Sanders: ‘The Model of Democratic Party Is Failing’

[carpro]

Sanders: 'The Model of Democratic Party Is Failing' - Breitbart

Sanders: ‘The Model of Democratic Party Is Failing’

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) declared the model of the Democratic Party was failing and pointed to Republican dominance in not just Congress, but in the states as well.


Sanders said, “Well, I think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the Democratic Party today is, that the model of the Democratic Party is failing. We have a Republican president who ran as a candidate as the most unpopular candidate in modern history of this country. Republicans control the House, the Senate, two-thirds of governor’s chairs and in the last eight years they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly, the Democratic Party has to change.”

 

[Brent W]

I agree. Both parties are severely out of touch and both are still trying to hold on to the same status quo. Unfortunately for the Democrats Tom Perez will not be the answer for them.

 

[StefanM]

I agree. Both parties are severely out of touch and both are still trying to hold on to the same status quo. Unfortunately for the Democrats Tom Perez will not be the answer for them.

Yep. Perez was a bad choice. The Dems need to be a big tent party to have a shot--a ideologically pure liberal party can't win nationwide.

 

[carpro]

It's ironic really, because Sanders solution would be more of the same that put them where they are.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep. Perez was a bad choice. The Dems need to be a big tent party to have a shot--a ideologically pure liberal party can't win nationwide.

Wow! So we need to have both parties more liberal? Good grief

 

[StefanM]

Wow! So we need to have both parties more liberal? Good grief

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

My point was that the Democrats need to be a big tent party to have a chance for success. For them, that would mean expanding toward the center to include more moderate/conservative leaning voices. If they fail to do so, they'll remain an ideologically pure, liberal party that's a permanent minority.

For the Democrats, taking a big tent approach would result, on average, in a less liberal party.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

My point was that the Democrats need to be a big tent party to have a chance for success. For them, that would mean expanding toward the center to include more moderate/conservative leaning voices. If they fail to do so, they'll remain an ideologically pure, liberal party that's a permanent minority.

For the Democrats, taking a big tent approach would result, on average, in a less liberal party.

I see sorry for the misunderstanding. The problem is folks like Schumer, Pelosi. Waters etc are so extreme they can never accept anything less liberal. In fact currently a number of them like Durbin has come out and said that if there are Dems who will not accept abortion they need to leave the party.

 

[StefanM]

I see sorry for the misunderstanding. The problem is folks like Schumer, Pelosi. Waters etc are so extreme they can never accept anything less liberal. In fact currently a number of them like Durbin has come out and said that if there are Dems who will not accept abortion they need to leave the party.

That's one of the reasons why I wish we had viable, alternative, centrist party.

I know in my specific case that I'm definitely not a conservative Republican, but I am also definitely not a Schumer-style liberal Democrat. I fit best with the kind of Democrat that used to be elected in the South a couple decades ago---mostly moderate, definitely not some crusader for the most extreme liberal social issues.

I'm pro-Obamacare (although I acknowledge it needs to be reformed) and pro-social programs in general, but I see no problem in trying to root out waste and inefficiency. I'm ok with considering some limited gun control measures, but I think they should be as narrow as possible, and we should err on the side of the 2nd Amendment if there is doubt.

I don't think that tax cuts are always necessarily a good idea (although they can be), but I don't have any problem with things like cutting the corporate tax rate while streamlining the process of deductions, etc. A simpler, lower rate just makes sense, especially if it's revenue-neutral.

I could go on for different topics, but I think you get my drift---I don't think either side has a monopoly on what is best for the country. I'd prefer a centrist, pragmatic approach that draws from both sides of the aisle.

Maybe that's close to the "Third Way" Democrat.

 

[Brent W]

Pelosi

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...si-after-declaring-dems-cant-be-pro-life.html

 

[Revmitchell]

Tom Perez draws rebuke from Pelosi after declaring Dems can't be pro-life

You need to go back an reread my post.

 

[Brent W]

The problem is folks like Schumer, Pelosi. Waters etc are so extreme they can never accept anything less liberal.

I did. Would you not agree that liberal is pro choice and that anti-abortion Democrats would fall under less liberal?

 

[Revmitchell]

I did. Would you not agree that liberal is pro choice and that anti-abortion Democrats would fall under less liberal?

Not necessarily but I do not understand the point of your post.

 

[Brent W]

Not necessarily but I do not understand the point of your post.

The problem is folks like Schumer, Pelosi. Waters etc are so extreme they can never accept anything less liberal.

My point was that Pelosi accepted less than liberal by saying that there are places for anti-abortion Democrats in the party.

 

[carpro]

Pelosi quickly changed the subject, however, and did not address whether Democrats can support pro-life policies, in addition, to personally opposing abortion.

Read more: Dick Durbin, Tom Perez To 28 Percent Of Dems Who Oppose Abortion: Get In Line Or Get Out

 

[TCassidy]

My point was that the Democrats need to be a big tent party to have a chance for success.

Yes. They need to win back the "Reagan Democrats."

For them, that would mean expanding toward the center to include more moderate/conservative leaning voices.

Yes. Both parties need to shore up their centrist outreach.

If they fail to do so, they'll remain an ideologically pure, liberal party that's a permanent minority.

Yes, just as the radical right will permanently damage the GOP if they don't reach out to the centrists.

For the Democrats, taking a big tent approach would result, on average, in a less liberal party

Correct.

That's one of the reasons why I wish we had viable, alternative, centrist party.

We do. At least in embryonic form. I have been a libertarian for the past 15 years or so.

 

[Brent W]

Pelosi quickly changed the subject, however, and did not address whether Democrats can support pro-life policies, in addition, to personally opposing abortion.

Read more: Dick Durbin, Tom Perez To 28 Percent Of Dems Who Oppose Abortion: Get In Line Or Get Out

I never said she was anti-abortion only that she went against Perez and welcome those to the Democratic party that were anti-abortion. One could easily say that accepting that also accepts Democrats with pro-life policies, since being anti-abortion is a pro-life policy by itself. Whether she is or isn't anti-abortion was never part of my discussion in this thread.

 

[Brent W]

We do. At least in embryonic form. I have been a libertarian for the past 15 years or so.

I've voted for more Libertarians for President than anything else. I also tend to look for libertarian leaning Republicans or Democrats when voting in areas that do not have that party represented.

 

[StefanM]

Yes. They need to win back the "Reagan Democrats."

Yes. Both parties need to shore up their centrist outreach.

Yes, just as the radical right will permanently damage the GOP if they don't reach out to the centrists.

Correct.

We do. At least in embryonic form. I have been a libertarian for the past 15 years or so.

View attachment 1419

I agree with you RE: the Reagan Democrats. They're the key.

But with respect to the Libertarian Party, I can't support it because I fundamentally disagree on the idea of government intervention. Don't get me wrong--I like the idea of a Libertarian Party keeping the government from getting too aggressive, but I do believe in more government social intervention than the LP would permit.

 

[Brent W]

but I do believe in more government social intervention than the LP would permit.

I agree as well but can still vote for an individual that is in that party. Even for President, because that person will have checks and balances.

 

[StefanM]

I agree as well but can still vote for an individual that is in that party. Even for President, because that person will have checks and balances.

I've voted LP for president out of protest, but I wouldn't actually support a serious candidate. The President sets too much of the agenda.