Van Jones says future of Democratic party is Liz Warren , Kamala Harris, Keith Ellison (lobbyists, lobby)

[Biker53]

Originally Posted by censusdata

The problem isn't that the Democrats are pro Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. It's that their tone paints all Whites as if they attend KKK rallies every weekend. The core of the Democrat Party used to be in coal miners in Appalachia and factory workers in Flint, now it's Fiat drivers in San Francisco and New York City. DNC reminds me of a church that looses half it's members because it becomes more extreme and rather than morn it revels in it's own purity.

Well said. Most average working people, at least the white ones, no longer see the Democratic party as welcoming them. The Dems have carried identity politics so far as to have lost their former base. If Ellison or any other extremist becomes leader of the party, it will only get worse for them. Main Street America is not going to embrace a former Nation of Islam sycophant, let alone a Muslim. That otherwise intelligent and articulate people like Van Jones can't see this tells you how far off the track the Democrats have become.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It does answer your question and no, it was George Bush that put the (D)'s in power (for a very short time).

No it doesnt, your argument is that you dont like Pelosi, but Ryan and Pelosi are ideologically the same. You wouldnt get new policies under him, you would just get a different speech

and No, it wasnt George W. Bush that got Democrats elected.

2006 is when Dems took the majority in the House.

Key

Blue, Democrats hold this seat in 2017
Red, Republicans hold this seat in 2017
Yellow, Dem lost seat in 2008 land slide victory for Democrats
Purple, redistricted/Other




Arizona 6th

Arizona 8th

there are now 9 Congressional districts in Arizona, there were 8 in 2006, Democrats after 2006 held 5 of them, they now hold 4.

California 11th
Colorado 7th

Connecticut 2nd
Connecticut 5th

Florida 16th
Florida 22nd


Indiana 2nd
Indiana 8th
Indiana 9th

Iowa 1st
Iowa 2nd

Kansas 2nd

Kentucky 3rd

Minnesota 1st

New Hampshire 1st
New Hampshire 2nd

New York 19th
New York 20th
New York 24th

these seats have no resemblance to what they were in 2006, the 20th is Kirsten Gillibrand's seat. A Democrat now holds that seat Number. The other 2 are now firmly held by Republicans.

North Carolina 11thThis was Health Shulers seat, it used to include most of Ashville, which is fairly Democratic, Survived 2010, Now it only includes the suburbs. Cook PVI took this district from +3 Dem to +10 Republican in 2012 after redistricting, Now +13 Republican.

Ohio 18th.


Pennsylvania 4th re elected in 2010, District "cracked" after Pennsylvania lost seats in reapportionment.

Pennsylvania 7th

Pennsylvania 8th


Pennsylvania 10th


Texas 22nd
Texas 23rd


Wisconsin 8th

* the 31st seat is Bernie Sanders being an independent and being elected to the Senate and a Democrat taking over his seat.

I dont think you can accuratly argue that George Bush was the reason Dems gained the majority as Dems still hold 10 of those seats won that year out right. 4 Democrats losing in 2008 in a landmark year for Democrats and a couple more being redistricted out of their territory.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It does answer your question and no, it was George Bush that put the (D)'s in power (for a very short time).

No it doesnt, your argument is that you dont like Pelosi, but Ryan and Pelosi are ideologically the same. You wouldnt get new policies under him, you would just get a different speech

and No, it wasnt George W. Bush that got Democrats elected.

2006 is when Dems took the majority in the House.

Key

Blue, Democrats hold this seat in 2017
Red, Republicans hold this seat in 2017
Yellow, Dem lost seat in 2008 land slide victory for Democrats
Purple, redistricted/Other




Arizona 6th

Arizona 8th

there are now 9 Congressional districts in Arizona, there were 8 in 2006, Democrats after 2006 held 5 of them, they now hold 4.

California 11th
Colorado 7th

Connecticut 2nd
Connecticut 5th

Florida 16th
Florida 22nd


Indiana 2nd
Indiana 8th
Indiana 9th

Iowa 1st
Iowa 2nd

Kansas 2nd

Kentucky 3rd

Minnesota 1st

New Hampshire 1st
New Hampshire 2nd

New York 19th
New York 20th
New York 24th

these seats have no resemblance to what they were in 2006, the 20th is Kirsten Gillibrand's seat. A Democrat now holds that seat Number. The other 2 are now firmly held by Republicans.

North Carolina 11thThis was Health Shulers seat, it used to include most of Ashville, which is fairly Democratic, Survived 2010, Now it only includes the suburbs. Cook PVI took this district from +3 Dem to +10 Republican in 2012 after redistricting, Now +13 Republican.

Ohio 18th.


Pennsylvania 4th re elected in 2010, District "cracked" after Pennsylvania lost seats in reapportionment.

Pennsylvania 7th

Pennsylvania 8th


Pennsylvania 10th


Texas 22nd
Texas 23rd


Wisconsin 8th

* the 31st seat is Bernie Sanders being an independent and being elected to the Senate and a Democrat taking over his seat.

