James Carville’s Take on the Democratic Party

kellyleeks

GH Hall of Fame '10
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
2,508
Reaction score
157
Points
63
Wow. Talk about spot on. Great interview with James Carville (below).

I voted for Obama twice, but now support Trump. The party went way too far left.

If the Dems really wanted to win the White House, they would’ve nominated Bullock.

Carville Interview
 

Cruze

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
185
Points
63
Why the hell were you voting for Obama with most (if not all) of the usual right wing views about immigration, race, welfare, taxes, labor unions, and the environment? Either you experienced a drastic political transformation in a remarkably short period of time, or you are one of the dumbest voters in the history of America.
 

kellyleeks

GH Hall of Fame '10
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
2,508
Reaction score
157
Points
63
Why the hell were you voting for Obama with most (if not all) of the usual right wing views about immigration, race, welfare, taxes, labor unions, and the environment? Either you experienced a drastic political transformation in a remarkably short period of time, or you are one of the dumbest voters in the history of America.
There’s no need to name call.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,621
Reaction score
309
Points
83
Why the hell were you voting for Obama with most (if not all) of the usual right wing views about immigration, race, welfare, taxes, labor unions, and the environment? Either you experienced a drastic political transformation in a remarkably short period of time, or you are one of the dumbest voters in the history of America.
The Democrats claimed the reason Trump won was that White, blue collar voters who'd voted Obama, also voted Trump. There was much hand wringing about how they would woo those voters back at the time. Since then however, they've adopted your approach of calling them names, as well as promising to take away their union health care plans & their caucus for being too White.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
226
Points
63
Carville is embedded tightly with the DNC. One theory of this "everyone's lost their mind" pitch is that he's setting it up for a person to get nominated on the second ballet of a brokered convention. It'll be an "all the current candidates are too far to the left" setup, where someone (e.g., Hillary, Michelle, ...) "reluctantly" accepts the nomination for the good of the country with a "I didn't want to run, but the country needs me so I'll accept" speech. Anytime someone looks like they could win on a first vote, the DNC establishment comes in to knock them down. Mayor Pete is starting to do better in the polls, so the DNC establishment is starting to put whispers about how he can't win. The same happened for Warren when she was on top, then Joe, then Bernie, and now Pete. Again, this is the DNC establishment doing this. This is the exact opposite of the last go round, where the DNC did everything they could to prop Hillary up.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
203
Reaction score
13
Points
18
The Democrats claimed the reason Trump won was that White, blue collar voters who'd voted Obama, also voted Trump. There was much hand wringing about how they would woo those voters back at the time. Since then however, they've adopted your approach of calling them names, as well as promising to take away their union health care plans & their caucus for being too White.
Dems: “ You’re racist, homophobic, islamophobic misogynistic uneducated dolts....Now vote for me”
 

bigtenchamps1899

credulous skeptic
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,639
Reaction score
51
Points
48
the cultural marxists continue to push the overton window to the left. many of the republican policies of today are basically the democrat platform of the 90s.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
157
Points
63
Carville wants to have Clinton nominated from the floor.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,621
Reaction score
309
Points
83
Carville is embedded tightly with the DNC. One theory of this "everyone's lost their mind" pitch is that he's setting it up for a person to get nominated on the second ballet of a brokered convention. It'll be an "all the current candidates are too far to the left" setup, where someone (e.g., Hillary, Michelle, ...) "reluctantly" accepts the nomination for the good of the country with a "I didn't want to run, but the country needs me so I'll accept" speech. Anytime someone looks like they could win on a first vote, the DNC establishment comes in to knock them down. Mayor Pete is starting to do better in the polls, so the DNC establishment is starting to put whispers about how he can't win. The same happened for Warren when she was on top, then Joe, then Bernie, and now Pete. Again, this is the DNC establishment doing this. This is the exact opposite of the last go round, where the DNC did everything they could to prop Hillary up.
LOVE your point about Carville & bringing in Michelle or Hillary, but disagree with the highlighted. Mayor Pete is starting to do better in the polls, not in spite of the DNC establishment, but because of them. It's not organic. It's astroturf. I think he was trailing Bernie by a city mile, but the DNC/Clinton heavyweights joined the fight the weeks ahead of the polls, changed the rules so Bloomberg could get in, had the Des Moines Register refuse to publish the latest poll from the night before the caucus that had Bernie up, plus Pete's investment out of his modest funds into the company that made the Iowa app, Pete's bold announcement/press conference that he'd won Iowa while the outcome was still completely in doubt, the DNC giving him the delegates despite Bernie winning, the DNC wanting a recount once Bernie had one, etc. This is all an effort to prop up Pete, not tear him down. He may not be their guy long term, but short term he fills a need.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,716
Reaction score
1,189
Points
113
I'll just put this right here... Senator Tim Scott discusses Trump and his rising black approval rating:

