JOE MANCHIN 2020!

[Fuzzy Bear]

For Joe Manchin to be the Democratic nominee, the Democratic Party would have to come to terms with the idea that the reason they lost the Presidential election of 2016 was because the party veered too far to the left and was not attractive enough to folks in the center, and that it will never be in the majority unless it manages to take in moderates in its ranks and keep them.  Part of that process would involve nominating a more moderate Democrat for President, with the logic that 3/4 of a Democrat is better than no Democrat at all.

The above-statement may or may not be true.  America has certainly moved left on social issues, and it has moved left on economics over the years, even as more Republicans are being elected, to the point of where the Democrats are CLEARLY the minority party in America.  The Democrats don't seem to get that they are a minority party; Independents are clearly the largest group, and these Independents clearly have more in their number that lean R than those that Lean D.  Are the Democrats ready to admit that their failures are due to identity politics that they KNEW would alienate the WWC voters they have needed, but are losing rapidly.  So did they lose simply because they rammed down the throats of the electorate a candidate (Hillary Clinton) who was so personally unlikable that she would not be able to win even with great advantages?

I tend to believe a combination of these sentiments is true.  Hillary embraced the far, far left of SJWs, LGBT activists, Identity Politics practitioners, radical feminists, and ran a campaign that was, in large measure, a defense of political correctness in an era where folks were in full rebellion against it, working overtime to alienate those critical voters they needed to win.  The Democrats didn't need to call for repeal of SSM; the SCOTUS gave them a gift by enacting SSM without anyone having to cast a tough vote in a legislature on the issue.  But did they have to push their views on public bathrooms?  Did they have to agree with SJWs that police are the largest threat to black lives, as opposed to the criminals that perpetrate black-on-black violent crime in large numbers? 

Under such conditions, a rational Democratic Party might turn to someone like Manchin.  His biggest downfall was his silence on Obama in 2012, but no one really doubts Manchin voted for Obama in the privacy of the voting booth, and that he was in the midst of a massive revolt of WV Democrats.  I'm not sure the Democrats have that kind of realism, however.  They want what they can't have.  This is a party who, having lost 49 states in 1972 with McGovern, couldn't support a moderate Democrat like Carter because he was too conservative and they missed out on Camelot.  I have little doubt that a united Democratic Party that stood by its President in 1980 would have re-elected Carter and wouldn't have lost the Senate, but that didn't happen.  I don't have much more faith that the Democratic Party of today possesses the introspection it needs to actually make the changes needed for victory.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America. 

That's not what we think. However, it is what they think because of their massive victim complex.

I don't know who the "we" is you mention.  I only know the tone and rhetoric of the identity politics that has seemingly taken the Democratic Party by storm.  

I would like to know who this "we" is that you refer to, and what the attitude toward America that "we" holds and projects.  I've been on Atlas long enough to know that not everyone who posts here actually loves America and wishes it well.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America. 

That's not what we think. However, it is what they think because of their massive victim complex.

I don't know who the "we" is you mention.  I only know the tone and rhetoric of the identity politics that has seemingly taken the Democratic Party by storm.  

I would like to know who this "we" is that you refer to, and what the attitude toward America that "we" holds and projects.  I've been on Atlas long enough to know that not everyone who posts here actually loves America and wishes it well.  

Identity politics is an America tradition. The notion that only Democrats participate in it is ludicrous. There's a reason a guy like Ben Sasse has pictures of him taken in cornfields and on a farm

Republicans, however, have always been the party that did more to speak to Americans as Americans and not as port of special groups.  Democrats have always been the party of group appeals.  This is nothing new; it's a longstanding pattern.

What we have now, however, is a Democratic Party taking identity politics to a new level, in its attempts to cobble together a majority-minority coalition to sweep to victory.  This can only be done by appeals to group special interests, but these group special interests are often diametrically opposed to the interests of America as a whole.

There are appeals to Hispanics to allow for more immigration.  But is more immigration in the interest of the whole of America, of which Hispanics here are already a part?  There are appeals to blacks to enviscerate police over police brutality, but is that consistent with the well being of Americans who face varying degrees of violent crime and need police with the will to enforce laws and a citizenry that obeys the lawful directives of law enforcement officers on duty.  Loyalty to ethnic group or political alliance is encouraged by today's Democratic Party over loyalty to country.  A nation awash in identity politics is a nation whose leaders obtain power by accumulating more political debts than they can pay.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America.  

That's not what we think. However, it is what they think because of their massive victim complex.

I don't know who the "we" is you mention.  I only know the tone and rhetoric of the identity politics that has seemingly taken the Democratic Party by storm.  

I would like to know who this "we" is that you refer to, and what the attitude toward America that "we" holds and projects.  I've been on Atlas long enough to know that not everyone who posts here actually loves America and wishes it well.  

Identity politics is an America tradition. The notion that only Democrats participate in it is ludicrous. There's a reason a guy like Ben Sasse has pictures of him taken in cornfields and on a farm

Republicans, however, have always been the party that did more to speak to Americans as Americans and not as port of special groups.  Democrats have always been the party of group appeals.  This is nothing new; it's a longstanding pattern.

What we have now, however, is a Democratic Party taking identity politics to a new level, in its attempts to cobble together a majority-minority coalition to sweep to victory.  This can only be done by appeals to group special interests, but these group special interests are often diametrically opposed to the interests of America as a whole.

