The House Ds are Talking about a Trump lite Platform

[william the wie]

OAN is making this claim but I doubt this can work in the real world because it would lose the radical base without gaining much centrist support. I suspect that this lead balloon is headed down.

Where's the funding base?

How will the MSM get the word out?

There is a very long list of problems with this idea and no short-run advantages that I can see.

Can this idea work?

 

[JGalt]

OAN is making this claim but I doubt this can work in the real world because it would lose the radical base without gaining much centrist support. I suspect that this lead balloon is headed down.

Where's the funding base?

How will the MSM get the word out?

There is a very long list of problems with this idea and no short-run advantages that I can see.

Can this idea work?

My guess is that one or more hardcore left-wing socialist types will enter the race as Democratic candidates, only to get the bum's rush from the DNC, like they did to Bernie.

When the primary ballots are collected, they'll probably run another establishment Democrat, an older male like Biden, or some moderate businessman.

The Democrats know damned well that they're not going to win by going even further to the left, not with Trump's economy going like it is.

 

[ptbw forever]

OAN is making this claim but I doubt this can work in the real world because it would lose the radical base without gaining much centrist support. I suspect that this lead balloon is headed down.

Where's the funding base?

How will the MSM get the word out?

There is a very long list of problems with this idea and no short-run advantages that I can see.

Can this idea work?

My guess is that one or more hardcore left-wing socialist types will enter the race as Democratic candidates, only to get the bum's rush from the DNC, like they did to Bernie.

When the primary ballots are collected, they'll probably run another establishment Democrat, an older male like Biden, or some moderate businessman.

The Democrats know damned well that they're not going to win by going even further to the left, not with Trump's economy going like it is.

They won’t win by doing that either.

Most Democrats are way too radical and stupid to go for anything less than increasingly more radical candidates and platforms.

 

[blastoff]

OAN is making this claim but I doubt this can work in the real world because it would lose the radical base without gaining much centrist support. I suspect that this lead balloon is headed down.

Where's the funding base?

How will the MSM get the word out?

There is a very long list of problems with this idea and no short-run advantages that I can see.

Can this idea work?

My guess is that one or more hardcore left-wing socialist types will enter the race as Democratic candidates, only to get the bum's rush from the DNC, like they did to Bernie.

When the primary ballots are collected, they'll probably run another establishment Democrat, an older male like Biden, or some moderate businessman.

The Democrats know damned well that they're not going to win by going even further to the left, not with Trump's economy going like it is.

They won’t win by doing that either.

Most Democrats are way too radical and stupid to go for anything less than increasingly more radical candidates and platforms.

Whether it’s most or just many dimocrats that radical and stupid is debatable but whichever it is leaves a whole hell of a lot of good Democrats not on board with the radical idiots now running the show and it’s their votes keeping the DNC folks up at night as they can’t survive a rebellious loss of votes come November and beyond.

 

[jwoodie]

The Dems will let their hysterical children have their way in 2016 (and probably 2018), but after voters reject them they will reinstitute controls (e.g., super delegates) to keep their crazies off of ballots.

 

[ptbw forever]

The Dems will let their hysterical children have their way in 2016 (and possibly 2018), but after voters reject them they will reinstitute controls (e.g., super delegates) to keep their crazies off of ballots.

And then they will lose tens of millions of their most energized voters and lose every election.

 

[jwoodie]

The Dems will let their hysterical children have their way in 2016 (and possibly 2018), but after voters reject them they will reinstitute controls (e.g., super delegates) to keep their crazies off of ballots.

And then they will lose tens of millions of their most energized voters and lose every election.

Nope. They crave power above all else and will readily abandon any principle to achieve it.

 

[ptbw forever]

The Dems will let their hysterical children have their way in 2016 (and possibly 2018), but after voters reject them they will reinstitute controls (e.g., super delegates) to keep their crazies off of ballots.

And then they will lose tens of millions of their most energized voters and lose every election.

Nope. They crave power above all else and will readily abandon any principle to achieve it.

The crazy ass millennials who regularly vote Democrat will abandon them regardless.

 

[william the wie]

OAN is making this claim but I doubt this can work in the real world because it would lose the radical base without gaining much centrist support. I suspect that this lead balloon is headed down.

Where's the funding base?

How will the MSM get the word out?

There is a very long list of problems with this idea and no short-run advantages that I can see.

Can this idea work?

My guess is that one or more hardcore left-wing socialist types will enter the race as Democratic candidates, only to get the bum's rush from the DNC, like they did to Bernie.

When the primary ballots are collected, they'll probably run another establishment Democrat, an older male like Biden, or some moderate businessman.

The Democrats know damned well that they're not going to win by going even further to the left, not with Trump's economy going like it is.

They won’t win by doing that either.

Most Democrats are way too radical and stupid to go for anything less than increasingly more radical candidates and platforms.

Whether it’s most or just many dimocrats that radical and stupid is debatable but whichever it is leaves a whole hell of a lot of good Democrats not on board with the radical idiots now running the show and it’s their votes keeping the DNC folks up at night as they can’t survive a rebellious loss of votes come November and beyond.

That isn't even the worst problem for the Ds and you did mention one of the biggest. But the critical area is the Senate. Senators are not helped by Gerrymandering and either have a lock if their state is solidly of their party and insanely costly campaigns if that is not true.

So winning a senate seat in a purple state seat costs at least five times as much as winning a swing house seat. This is where the national D fund raising from a few wealthy leftists will kill them. Go too far left on a state wide race and it hurts down ballot but going too far left doesn't exist in the minds of D donors. So go left and lose or go mainstream on a shoestring. 35 states with no D senators is the probable trendline.

 

[blastoff]

OAN is making this claim but I doubt this can work in the real world because it would lose the radical base without gaining much centrist support. I suspect that this lead balloon is headed down.

Where's the funding base?

How will the MSM get the word out?

There is a very long list of problems with this idea and no short-run advantages that I can see.

Can this idea work?

My guess is that one or more hardcore left-wing socialist types will enter the race as Democratic candidates, only to get the bum's rush from the DNC, like they did to Bernie.

When the primary ballots are collected, they'll probably run another establishment Democrat, an older male like Biden, or some moderate businessman.

The Democrats know damned well that they're not going to win by going even further to the left, not with Trump's economy going like it is.

They won’t win by doing that either.

Most Democrats are way too radical and stupid to go for anything less than increasingly more radical candidates and platforms.

Whether it’s most or just many dimocrats that radical and stupid is debatable but whichever it is leaves a whole hell of a lot of good Democrats not on board with the radical idiots now running the show and it’s their votes keeping the DNC folks up at night as they can’t survive a rebellious loss of votes come November and beyond.

That isn't even the worst problem for the Ds and you did mention one of the biggest. But the critical area is the Senate. Senators are not helped by Gerrymandering and either have a lock if their state is solidly of their party and insanely costly campaigns if that is not true.

So winning a senate seat in a purple state seat costs at least five times as much as winning a swing house seat. This is where the national D fund raising from a few wealthy leftists will kill them. Go too far left on a state wide race and it hurts down ballot but going too far left doesn't exist in the minds of D donors. So go left and lose or go mainstream on a shoestring. 35 states with no D senators is the probable trendline.

Yep. Dimocrats have 25 Senate seats at stake this go-round so it could be quite ugly for them beginning November 7th. More consequences to shove up their butt cracks, so invest in Johnson & Johnson stock now as their KY Jelly sales are gonna skyrocket bigly.

 

[william the wie]

When even Pelosi thinks the national party is too far left you know it has gone Maoist.