I dont think you can accurately argue that George Bush was the reason Dems gained the majority as Dems still hold 12 of those seats won that year out right. 4 Democrats losing in 2008 in a landmark year for Democrats and a couple more being redistricted out of their territory even after winning in 2010

202(districts Democrats held at height of Bush popularity)+12(districts Democrats won in 2006 and still hold today) = 214(addition of previous 2)+ 4(Democrats who survived 2010 but were redistricted in 2012).

Thats 218, a majority. Peter Welch not even included.

[pknopp]

The (D)'s lost the White House, large majorities in both the House and Senate. Hundreds of state offices and soon the Supreme Court for decades.

You continue to defend that leadership. I want nothing to do with it.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The (D)'s lost the White House, large majorities in both the House and Senate. Hundreds of state offices and soon the Supreme Court for decades.

You continue to defend that leadership. I want nothing to do with it.

Im not defending the leadership(per se) only pointing out the flaw in your argument. As Democrats still hold enough of those seats won in 2006 to still have a majority.

I also pointed out that substantially there is no difference ideologically between Pelosi and Ryan( who you support).

You want a Leader who is more articulate in giving the message of the party, I get that, and I actually agree with you that Ryan can do it better than Pelsoi, but you are trying to hide that argument in the falsehood of claiming Pelosi isnt progressive enough, and that just isnt true if Tim Ryan is your definition of progressive.

You are also trying to blame Pelosi for Democrats losing the House, but the Truth is Pelosi was part of that group in charge when Dems gained that majority, and as I said, those Dems are for the most part still in congress.

Rahm Emmanuel,Nancy Pelosi,Chuck Schumer,Harry Reid and Howard Dean were the ones in charge of the DNC,DCCC, DSCC, Senate and House . They won those seats whether you like it or not.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Im not defending the leadership(per se) only pointing out the flaw in your argument. As Democrats still hold enough of those seats won in 2006 to still have a majority.

I also pointed out that substantially there is no difference ideologically between Pelosi and Ryan( who you support).

Ryan would win Ohio. Pelosi would be tarred and feathered. Ryan really does care about the job situation. Pelosi doesn't even bother with lip service any longer.

And yes you are defending the failed leadership.

You want a Leader who is more articulate in giving the message of the party, I get that, and I actually agree with you that Ryan can do it better than Pelsoi, but you are trying to hide that argument in the falsehood of claiming Pelosi isnt progressive enough, and that just isnt true if Tim Ryan is your definition of progressive.

NO I AM NOT. It has nothing to do with labels as that is all they are. I do not care about labels. Ryan would lead the (D)'s in talking about jobs, not rest rooms and bakers.

You are also trying to blame Pelosi for Democrats losing the House, but the Truth is Pelosi was part of that group in charge when Dems gained that majority, and as I said, those Dems are for the most part still in congress.

When Pelosi said " We have to vote for it before......" The House was lost. Ryan is not that stupid.

Rahm Emmanuel,Nancy Pelosi,Chuck Schumer,Harry Reid and Howard Dean were the ones in charge of the DNC,DCCC, DSCC, Senate and House . They won those seats whether you like it or not.

Rahm has further run Chicago into the ground and Reid and Dean are gone. Aaarrrrgghhhhh....On to more losses.

[wanderlust76]

lol if "Liz" Warren is the best the Democrats have to offer they're in trouble for a long time we already knew that though.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Ryan would win Ohio. Pelosi would be tarred and feathered. Ryan really does care about the job situation. Pelosi doesn't even bother with lip service any longer.

And yes you are defending the failed leadership.



NO I AM NOT. It has nothing to do with labels as that is all they are. I do not care about labels. Ryan would lead the (D)'s in talking about jobs, not rest rooms and bakers.



When Pelosi said " We have to vote for it before......" The House was lost. Ryan is not that stupid.



Rahm has further run Chicago into the ground and Reid and Dean are gone. Aaarrrrgghhhhh....On to more losses.

Like I said, tell me the policy position that Ryan and Pelosi disagree on ?

Leadership = articulation, you just dont want to admit it.

Arguing that "Ryan would win Ohio" is not the same as saying his policy position is different than hers.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Like I said, tell me the policy position that Ryan and Pelosi disagree on ?

Leadership = articulation, you just dont want to admit it.

Arguing that "Ryan would win Ohio" is not the same as saying his policy position is different than hers.

I did. Pelosi is setting the path, not Ryan. Pelosi's path is where we will pee where Ryan's would be where we will find decent jobs.

Disagree, I don't really care. Pelosi has been an absolute failure and that is not going to change. I want a Ying to Trumps Yang. The (D)'s are going to get further crushed in 2018.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

I did. Pelosi is setting the path, not Ryan. Pelosi's path is where we will pee where Ryan's would be where we will find decent jobs.

Disagree, I don't really care. Pelosi has been an absolute failure and that is not going to change. I want a Ying to Trumps Yang. The (D)'s are going to get further crushed in 2018.

Ryan and Pelosi agree on where people can pee, and where to get jobs.

You arent arguing a policy difference, you are arguing Political theater, which is articulation.

Pelosi and Ryan agree on the same path.

Again I ask, name one policy difference ??????