There are appeals to Hispanics to allow for more immigration.  But is more immigration in the interest of the whole of America, of which Hispanics here are already a part?  There are appeals to blacks to enviscerate police over police brutality, but is that consistent with the well being of Americans who face varying degrees of violent crime and need police with the will to enforce laws and a citizenry that obeys the lawful directives of law enforcement officers on duty.  Loyalty to ethnic group or political alliance is encouraged by today's Democratic Party over loyalty to country.  A nation awash in identity politics is a nation whose leaders obtain power by accumulating more political debts than they can pay.

"I'm not a racist, but minorities are not American."

That's an interpretation of what you project on others.  Not a fact.  But it does beg a question; the question of "What is an 'American'?".

Being an American, in my book, has nothing to do with race, color or national origin  It has very much to do with loyalty.  Is your loyalty to the United States of America?  Do you advocate policies that are in the interests of the United States, even if they run counter to the interests of the country of your origin/heritage?  Do you identify yourself as an American and mean it?  Will you make common cause with folks who are not of your ethnic heritage in opposition to folks who are of your ethnic heritage if doing so is clearly in the interest of America as a whole?

Being an American, in my book, means being committed to certain things culturally.  It means being committed to speaking English, and to respecting English as the primary language of America.  It means being committed to the rule of law, and not the rule of ethnic or tribal customs and loyalties.  (That, by the way, includes our immigration laws.) It means recognizing the legitimacy of elected officials whom you do not agree with and who are not of your race/ethnicity, and it means recognizing them even if they defeat candidates of your choice  (And, yes, a degree of the response to Obama by some white folks was, decidedly, un-American.)  It means forsaking institutions that run counter to secular liberal democracy and the rule of law; things such as Sharia Law, honor killings, and the right of individuals to make decisions regarding their own lives.  

Being an American, in my book, means being of Mexican descent and refuting President Felipe Calderon's statement of "Wherever a Mexican is, there is Mexico." and recognize the Mexican War as a done deal.  It means being Arab and renouncing Sharia Law and the idea of a Caliphate.  It means being Israeli and renouncing the deeds of Jonathan Pollard.  It means being supportive of America in its wars, and not of its enemies.  And, yes, it means recognizing we are ONE nation, and there is no "Southern"Nation (for all the neo-Congederate readers.  But it also means that white folks have a legitimate right to weigh in on issues pertaining to the actions of non-white folks; the idea that white folks have no right to weigh in on problems affecting predominatly minority folks and neighborhoods is no more American than minority folks have to weigh in on problems that appear to predominantly affect white folks and neighborhoods.  America is too interconnected for that, is it not?

America is a unique nation; it's not "blood and soil", but "e pluribus unum".  Diverse people have become part of a united nation because they were willing to forsake old authorities for the authority of America and the freedoms that come with it.  I understand that lots of folks (including folks whose families have been in this country for centuries) feel "alienated".  To that, I would ask if some of that "alienation" is self-inflicted?  Do people talk themselves into being more victimized than they actually have been?  America, its republican form of government with democratic features, its guaranteed and enumerated freedoms, didn't just happen, and doesn't just happen.  To keep it happening, it requires some people to do some degree of changing their mind, and develop a willingness to be part of a greater whole.  Some folks never get that.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America.  

That's not what we think. However, it is what they think because of their massive victim complex.

I don't know who the "we" is you mention.  I only know the tone and rhetoric of the identity politics that has seemingly taken the Democratic Party by storm.  

I would like to know who this "we" is that you refer to, and what the attitude toward America that "we" holds and projects.  I've been on Atlas long enough to know that not everyone who posts here actually loves America and wishes it well.  

Identity politics is an America tradition. The notion that only Democrats participate in it is ludicrous. There's a reason a guy like Ben Sasse has pictures of him taken in cornfields and on a farm

Republicans, however, have always been the party that did more to speak to Americans as Americans and not as port of special groups.  Democrats have always been the party of group appeals.  This is nothing new; it's a longstanding pattern.

What we have now, however, is a Democratic Party taking identity politics to a new level, in its attempts to cobble together a majority-minority coalition to sweep to victory.  This can only be done by appeals to group special interests, but these group special interests are often diametrically opposed to the interests of America as a whole.

There are appeals to Hispanics to allow for more immigration.  But is more immigration in the interest of the whole of America, of which Hispanics here are already a part?  There are appeals to blacks to enviscerate police over police brutality, but is that consistent with the well being of Americans who face varying degrees of violent crime and need police with the will to enforce laws and a citizenry that obeys the lawful directives of law enforcement officers on duty.  Loyalty to ethnic group or political alliance is encouraged by today's Democratic Party over loyalty to country.  A nation awash in identity politics is a nation whose leaders obtain power by accumulating more political debts than they can pay.

"I'm not a racist, but minorities are not American."

That's an interpretation of what you project on others.  Not a fact.  But it does beg a question; the question of "What is an 'American'?".

Being an American, in my book, has nothing to do with race, color or national origin  It has very much to do with loyalty.  Is your loyalty to the United States of America?  Do you advocate policies that are in the interests of the United States, even if they run counter to the interests of the country of your origin/heritage?  Do you identify yourself as an American and mean it?  Will you make common cause with folks who are not of your ethnic heritage in opposition to folks who are of your ethnic heritage if doing so is clearly in the interest of America as a whole?

