Because they haven’t been running on progressive platforms? In fact democrats haven’t been running on much of any platform in the last ten years.
2 Likes
Honestly I don’t really have a strong position on a particular strategy for reform/change/abolish ice, but will support any candidate that pushes for any reform be it overhauling, destroying whatever keeps us from breaking up families, treating refugees like criminals and fixing our stupid and damaging immigration policies.
So do I think as a policy minded folk that running around Abolish Ice in every district is going to be helpful, probably not, but do I care if people in Extremely Blue New York city or California push for it. Not really. I need the power seeking coalition that I agree most with to win, we can have an argument/debate amount those who are already of the same side as to how best to deal with the issue. For now Abolish Ice Or Reform Ice Or Punch ICE, lets win and figure out how we change the system for the better once we have won.
Honestly don’t think there are many people who are going to change their vote because your position is reform ICE or Abolish ICE both are going to get portrayed as the same radical position. I mean Clinton was the most liberal lib that ever libbed cause she was a Democrat, it didn’t matter how progressive or neo-liberal she was.
4 Likes
Fine, but that’s generally my point. Things will have to get way way worse before you’re willing to leave the country.
We’re having a serious discussion here about the merits of Abolishing ICE. Injecting hysterical statements about leaving the country doesn’t add to that and just distracts from the real arguments. Most people are just talking out of their ass when they say they’re going to leave the country or they’re going to join some “resistance” movement. It’s performative anger.
In another thread, I wrote that if you’re willing to leave the country, you should also be willing to relocate to Maine or Alaska to try and tip those states Blue. Moving to another state is the less drastic option, and could actually bring about some actual change in the political system, rather than just relocating to Tokyo or Sydney.
But back to our real discussion about abolishing ICE…
1 Like
Umm, hello:
- For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges.
- Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together.
- Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible.
- We will do everything we can to overturn Citizens United.
- Fighting for equal pay.
- I will not raise middle-class taxes.
- Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- We’re going to increase the federal minimum wage.
- As president, Hillary will expand background checks to more gun sales.
- Clinton would increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period.
Seems pretty progressive to me. Or how about a candidate that lost to a Republican in Montana’s recent special election:
https://kathleenformontana.com/issues/
Affordable healthcare, progressive taxation, reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, environmental protection, public education, LGBTQ rights, gun control. Also pretty progressive, yet she lost.
You don’t run as being in favor of “reforming ICE.” You run as being against the forcible separation of families. Find me someone with any humanity at all that’s willing to disagree with that statement.
1 Like
It’s a jobs thing. I can’t get a job in my field in those states. I can in the EU. 
But that’s just my situation.
1 Like
1 Like
Nice way to cherry pick one single issue. Medicare for all would be a good thing, but it’s not the end-all, be-all of progressive policies.
That’s the point!!! To get more voters you need to dumb it down! Most conservatives are single issue voters! Democrats should not complicate their platform with high nuanced lawyerly platforms. Lets test this out
- Medicare for all
- Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible.
Which message do you think voters would prefer? Furthermore, one actually takes a stand and moves the needle forward. The other? Defend the status quo. How trite.
I mean at some point as a candidate your going to get asked, what your position on ICE is and when you answer that you’ll be placed in the “reform ICE” bucket…
Fine, but that doesn’t mean that Democrats need to be shouting “Abolish ICE” from the rooftops.
Yes, let’s dumb it down:
OPTION ONE
“Abolish ICE!”
“So wait, you’re for open borders?”
“No, ICE was only created in 2003 and isn’t actually in charge of the borders. In fact…”
“ZZZzzzzz”
OPTION TWO
“Families should not be forcibly separated!”
“Who would ever disagree with that??!!!”
2 Likes
It’s easier for immigrants like me to go back to my birth-town than it is for an American try to get citizenship elsewhere. My steps are: light US passport on fire, call memere and tell her I’m coming to live with her for a while, take the train home, begin US citizenship renouncement proceedings by mail, cease paying taxes.
2 Likes
Yes, most conservatives are single issue voters, but those issues tend to be things like guns, gays, and god. Not Medicare for all.
My steps aren’t all that dissimilar. The only addition I’d need to make is to stop by the local consulate to finish some paperwork before burning my US passport. Oh, and I’d need to book a plane ticket instead of taking the train.
OPTION TWO
“Families should not be forcibly separated!”
“Who would ever disagree with that??!!!”
“I know right!!”
“We should kick the mexicans out as families!!”
OPTION TWO
“Families should not be forcibly separated!”
“Who would ever disagree with that??!!!”
“I know right!!”
“Great, let me tell you how we can do that by abolishing ICE :)”
See I can come up with magical imaginary conversations too
And where in that survey does it say that people want to abolish ICE? That survey says that it’s just not popular. Maybe that’s because ICE has been in the news lately forcibly separating families? Maybe if Democrats ran against that, it would be hugely popular?
The IRS isn’t very popular either, but if you ask people whether we should pay taxes, I’m sure more people will still say yes, even if they don’t have a favorable view of the IRS.
Abolishing ICE is about as extreme a position you can take. Just people the agency isn’t popular doesn’t mean that most people want to see it cease to exist.
That’s fine not all Democrats should be messaging the same way,
Lets take an example, in PA in the suburbs there are moderate republicans like Rep. Fitzpatrick, there are also crazy tea party republicans in the rural areas. They have very different messages. (Fitzpatrick even voted against killing Obamacare both times) Does the Tea party hurt Fitzpatrick with their crazy message? Maybe a little, does Fitzpatricks, moderation hurt the tea party wing nuts in their districts, not at all. Yet they are all in the same party and don’t seem to have trouble having some wildly different campaign styles, positions and messaging. The message fits the district, leadership will tend to moderate the message a bit while the activists try to intensify it.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_pa_060418.pdf/
Example Fitzpatrick lives in a D+1 district it should be a walk for D’s in this enviornment, he’s still doing well. considering.
4 Likes
Whoa boy…if you think this is extreme…