Democrats and liberals in general need to stop with civility politics

[°Leprechaun]

How about running on the issues instead of all the crap that Democrats run on?

I agree. Democrats thought that they could win by attacking Trump's character, but it
didn't work. Anne Coulter actually said that his character was irrelevant and that she
supported him on the issues.
Ironically, Republicans did the same when Clinton was president and that backfired big time.
I don't get what all this impeachment talk is about. Democrats want a President Pence.
Really? Is he any better than Trump?

[°Leprechaun]

How about running on the issues instead of all the crap that Democrats run on?

I agree. Democrats thought that they could win by attacking Trump's character, but it
didn't work. Anne Coulter actually said that his character was irrelevant and that she
supported him on the issues.
Ironically, Republicans did the same when Clinton was president and that backfired big time.
I don't get what all this impeachment talk is about. Democrats want a President Pence.
Really? Is he any better than Trump?

I'm skeptical that Vice President Zealot Talk-Radio-Host would be much better than President Insane Reality-Tv-Actor (and Crook), but that's almost beside the point. The same goes for his politics.

Trump has violated his oath of office, is insane, and has demonstrated himself to be both unfit and unable to carry out the duties of his office. Pence's politics might be awful, his term might be bad for my political ideals, and he might not even be a very good President. But for the sake the nation, and the integrity of our government, Trump needs to be lawfully removed and Pence given his chance to do the job. And Pence isn't obviously insane the way Trump is.

Removing Trump would be a first. That doesn't mean it won't happen. However, when the GOP tried to impeach A. Johnson they fell one vote short. Since two thirds is required I can't imagine that it would happen. When the Republicans tried to remove A. Johnson it would have meant that they would have had a POTUS of their own party. Interesting history, if irrelevant.

If the Democrats move forward on this it could backfire. It is similar to what the GOP tried to do to Clinton, but they controlled both Houses. It backfired, and would likely backfire on the Dems if they try it. There are better ways to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party, starting with trying to unify the disparate elements, which may not be possible either.

[°Leprechaun]

Also, there is little chance that impeachment will go anywhere before 2019. It would be better to focus on other issues at this point in time.

Democrats don't need to get all nasty. People are concerned about the healthcare issue, why not focus on that? (Of course, that issue itself could get nasty anyway, no?)

[°Leprechaun]

Democrats have to stop shying away from progressive values. Economic regulation is absolutely necessary in order to develop a thriving country. Welfare is a good thing, it is not an entitlement, and we will expand it. We support a nationalized healthcare system. We support a minimum wage that is above the poverty line.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/162305/coloradocare-amendment-69

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only Tea Party House members from Hillary Clinton districts were Pete Sessions, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher (I count him as Tea Party even though he's not in the Tea Party caucus), and John Culberson, all of whose districts went for Romney overwhelmingly. Tea Party Republicans did not win the nation as a whole. They were just the majority of the majority in 2010.

McGovern lost to an incumbent, and it's very difficult to beat an incumbent. Centrism on the other hand has failed. Clinton never go a majority. Gore lost. Kerry lost. Hillary lost. Jimmy Carter won with a very liberal VP. I don't think that the "go right" mentality is the correct one. Besides, the fact that HClinton voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq couldn't have helped her, so the hawkish nature of Democrats needs to just go away for good.

[°Leprechaun]

Both Carter and Clinton beat incumbents due to their moderate positions. Vice presidential picks don't affect votes much. When Mondale ran on his own, he suffered the same fate as McGovern. Clinton was beating Bush in the polls even during the time Perot dropped out.

Gore and Hillary both won the popular vote, it's just that they wrongly thought their votes would be as well distributed as Carter's, a very easy mistake to make when looking at polls. They were both running after two terms of a presidency of the same party as them, and it is very difficult to win the popular vote in such conditions, especially in the presence of left wing third party spoilers.

Yes, you have a decent argument, but part of the problem is that the Democrats have been moving further and further to the right for decades now and although they may have done ok in the POTUS elections they have been doing terrible down ballot, due, I would suggest to this rightward trend. McGovern and Mondale are the only examples that you have for your theory and they both lost to incumbents. Then you point out that Carter won and suggest that he was a moderate, but he lost in 1980 and Reagan was to the right of Ford. Also, should it be simply be "right" vs "left" aren't there any compromise candidates, that could appeal to both wings of the party, or would that make things even worse, since nobody would be happy?

[°Leprechaun]

By decent argument, I mean that it sounds plausible, however, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 were all years that the Democrat won with less than a majority. 2000, and 2016 were unusual because the popular vote winner lost the electoral college. Left out is the fact that FDR won four times.
He was no conservative, at least for his time. The going "moderate" strategy has alienated liberals and many have gone with third party candidates. It's a question of strategy vs. principle and some things just shouldn't be compromised. If given the choice between a genuine liberal and a genuine conservative, all other things being equal, I think that the liberal would win the POTUS election.
Going "right" seems to work for the GOP (Reagan, Trump) and if the going center strategy worked neither of them would have done so well. If going "right" works for the GOP it will work for the Dems. to go left.
The "McGovern/Mondale theory" is the same as the "Goldwater" theory. Yet Reagan and Trump succeeded where Goldwater failed and McGovern and Mondale were a long time ago, so that theory lacks some credibility.

[°Leprechaun]

Also the go right strategy is based on the fallacy that it is simply about being "moderate" and ignores all other factors, the biggest one being the personality of the candidate and whether such a person can inspire (Obama for example), whether he was left or right wasn't as big a selling point as his personality.

[°Leprechaun]

As far as the VP choice not being that important. I have heard that argument, but I am skeptical because so many VPs have become POTUS due to the death (or resignation) of the President, so it is a very critical choice, but maybe too quickly dismissed because of the relative position of the VP who's main political power is 1/2 vote in the Senate.