Being an American, in my book, means being committed to certain things culturally.  It means being committed to speaking English, and to respecting English as the primary language of America.  It means being committed to the rule of law, and not the rule of ethnic or tribal customs and loyalties.  (That, by the way, includes our immigration laws.) It means recognizing the legitimacy of elected officials whom you do not agree with and who are not of your race/ethnicity, and it means recognizing them even if they defeat candidates of your choice  (And, yes, a degree of the response to Obama by some white folks was, decidedly, un-American.)  It means forsaking institutions that run counter to secular liberal democracy and the rule of law; things such as Sharia Law, honor killings, and the right of individuals to make decisions regarding their own lives.  

Being an American, in my book, means being of Mexican descent and refuting President Felipe Calderon's statement of "Wherever a Mexican is, there is Mexico." and recognize the Mexican War as a done deal.  It means being Arab and renouncing Sharia Law and the idea of a Caliphate.  It means being Israeli and renouncing the deeds of Jonathan Pollard.  It means being supportive of America in its wars, and not of its enemies.  And, yes, it means recognizing we are ONE nation, and there is no "Southern"Nation (for all the neo-Congederate readers.  But it also means that white folks have a legitimate right to weigh in on issues pertaining to the actions of non-white folks; the idea that white folks have no right to weigh in on problems affecting predominatly minority folks and neighborhoods is no more American than minority folks have to weigh in on problems that appear to predominantly affect white folks and neighborhoods.  America is too interconnected for that, is it not?

America is a unique nation; it's not "blood and soil", but "e pluribus unum".  Diverse people have become part of a united nation because they were willing to forsake old authorities for the authority of America and the freedoms that come with it.  I understand that lots of folks (including folks whose families have been in this country for centuries) feel "alienated".  To that, I would ask if some of that "alienation" is self-inflicted?  Do people talk themselves into being more victimized than they actually have been?  America, its republican form of government with democratic features, its guaranteed and enumerated freedoms, didn't just happen, and doesn't just happen.  To keep it happening, it requires some people to do some degree of changing their mind, and develop a willingness to be part of a greater whole.  Some folks never get that.  

Wrong. The answer is that if you live in America, you're American.

Illegal aliens live in America.  They are not Americans, unless you mean "American" as a person from North, Central or South America, which is not what we're talking about in this discussion.  An illegal alien is not my fellow countryman.

If you live in America, legally or not, you do enjoy the enumerated Constitutional Rights that "persons" living in America enjoy.  Not everyone who enjoys those rights is an American Citizen, or even an alien in compliance with American immigration laws, but folks in America do enjoy the protections of enumerated Constitutional Rights. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let me try to respond this with a more detailed response than "I'm not racist, but minorities are not American."

Yeah, Cora was being very blunt with his response, to put it lightly. But think about it; your response does imply that the interests of minorities are in direct opposition in the interest of America. Was that what you meant? If that was what you meant, is that really so?

Let's take an example you cite: Is reducing police brutality also in the best interest of America? To me, the answer is an unequivocal YES, and furthermore it does not conflict with having strong and effective police departments. If anything, excessive police brutality hurts the police and helps the criminals, since it destroys the police-community bonds that are needed for effective crime-fighting. Furthermore, while police brutality has been framed as a black issue, for legitimate reasons, we must not forget that other races - white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc. - are also victims of police brutality.

That's just one example. There are a myriad of other issues that uniquely affect X group, whether it's employment discrimination, educational injustice, housing segregation, or environmental racism. Is fighting against them somehow "un-American," or against the interests of America? Of course not. It is the issues themselves that are against the interests of America, for they weaken it and make lie of the principles of equality and justice for all.

And likewise, fighting these issues has a long and storied history in America. You surely heard of Federick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, who risked their lives to escape and later end slavery. You heard of the Radical Republicans who came into power wanting a more just America. You heard of MLK and Rosa Parks, maybe not of the many other leaders who defined the Civil Rights Movement. You've heard of Selma and Stonewall. Today's activists are simply heirs to that great American tradition of finding justice and shaping our society for the better.

You clearly know of the oppression many Americans have faced over the course of our history. But imagine having to experience that kind of oppression. Our schools and culture have taught us from childhood that we live in a colorblind society that has transcended our tribal instincts. This is a laudable future, but this is not our present reality, and when children come home and see the oppression they and their families face, they know that they have been taught a lie. So they distrust the system, and they get angry.

You've said that some of these people should have a "change of mind" in your other post. But maybe take a few minutes to understand the point of view of other people; it goes both ways, after all. Talk to people; understand their motivations, and if you find them to be a bit too "angry" for you, give them reasons to have hope, not more anger. If you can't do that for whatever reason, just meditate on what I said for a few minutes, hours, or days. You have love in your heart; search it, and maybe you'll find something new.

There are several things I'd point out here.

One is that I'm not opposed to sanctioning improper use of force by law enforcement.  There are civil and criminal sanctions for doing so, and the job is such that some folks do cross lines and use improper force on criminal suspects.  I get that.  What I oppose is the narrative that young black males in America are dying because of the actions of police.  Young black males in America are dying primarily at the hands of violent criminals, mostly young and black, often members of criminal gangs or drug rings.  There are many relevant issues in criminal injustice that deserve the attention of serious people (disparity in sentencing, using enforcement of misdemeanors and local ordinances as revenue enhancement, the corrupt privatization of prisons and the impact this industry has on lawmaking), but the "Cops are killing young black males!" narrative is just not true.  Young, mostly black, criminals are killing young black males, and this is in no small measure because young black males, in disproportionate numbers, are engaging in drug crimes and violent crimes.  That blacks commit violent crimes at rates significantly higher than their percentage of the population is a difficult topic, and one that should make everyone on all sides of the issue uncomfortable.  But it is also a fact, statistically, and there seems to be no serious discussion of why this is so, let along what can be done about this.