“On Election Day 2016, he was around 8 or 9 percent. Right now, his approval rating on the last four polls that I have seen is over 30 percent, ‘ he said. “And there’s a very specific reason why that is the case. He has not only said what he was going to do. He actually has done it. Whether it’s permanent funding for HBCUs, historically black colleges and universities, or criminal justice reform, Opportunity Zones, heirs property, working on sickle cell anemia, this president has been delivering for three years.”

While the Dems are going left into socialism, Trump is keeping his promises and rapidly stealing the black Democrat base in so doing. Love it.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
226
Points
63
LOVE your point about Carville & bringing in Michelle or Hillary, but disagree with the highlighted. Mayor Pete is starting to do better in the polls, not in spite of the DNC establishment, but because of them. It's not organic. It's astroturf. I think he was trailing Bernie by a city mile, but the DNC/Clinton heavyweights joined the fight the weeks ahead of the polls, changed the rules so Bloomberg could get in, had the Des Moines Register refuse to publish the latest poll from the night before the caucus that had Bernie up, plus Pete's investment out of his modest funds into the company that made the Iowa app, Pete's bold announcement/press conference that he'd won Iowa while the outcome was still completely in doubt, the DNC giving him the delegates despite Bernie winning, the DNC wanting a recount once Bernie had one, etc. This is all an effort to prop up Pete, not tear him down. He may not be their guy long term, but short term he fills a need.
The big question is if it's a brokered convention, who will be the shiny knight that comes riding to the rescue. From the outside it looks like Michelle is positioning herself to be the "I never wanted to be President, but I'll do it for the good of the country" candidate. I don't think it'd be Hillary, but Michelle could buy Hillary's support with some cabinet post. Who else? Schiff? Schumer? Both unlikely. And, what will Bernie supporters do if he has the most votes coming into the convention but doesn't get the bid? Glad I'm not the police chief of Milwaukee.

BTW, the DNC primaries are weighted (anyone getting 15% or more of the votes gets some of the delegates), it's not a "winner take all" like many of the RNC primaries. That's significant in terms of getting to a brokered convention.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
226
Points
63
I never thought I would see the day when the Dems wandered so far left that Carville would seem moderate and sane.
It's all part of the grand plan. Let the candidates go as far left as possible so when the actual candidate gets nominated (in the second round of the brokered convention) that that person looks like a moderate. They've kept themselves from being beat up during a long primary and will come across (relatively speaking anyways) as a middle of the road moderate that can beat Trump. Michelle is out doing her book tour, which of course no one is going to ask any difficult questions. She gets to say exactly what she want say, and build whatever image she wants, which right now is "I'm just a mom and wife like everyone else". Barack is the best person at playing the political game as anyone I've ever seen, the way he won the second term election was brilliant. He easily could be pulling all the strings to make this happen.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,716
Reaction score
1,189
Points
113
The big question is if it's a brokered convention, who will be the shiny knight that comes riding to the rescue. From the outside it looks like Michelle is positioning herself to be the "I never wanted to be President, but I'll do it for the good of the country" candidate. I don't think it'd be Hillary, but Michelle could buy Hillary's support with some cabinet post. Who else? Schiff? Schumer? Both unlikely. And, what will Bernie supporters do if he has the most votes coming into the convention but doesn't get the bid? Glad I'm not the police chief of Milwaukee.

