 11.9%

SOUTH CAROLINA

DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton 63.5%
Bernie Sanders 36.4%
Martin O’Malley 0.1%

REPUBLICANS
Donald Trump 44.3%
Ted Cruz 22.6%
Marco Rubio 14.7%

NEVADA

DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton 91.2%
Bernie Sanders 8.7%
Martin O’Malley 0.1%

REPUBLICANS
Donald Trump 39.6%
Ted Cruz 20.8%
Ben Carson 18.4%
Marco Rubio 12.4%


Link

Schlich wrote:here: http://kff.org/uninsured/poll-finding/k ... ember-2015

Thanks. Interesting how the data is different from Gallop. I assume it's due to slightly different questions being asked.

pioneer98 wrote:Jeb is getting killed and the Republican establishment is warming to Trump and Cruz.

This is kind of the story of the Tea Party as well. The Tea Party started out as a backlash against corporate interests (a.k.a. the Republican establishment) but is now largely endorsed by the same establishment. They realized it was all talk and the Tea Party politicians like Paul Ryan and Cruz himself could still be bought, and the 1 or 2 things they still disagreed on weren't that big of a deal. The Republican establishment has less of a problem adapting like this.

Meanwhile, the Democratic establishment is struggling with merely the suggestion that they should move left and adapt somewhat to Bernie.

For what it's worth, Jeb! still has the most political endorsements, which (according to 538) is one of the best predictors of who will get the nomination.

Myles wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:Playing devil's advocate to some extent here....

Republicans are going to call whoever the candidate is a radical, left wing liberal socialist who hates America. It's what they do. It doesn't matter if the candidate is actually a moderate centrist. Reality means nothing. So, if they are going to brand the candidate as a radical socialist regardless.....why not send the candidate up who may actually be as far to the left as they portray? Why let fear of what Republicans might do dictate the candidate on the Democratic side? We already know what Republicans will do. They will shamelessly slime whoever the candidate is. It doesn't matter.

.

You say that as if it is not the same on the other side.

Of course it is. The difference is that Republicans don't care. They don't let the fear of what Democrats might do to them impact their choice.

Also, Democrats aren't quite as dirty or loud. There is no equivalent on the left to Fox News or right-wing radio. They've got Rachel Maddow. Also, can you imagine if the Democrats went and found some former military guys that were stationed with John McCain and trashed his war record? Democrats generally don't stoop to that level but maybe they should start.