The real oppressors of the black community these days are these criminal oppressors.  They are the ones that inject fear into the lives of folks in many predominantly black communities with their violent  criminal actions and with their coercive behaviors, coercing silence and non-cooperation with law enforcement.  And, yes, people in these communities have reason to be afraid; they often either know who perpetrated a crime, have knowledge of what others are saying about a crime, or have been inadvertantly made a witness to a crime, and all of that brings criminal coercion down on them.

The 1960s was about black folks demanding that their Civil Rights, the ones that they already had in theory, actually be protected and enforced.  The fear they experienced, to paraphrase Mike Royko, came from the actions of the worst elements of Southern beer-belly manhood that were allowed to provide the response to those reasonable demands being made.  Bull Connor, Jim Clark, Willis McCall; these were law enforcement officers that law abiding blacks needed to fear.  But that's not who's responsible for the carnage (and, no, that's not overly dramatic) that's occurring in Chicago now.  (74 murders in Chicago in July, 2017; is that not carnage?)  And that's not the police doing it.

Compassion, I have.  But the false narrative isn't compassionate at all.  I'm asking you to do what the Democrats demand the GOP do; confront your party's base on this issue.   And to get this on topic, Joe Manchin may be the only Democrat willing to do so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

I have three (3) sons, two of whom are adults, one (1) of whom has, indeed, had trouble with the law, and has served some jail time.  I care about all of their lives.  I have real reason to believe that during one arrest, police officers used undue force, and I don't say this lightly.  I should also say that I told my son to immediately go to an ER and document his injuries, and he didn't do so.  He was also quite intoxicated at the time of that arrest, so who knows what happened.  I live in the real world, however. 

That being said, every time an officer shoots and kills a suspect who turns out to be unarmed is not a murder, nor is is always a crime, nor is it always unjustified.

What BLM is, in fact (if not explicitly) asserting is a subject's right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.  Police have the RIGHT to detain persons for any number of lawful reasons, the most common being to issue a traffic citation.  They have the right to detain an individual who is fleeing a crime scene where suspicious activity has occurred, and where police have reason to believe that a person has information on that activity.  They have a right to arrest a subject about whom they have probable cause (a pretty low standard) to believe that a subject committed a crime.  This is hardly an unreasonable concept; police are entitled and empowered to take certain actions to investigate possible crime and they are entitled to give lawful directions to persons,which persons are required to follow, for the sake of ensuring their own safety while investigating a possible crime.

What never seems to be pointed out is that Michael Brown (in Ferguson, MO), an active suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store at the time of his death, refused to follow the lawful commands of a police officer, and, indeed, presented a threat to that officer's life and safety.  That he didn't have a gun does not make this murder; he was actively resisting the officer with physical force, and his claim of having his hands up saying "Don't shoot!" has been more than adequately debunked as an organized effort of folks making false statements (a crime, btw) about what happened in Ferguson. 

What never seems to be pointed out is that Eric Garner (in Staten Island, NY) was actively resisting a lawful arrest.  Yes, it was a minor misdemeanor, and, yes, the law he was arrested on was, IMO, a "revenue enhancer" (don't sell untaxed cigs), but the arrest of Mr. Garner was lawful.  The choke hold applied to these officers was against NYPD policy, and for that, officers face civil liability and career ramifications, up to and including termination, but it is not an "illegal" choke hold, and it would not have been applied had Mr. Garner not resisted a lawful arrest.  Mr. Garner was a morbidly obese diabetic with hypertension and asthma and over 30 arrests on his record who came down with a case of "I'm not going to jail today!".  What if every criminal suspect took that tack?  How dangerous would law enforcement, as a profession, be then?  How safe would the average citizen be?

I care very much about the rights of the accused.  Folks have the right not to be subjected to force when they are passive and compliant, and they don't have a right to use extra force just because a subject is mouthy and disrespectful.  Putting up with disrespectful jerks is part of their job.  Persons in jail or prison should not be subjected to "punishments" at the whim of officers; confinement is the punishment, in and of itself.  But police have a right to be safe in their persons and a duty to apprehend suspected criminal lawbreakers, at whatever level of resistance they put forth.  To call every incident of a police officer shooting a suspect a "murder" is flat out ignorance; it's just not the case, and to insist that it is, or something close to that is, represents a denial of facts.  SJWs have some valid issues, and those issues (treatment of prisoners, prison privatization, oppressive lenghts of sentencing, racial disparities in sentencing) merit serious discussion.  Calling every police shooting of a suspect a "murder" is just ridiculous, but there are many folks who seek to be uninterested with facts.  Perhaps Joe Manchin, or SOMEBODY, can help bring the Democratic Party to its senses on this matter.

[Fuzzy Bear]

We need a fiscally moderate, socially liberal globalist, who can win....the Philadelphia suburbs.

Already ran that candidate last year.

And if that canidate were run again, without email/Comey/Russia/better campaign stops, they'd win WI, MI, PA, NC, GA, AZ, FL.

Is email/Comey/Russia/better campaign stops the reason Democrats have only 15 governorships, 6 triumvirates, total control of only 12 state legislatures?