BTW, the DNC primaries are weighted (anyone getting 15% or more of the votes gets some of the delegates), it's not a "winner take all" like many of the RNC primaries. That's significant in terms of getting to a brokered convention.
I think that Michelle absolutely would now be running for President were it not for the fact that this coming spring and summer will reveal the extent of the spying by the Obama administration in it's attempt to silence enemies and stop Trump. That is a big looming problem for her.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
11,516
Reaction score
816
Points
113
Why the hell were you voting for Obama with most (if not all) of the usual right wing views about immigration, race, welfare, taxes, labor unions, and the environment? Either you experienced a drastic political transformation in a remarkably short period of time, or you are one of the dumbest voters in the history of America.
Because the pendulum has swung, you just don't notice because you're on it.

I was a Democrat my entire life. I have actually never voted for a Republican President. However, the values that I stood for were replaced by cultural marxists and communists.

Essentially, the world is full of people who either want to be left the f alone or people who won't leave you the f alone. The Democrats are now, firmly, the group of people who will not leave you the F alone. That's why I changed.

If it you need more info:
(1) I'm against the military industrial complex (I just lived through CNN mocking Trump for not going to war with Syria);
(2) I'm pro choice but I think it's a balancing act - the Dems pushed for subsidized late term and post term abortions is on the wrong side of that argument for me.
(3) I'm extremely pro legal immigration and opposed to illegal immigration (you really going to argue I should have voted for GW on this one?).

The party used to be for the working person, at least in theory. Now it's the party of free stuff.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,269
Reaction score
266
Points
83
Because the pendulum has swung, you just don't notice because you're on it.

I was a Democrat my entire life. I have actually never voted for a Republican President. However, the values that I stood for were replaced by cultural marxists and communists.

Essentially, the world is full of people who either want to be left the f alone or people who won't leave you the f alone. The Democrats are now, firmly, the group of people who will not leave you the F alone. That's why I changed.

If it you need more info:
(1) I'm against the military industrial complex (I just lived through CNN mocking Trump for not going to war with Syria);
(2) I'm pro choice but I think it's a balancing act - the Dems pushed for subsidized late term and post term abortions is on the wrong side of that argument for me.
(3) I'm extremely pro legal immigration and opposed to illegal immigration (you really going to argue I should have voted for GW on this one?).

The party used to be for the working person, at least in theory. Now it's the party of free stuff.
Very well put. Bob has permission to speak on my behalf moving forward. This sums up the situation pretty well. And many of us are left with no real viable candidate to get behind.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
829
Points
113
Because the pendulum has swung, you just don't notice because you're on it.

I was a Democrat my entire life. I have actually never voted for a Republican President. However, the values that I stood for were replaced by cultural marxists and communists.

Essentially, the world is full of people who either want to be left the f alone or people who won't leave you the f alone. The Democrats are now, firmly, the group of people who will not leave you the F alone. That's why I changed.

If it you need more info:
(1) I'm against the military industrial complex (I just lived through CNN mocking Trump for not going to war with Syria);
(2) I'm pro choice but I think it's a balancing act - the Dems pushed for subsidized late term and post term abortions is on the wrong side of that argument for me.
(3) I'm extremely pro legal immigration and opposed to illegal immigration (you really going to argue I should have voted for GW on this one?).