It's funny how we keep being told we need to run more centrist trash because only they can win yet they're losing all over the place on state level

I don't consider a lot of folks labeled as "centrists" to be so.  They are liberals.  Hillary Clinton was a liberal.  Bill Clinton was a liberal pragmatist.  The Jimmy Carter of 1976 was a centrist, but the Democratic Party was much different then.

On February 1, 1977. there were 62 Democratic Senators, 34 Democratic Governors, and 280ish Democratic Representatives of Congress.  They controlled both houses of the legislature in 31 states, including CA, TX, FL, and PA.  

This was not accomplished without the Democratic Party's hegemony in the South and Border states, which required local candidates making concessions on racial issues.  This was a time where there were many pro-life, pro-school prayer Southern Democrats, but these same Southern Democrats were also folks who stated their support for Civil Rights legislation, cementing the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s as a fait accompli, and giving black voters real influence with their elected officials.

The legacy of the demise of moderate Democrats in the South has been (A) more black Democrats as elected officials, (B) permanent minority status, and (C) a massive decrease in black influence on public policy in Southern states.  The Democratic Party in the South is now free to be as liberal as it chooses, but it keeps producing Jon "Close-But-No-Cigar" Ossoffs in their key races.  Perhaps this is something to ruminate over for Democrats who wish to be the majority party again.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is email/Comey/Russia/better campaign stops the reason Democrats have only 15 governorships, 6 triumvirates, total control of only 12 state legislatures?

It's funny how we keep being told we need to run more centrist trash because only they can win yet they're losing all over the place on state level

State politics always swings against the party in control of the white house, and Dems will probably pick up several governorships and legislatures in 2017-18

The Democrats in their current form only stand to pick up a handful of state legislatures....Lower house in Michigan, Upper house in Maine...maybe flip Minnesota

Other than that...rural areas loath the current Democratic party and that makes flipping statehouses almost impossible

Very true.  Just exactly how did that loathing come about?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Democrats in their current form only stand to pick up a handful of state legislatures....Lower house in Michigan, Upper house in Maine...maybe flip Minnesota

Other than that...rural areas loath the current Democratic party and that makes flipping statehouses almost impossible

What about NY, NH, CO, WA, VA, PA, NC, FL, WI, and AZ?

NY has a one-seat majority in the State Senate, but a number of Democrats have sided with the GOP to organize the Senate in return for key Senate committee assignments.  It's Democrats in more marginal areas not wanting to be too closely aligned with NYC Democrats, who often appear unsavory to suburbanites.

NY probably has total Democratic control of the legislature for purposes of reapportionment, but I guarantee that what they will come up with is an IPP (Incumbent Protection Program).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is email/Comey/Russia/better campaign stops the reason Democrats have only 15 governorships, 6 triumvirates, total control of only 12 state legislatures?

It's funny how we keep being told we need to run more centrist trash because only they can win yet they're losing all over the place on state level

State politics always swings against the party in control of the white house, and Dems will probably pick up several governorships and legislatures in 2017-18

The Democrats in their current form only stand to pick up a handful of state legislatures....Lower house in Michigan, Upper house in Maine...maybe flip Minnesota

Other than that...rural areas loath the current Democratic party and that makes flipping statehouses almost impossible

Very true.  Just exactly how did that loathing come about?

A party run by a liberal elite who are to the left on social issues yet to the right on economic issues. A party made up of people who are giddy at signing free trade agreements that drain rural America yet simultaneously force contentious social issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc... down peoples throats.

See, you can get away with, in rural areas, being far left on economic issues and being left on social issues. Just look at George McGovern, Carl Albert, Wilbur Mills, etc... but rural people cant stand someone who's to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues

You may be the only guy here who gets the highlighted part.  The Democrats have done so much damage here that I don't know if it can be undone in my lifetime.  (I'm much older than most of you here, so don't sweat that too much.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't consider a lot of folks labeled as "centrists" to be so.  They are liberals.  Hillary Clinton was a liberal.  Bill Clinton was a liberal pragmatist.  The Jimmy Carter of 1976 was a centrist, but the Democratic Party was much different then.

On February 1, 1977. there were 62 Democratic Senators, 34 Democratic Governors, and 280ish Democratic Representatives of Congress.  They controlled both houses of the legislature in 31 states, including CA, TX, FL, and PA.  

This was not accomplished without the Democratic Party's hegemony in the South and Border states, which required local candidates making concessions on racial issues.  This was a time where there were many pro-life, pro-school prayer Southern Democrats, but these same Southern Democrats were also folks who stated their support for Civil Rights legislation, cementing the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s as a fait accompli, and giving black voters real influence with their elected officials.

The legacy of the demise of moderate Democrats in the South has been (A) more black Democrats as elected officials, (B) permanent minority status, and (C) a massive decrease in black influence on public policy in Southern states.  The Democratic Party in the South is now free to be as liberal as it chooses, but it keeps producing Jon "Close-But-No-Cigar" Ossoffs in their key races.  Perhaps this is something to ruminate over for Democrats who wish to be the majority party again.

The current Democratic state parties of many southern states are pro life and generally Conservative and that doesn't help and it never really will. During the race for AR governorship, the Democrat got a NRA endorsement and still lost if I remember correctly.

Electoral successes are largely based on who dominates the narrative within a party system. Were still stuck in the Reaganism party system where Democrats have to repeat Republican talking points to get elected when really nobody cares about that stuff. It's kind of like how, if you grew up in a church going family, you just went along with telling everyone you were a Christian even if you could cares less about what the faith teaches you. You just assumed everyone else believes this stuff so I have to go along with it, maybe even fake it in some case. Trump proved for example that there is no consensus on the trade issue, Republican voters for years went along with the notion that free trade is what works best until Trump broke that assumption and released Republican voters from having to go along with it. Sanders did the same for breaking the taboo of Democrats having to run away from being liberal or progressive or even socialist.

The reason why Democrats lose is because they keep working within Republican narratives. They run on the defensive from Republican talking points and while they may occasionally eek out a victory, it perpetually puts them on a defensive unable to adopt more liberal viewpoints. They depress their base by appealing to the other side that will never ever vote for them anyway. The reason we lost so many statehouse under Obama is because it was official Democratic party policy at the time that the grassroots should go away after elections and have all policy left up to those who make up the party machinery...in other words: the donors, consultants, and data stiffs. These people have an unyielding belief in this phony theory of the mythical centrist voter. They think if we adopt school vouchers, more business friendly policies, etc that we can cop out some kind of majority made up of voters from both sides but of course this never works and it never will.

What Democrats have to do is break off from being Republican lite and assert a strong set of principles and wrestle the narrative away from this Reagan/Clinton paradigm. Voting behavior is strongly based on social identities, group attachments, and myopic retrospection, not cold hard policy preferences, or a realistic assessment of circumstances. Identities are emotional attachments that transcend thinking and may trump facts and policy reasoning. Voters first choose, or sometimes inherit, a party validating their political and social identities, and only then adapt their policy choices to fit those of their candidates and parties. This is why when Trump adopts a policy position that may even be liberal, the majority of Republicans then follow suit.

The whole reason Democrats lose is because very few voters have any emotional attachment to the party or its leadership. This has to do with the fact that the party is de-facto run by pollsters and consultants who think they can create an algorithm for every voter, based on data, in order to manipulate him into voting Democrat rather than appealing to principles that transcend think thank policy proposals. Democrats go out of their way to avoid changing minds through the hard work of individual persuasion. This why I lol every time some Clinton supporter points out that Clinton had a 8 page (or how much ever pages it was) policy proposal list on her website. Nobody cares about that stuff...the emotional attachment you feel for a candidate and his/her movement and the over-arching principles they present trump all cold hard logic and facts as far as voters are concerned.

I find the highlighted part extremely true and compelling.  And, yes, it's true; the Democrats are afraid of doing the hard work of convincing folks that they're right and changing their minds.

I remember an article in the Village Voice in 1984, right after the Mondale debacle.  I was still a partisan Democrat then, and I voted for Mondale, but I found his campaign to be ever so depressing and pandering.  The writer made a point that most folks didn't even notice; it was the point of being shocked that the GOP actually got the best of the Democrats on the issue of TAXES!!!  Folks called it voodoo economics, the idea of stimulating the economy by lowering tax rates, but Ronald Reagan and HIS Republican Party did the hard work of actually convincing working class people that lowering tax rates on all was the best way to bring about prosperity.  Whether it is or not is another question, but Reagan stabilized interest rates and ushered in a period of prosperity after several years of economic stagnation with inflation.  

Why haven't the Democrats haven't been able to do this on healthcare?  Let's get real; most folks' "Doctor" isn't some Marcus Welby, MD figure; it's "the guy/lady on the (insurance) plan".  The argument of "the government getting between you and your doctor" has never been properly reframed to one of the government getting between you and your doctor to tell your doctor to treat you, even if he'll only be able to drive a Chevy Impala instead of a Porsche on what he'll get from treating you.  Clintoncare, the plan Hillary and Ira Magaziner devised, was actually a lot better than Obamacare (which is a Republican idea revived because it was the only thing Obama thought he could get through).  But no one was prepared to change minds, to fight for it, to stand firm for it.  

The Democrats really are lame.  Republicans are much more convincing than Democrats are, and the Democrats need to think about why this is so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He clearly fears the all-powerful Paula Jean Swearengin.

Manchin personally contacted & did an interview with TYT & said he wanted to come back again. Sanders won every country in WV. Despite some Trump/Sanders voters, Sanders remains pretty popular. So Manchin will make some overtures to the left.

40% of Sanders primary voters wouldn't have voted for him in a general election. He won because of protest votes, no more.

I tend to believe this, yes, but he would have done better in red states than Hillary.  Maybe not as well in some blue states, however.

[Fuzzy Bear]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

I have three (3) sons, two of whom are adults, one (1) of whom has, indeed, had trouble with the law, and has served some jail time.  I care about all of their lives.  I have real reason to believe that during one arrest, police officers used undue force, and I don't say this lightly.  I should also say that I told my son to immediately go to an ER and document his injuries, and he didn't do so.  He was also quite intoxicated at the time of that arrest, so who knows what happened.  I live in the real world, however.  

That being said, every time an officer shoots and kills a suspect who turns out to be unarmed is not a murder, nor is is always a crime, nor is it always unjustified.

What BLM is, in fact (if not explicitly) asserting is a subject's right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.  Police have the RIGHT to detain persons for any number of lawful reasons, the most common being to issue a traffic citation.  They have the right to detain an individual who is fleeing a crime scene where suspicious activity has occurred, and where police have reason to believe that a person has information on that activity.  They have a right to arrest a subject about whom they have probable cause (a pretty low standard) to believe that a subject committed a crime.  This is hardly an unreasonable concept; police are entitled and empowered to take certain actions to investigate possible crime and they are entitled to give lawful directions to persons,which persons are required to follow, for the sake of ensuring their own safety while investigating a possible crime.