The party used to be for the working person, at least in theory. Now it's the party of free stuff.
I'm not going to argue with you, but I have to ask the question: wasn't the New Deal partly or largely about free stuff, and isn't the New Deal what old-timey Democrats like yourself would consider to be the foundation or the heyday of modern leftism?
 

monk10

Golden Gopher
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,562
Reaction score
10
Points
38
The pendulum keeps swinging further and further each way. Karl Rove/Tea Party got me to jump off the Republican side. Now Warren/Sanders etc is keeping me from the other. Keep hoping for the moderates to win a ticket so the rest of us can vote for someone and not against someone.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
829
Points
113
The pendulum keeps swinging further and further each way. Karl Rove/Tea Party got me to jump off the Republican side. Now Warren/Sanders etc is keeping me from the other. Keep hoping for the moderates to win a ticket so the rest of us can vote for someone and not against someone.
I'm going to keep hammering the point: aren't Warren and Sanders to the right of FDR? If someone proposed Social Security today they'd be burned as a witch.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,167
Reaction score
456
Points
83
I'm going to keep hammering the point: aren't Warren and Sanders to the right of FDR? If someone proposed Social Security today they'd be burned as a witch.
Warren will say whatever she thinks will get her elected, she's a complete phony. Sanders is not to the right of FDR. Social Security in principle is no different from medicare for all. It just affects way more people than SS did when proposed and costs much more.
 

monk10

Golden Gopher
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,562
Reaction score
10
Points
38
I'm going to keep hammering the point: aren't Warren and Sanders to the right of FDR? If someone proposed Social Security today they'd be burned as a witch.
I put what FDR did and the impact different then what we need now and the policies proposed today. It would be a great debate, but I don't see the need. I see the need of less Military complex not more New Deal.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
829
Points
113
I put what FDR did and the impact different then what we need now and the policies proposed today. It would be a great debate, but I don't see the need. I see the need of less Military complex not more New Deal.
Medicare For All seeks the same general societal effect of Social Security, which is that fewer people end up destitute or bankrupt, and when people are destitute or bankrupt they're a drain on society.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,167
Reaction score
456
Points
83
Medicare For All seeks the same general societal effect of Social Security, which is that fewer people end up destitute or bankrupt, and when people are destitute or bankrupt they're a drain on society.
But getting free health care isn't a drain on society...
Frankly, you going bankrupt isn't a drain on society at all. You're bankrupt. The lenders who you defaulted on lose money. Doesn't affect me at all. You getting government to pay for your $1 million a year drug is indeed a drain.
 

monk10

Golden Gopher
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,562
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Medicare For All seeks the same general societal effect of Social Security, which is that fewer people end up destitute or bankrupt, and when people are destitute or bankrupt they're a drain on society.
Impact of extending life at a high cost vs maintaining life as age increases is not the same societal effect. I imagine that high schools / colleges debate classes are flooded with frameworks to debate these two. As I said and will continue to say this is a great debate topic, but I don't see the similarity within the context of the current conditions.

Moderate will be the new radical.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
829
Points
113
But getting free health care isn't a drain on society...
Frankly, you going bankrupt isn't a drain on society at all. You're bankrupt. The lenders who you defaulted on lose money. Doesn't affect me at all. You getting government to pay for your $1 million a year drug is indeed a drain.
The question is always the best use of national wealth. If you give me a trillion dollars of public revenue and a choice between 1) tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy; 2) an endless war overseas; and 3) a health care system that allows people to spend money on their households and families rather than medical care... The choice is logical.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
829
Points
113
Impact of extending life at a high cost vs maintaining life as age increases is not the same societal effect. I imagine that high schools / colleges debate classes are flooded with frameworks to debate these two. As I said and will continue to say this is a great debate topic, but I don't see the similarity within the context of the current conditions.

Moderate will be the new radical.
I hear what you're saying, but the point you seem to be making is that the Democratic Party platform should be that, once you're a certain age you should be allowed to get sick and die unless you can afford to prolong your life with your own money... I'm just not sure that would sell.
 
Top Bottom