What never seems to be pointed out is that Michael Brown (in Ferguson, MO), an active suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store at the time of his death, refused to follow the lawful commands of a police officer, and, indeed, presented a threat to that officer's life and safety.  That he didn't have a gun does not make this murder; he was actively resisting the officer with physical force, and his claim of having his hands up saying "Don't shoot!" has been more than adequately debunked as an organized effort of folks making false statements (a crime, btw) about what happened in Ferguson.  

What never seems to be pointed out is that Eric Garner (in Staten Island, NY) was actively resisting a lawful arrest.  Yes, it was a minor misdemeanor, and, yes, the law he was arrested on was, IMO, a "revenue enhancer" (don't sell untaxed cigs), but the arrest of Mr. Garner was lawful.  The choke hold applied to these officers was against NYPD policy, and for that, officers face civil liability and career ramifications, up to and including termination, but it is not an "illegal" choke hold, and it would not have been applied had Mr. Garner not resisted a lawful arrest.  Mr. Garner was a morbidly obese diabetic with hypertension and asthma and over 30 arrests on his record who came down with a case of "I'm not going to jail today!".  What if every criminal suspect took that tack?  How dangerous would law enforcement, as a profession, be then?  How safe would the average citizen be?

I care very much about the rights of the accused.  Folks have the right not to be subjected to force when they are passive and compliant, and they don't have a right to use extra force just because a subject is mouthy and disrespectful.  Putting up with disrespectful jerks is part of their job.  Persons in jail or prison should not be subjected to "punishments" at the whim of officers; confinement is the punishment, in and of itself.  But police have a right to be safe in their persons and a duty to apprehend suspected criminal lawbreakers, at whatever level of resistance they put forth.  To call every incident of a police officer shooting a suspect a "murder" is flat out ignorance; it's just not the case, and to insist that it is, or something close to that is, represents a denial of facts.  SJWs have some valid issues, and those issues (treatment of prisoners, prison privatization, oppressive lenghts of sentencing, racial disparities in sentencing) merit serious discussion.  Calling every police shooting of a suspect a "murder" is just ridiculous, but there are many folks who seek to be uninterested with facts.  Perhaps Joe Manchin, or SOMEBODY, can help bring the Democratic Party to its senses on this matter.

BLM is not saying that people have the right to resist arrest, in any way, shape, or form. They are not saying Michael Brown was right to try to reach into that police officer's vehicle, and they are not saying Eric Garner was right to resist the police, either. Not explicitly, and not implicitly. Every time I've heard an African-American adult who supports BLM talk about what they tell their sons, it's always obey and respect the police, the police can hurt you. It's never any variation of "resist the police."

No one is saying that every time a police officer shoots someone, it's murder, any more than any time someone who is not a police officer shoots someone, it's murder. That would be absurd; might as well take all guns from the police. All BLM is saying, and all I was saying in my post, is that police criminality should be treated the same as any other criminality. Police do have the ability to murder, just as civilians do. Yes, the police do a dangerous job, and they have powers that civilians don't have, and the job they do puts them in situations where they have a greater opportunity to commit murder or otherwise abuse power. That's not unique to police power. Any time someone is given power, they also have the opportunity to abuse it. But that doesn't mean that when they do, they shouldn't be held accountable. To me, when the police drive up to a kid holding a toy up and immediately execute him, that's a mistake. That's unjustified. Is it murder? That's up to the courts to decide. But it might be. All BLM wants is that just because the man who pulled the trigger was a police officer and not a gang member, it doesn't mean he should be more above the law.

If the highlighted portion was all they wanted, there would be no controversy.  It's hard for me that a group that intimidates a friendly politician (Sanders) off his own stage only wants the above.  I only know the demonstrations where indictments and convictions are demanded, and anything short of the conviction of an officer is considered an injustice.  Such a posture would be considered unacceptable by most folks here regarding an ordinary criminal defendant; why the OK for "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" for police officers?  I'll let folks here judge for themselves what BLM's actual viewpoint is.

"Holding up a toy".  A toy what?  A toy gun?  Could you tell the difference between a toy gun, an air pistol, and a Glock 19 semiautomatic from 20 feet in an instant during a somewhat chaotic situation with subjects refusing to comply with directives that are given lawfully, and for safety?  "A kid".  How old is this kid?  Is he old enough to bring a pistol with live ammo into his middle school?  Has his middle school been subjected to such incidents that an officer knows about?

Courts have ruled that in police shootings of persons, the culpability of the officer is determined by the "totality of circumstances" of the shooting.  This is, actually, the standard for shootings in general, but police shootings occur as part of a police officer's profession.  It is understood that the officer will be in situations where their life will be in danger.  It is understood that they will be permitted, and even required at times, to use lethal force.  The standard of this is whether or not a police officer reasonably believes that he/she is in fear for his/her life.  The standard is not whether or not the circumstances represent a "fair fight", or whether or not their was "the possibility" of resolving the situation without lethality.  And the totality of circumstances also include the context of the officer's job.  This fact can't be overstated; the officer is often on scene to quell a disturbance, bring order and safety from chaos and danger, and apprehend a wanted person who is presumed to be a danger.

[Fuzzy Bear]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

I have three (3) sons, two of whom are adults, one (1) of whom has, indeed, had trouble with the law, and has served some jail time.  I care about all of their lives.  I have real reason to believe that during one arrest, police officers used undue force, and I don't say this lightly.  I should also say that I told my son to immediately go to an ER and document his injuries, and he didn't do so.  He was also quite intoxicated at the time of that arrest, so who knows what happened.  I live in the real world, however. 

That being said, every time an officer shoots and kills a suspect who turns out to be unarmed is not a murder, nor is is always a crime, nor is it always unjustified.

What BLM is, in fact (if not explicitly) asserting is a subject's right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.  Police have the RIGHT to detain persons for any number of lawful reasons, the most common being to issue a traffic citation.  They have the right to detain an individual who is fleeing a crime scene where suspicious activity has occurred, and where police have reason to believe that a person has information on that activity.  They have a right to arrest a subject about whom they have probable cause (a pretty low standard) to believe that a subject committed a crime.  This is hardly an unreasonable concept; police are entitled and empowered to take certain actions to investigate possible crime and they are entitled to give lawful directions to persons,which persons are required to follow, for the sake of ensuring their own safety while investigating a possible crime.

What never seems to be pointed out is that Michael Brown (in Ferguson, MO), an active suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store at the time of his death, refused to follow the lawful commands of a police officer, and, indeed, presented a threat to that officer's life and safety.  That he didn't have a gun does not make this murder; he was actively resisting the officer with physical force, and his claim of having his hands up saying "Don't shoot!" has been more than adequately debunked as an organized effort of folks making false statements (a crime, btw) about what happened in Ferguson. 

What never seems to be pointed out is that Eric Garner (in Staten Island, NY) was actively resisting a lawful arrest.  Yes, it was a minor misdemeanor, and, yes, the law he was arrested on was, IMO, a "revenue enhancer" (don't sell untaxed cigs), but the arrest of Mr. Garner was lawful.  The choke hold applied to these officers was against NYPD policy, and for that, officers face civil liability and career ramifications, up to and including termination, but it is not an "illegal" choke hold, and it would not have been applied had Mr. Garner not resisted a lawful arrest.  Mr. Garner was a morbidly obese diabetic with hypertension and asthma and over 30 arrests on his record who came down with a case of "I'm not going to jail today!".  What if every criminal suspect took that tack?  How dangerous would law enforcement, as a profession, be then?  How safe would the average citizen be?

I care very much about the rights of the accused.  Folks have the right not to be subjected to force when they are passive and compliant, and they don't have a right to use extra force just because a subject is mouthy and disrespectful.  Putting up with disrespectful jerks is part of their job.  Persons in jail or prison should not be subjected to "punishments" at the whim of officers; confinement is the punishment, in and of itself.  But police have a right to be safe in their persons and a duty to apprehend suspected criminal lawbreakers, at whatever level of resistance they put forth.  To call every incident of a police officer shooting a suspect a "murder" is flat out ignorance; it's just not the case, and to insist that it is, or something close to that is, represents a denial of facts.  SJWs have some valid issues, and those issues (treatment of prisoners, prison privatization, oppressive lenghts of sentencing, racial disparities in sentencing) merit serious discussion.  Calling every police shooting of a suspect a "murder" is just ridiculous, but there are many folks who seek to be uninterested with facts.  Perhaps Joe Manchin, or SOMEBODY, can help bring the Democratic Party to its senses on this matter.

What about Freddie Gray and Philando Castille?

Six (6) officers were indicted in Freddie Gray's death.  The defendants were acquitted on most charges and the Courts opted not to retry them.

As to Philando Castile, the officer stood trial and was acquitted at trial.  He was immediately fired from his agency, and his is still subject to civil suits.

The officers in those cases WERE charged.  They DID go to trial.  Cases WERE made against them.  That's what folks say they want, correct?  We know now, of course, that there are some folks that want a conviction, regardless of the facts, and regardless of the verdicts of juries.  They wanted convictions, regardless of the facts presented at trial.  Not to be sarcastic, but is a jury verdict that ignores the facts presented at trial "compassionate", let alone just?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Manchin has virtually no appeal outside of blue-collar coal-loving conservative Democrats and the party-loyal "Black base". They're not putting a conservative Democrat against Trump. I think most Democrats like Susan Collins better than Manchin.

That's because Susan Collins is a social liberal who would move to the left just a bit if she decided to become a member of the Senate's Democratic caucus.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I do think that the rationale that Manchin would bring back the Coal Democrats to the national ticket is just not something I see happening.  Manchin would be the nominee of the DEMOCRATIC Party, and the Democratic Party has the environmental movement as one of its pillars.  The hostility of national Democrats toward fossil fuels has progressively turned Coal Country toward the GOP, beginning in 2000 with Al Gore.  The shift toward cultural avant garde liberalism on just about everything and the anti-religious posture the Democrats often put forth made this worse in churchgoing Coal Country. 

People wonder why the voters in WV and KY reacted more sharply to Obama (negatively) and Trump (positively) than other places.  The answer isn't race; KY and WV have relatively few blacks, compared to other Southern and Border states.  The answer is that the Democrats impacted Coal Country's way of life both economically and culturally, and at the same time.  They used to have economics as an incentive to vote Democratic; now they have neither.  And the downballot ripple effect is cataclysmic; the old white Coal Democrats are not open to thinking that the Democrats will come to their senses.  They've drained the checking account AND they've been caught in a sleazy motel room with a cheap blonde.  Marriages have survived one or the other, but rarely both.