Tribal Identities Replace Ideology in Democrats’ Primaries

[Anti Federalist]

‘Tribal Identities’ Replace Ideology in Democrats’ Primaries

http://www.breitbart.com/2018-elections/2018/06/27/washpo-democrats-primaries-are-picking-tribal-identities/

Neil Munro - 27 Jun 2018

The Democratic Party’s activists are picking candidates based on their racial, sexual, and cultural tribes instead of their ideology, the Washington Post admits.

In a June 26 New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, by appealing to voters’ “tribal identities of class, age, gender and ethnicity,” not their ideology, said the Post‘s article.

The article is headlined “The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate,” and it continues:

… Democratic voters are increasingly embracing diversity as a way to realize the change they seek in the country.

Given an option, Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates, often at the expense of the white male candidates who in past years typified the party’s offerings.

The “tribal trend,” said the Post, is driven by “the party’s growing dependence on female and minority voters,” and it has sidelined the expected ideological disputes between left and far-left candidates:

“The ideological part is only a very small piece. There is something deeper going on,” said Simon Rosenberg, a strategist at the New Democratic Network. “In this new social media age of politics, compelling, authentic candidates who can tell positive stories about themselves are succeeding over lifer politicians.”

The paper notes the very different divides in the GOP, where rival candidates champion and compromise rival ideological viewpoints, largely independent of their personal stories, race, sex, origin or lineage:

The closest analog to Crowley’s downfall was Dave Brat’s unexpected 2014 Virginia primary defeat of Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican leader seen by many as a future House speaker. But that race, between two white men of similar age and background, hinged on the conservative [ideological] dispute over immigration and a determination by voters to upset the ways of Washington.

Unlike tribal Democrats who organize themselves into semi-fixed identity groups, the conservative GOP conserves the classical intellectual ideals built into the U.S. Constitution, and which aspires to help all people compromise on their voluntary political differences, regardless of color, sex, creed or tribe. According to the libertarian Mises Institute:

“Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism …

[Recent U.S.-style] social liberalism deviates fundamentally … it denies the self-regulatory capacity of society: the state is called on to redress social imbalance in increasingly ramified ways.

The Post article does not clearly define “diversity,” even though it uses the term four times. For example, it says “Democrats generally place a far higher value on racial, ethnic and national diversity than Republicans.”

That sentence contradicts the rest of the article because it suggests Democratic voters want a variety of candidates — regardless of the candidates’ actual identities, views, and ideologies. But the rest of the article shows that Democratic voters oppose a wide variety of candidates and instead favor candidates who match their narrow and semi-fixed tribal identity as feminists, Latinos, blacks, “transgenders,” gays, etc.

The Post’s authors may be using the “diversity” word to describe two political extremes — the progressives’ preference for government-imposed civic variety and the Democrats’ various grass-roots, semi-permanent, “tribal” identities.

The progressive, elite-socialist ideology of “diversity” uses government to impose variety on settled, coherent communities with the goal of fragmenting political resistance to progressives’ centralized power. This form of divide-and-rule diversity is aided by the business-backed importation of migrants from incongruous cultures, such as Somalia and El Salvador, Islam and Christianity, or Indian universities and Central American farms.

U.S. conservatives oppose the centralized variety of “diversity” and the grass-roots variety of semi-fixed tribalism.

Conservatives instead favor a small-government ideal which allows a shifting mix of personal freedoms and voluntary affiliations. They expect people — regardless of race, class, sex or birthplace — to organize themselves and their ideas to meet their own needs, be it a local soccer league or a new political party, a pool party for youths or safe suburbia for families, or high-tech development and low-tech welfare.

[Anti Federalist]

The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-worst-thing-to-be-in-many-democratic-primaries-a-white-male-candidate/2018/06/27/79f42522-7a13-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.18ebbb6b0e06

by Michael Scherer and David Weigel June 27 at 8:03 PM

The newest star of the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, launched her New York congressional campaign by declaring “women like me aren’t supposed to run for office” — a jarring embrace of her distinction as a 28-year-old Latina less than a year removed from a job tending bar.

Her campaign slogan: “It’s time for one of us.”

(Hmmm, really? One of "us" what? A woemen? More than enough of them in government already. A colored person? Already plenty of them as well. A commie? Same thing. Is she a weirdosexual of some sort? Doesn't matter, plenty of them, too. So, one of "us" what? - AF)

That appeal to the tribal identities of class, age, gender and ethnicity turned out to be a good gamble, steering her to the nomination in a year when Democratic voters are increasingly embracing diversity as a way to realize the change they seek in the country.

Given an option, Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates, often at the expense of the white male candidates who in past years
typified the party’s offerings. *Ocasio-Cortez’s opponent, veteran Rep. Joseph Crowley, a
white man representing a *majority-minority district, fit that bill.

The divide is more stark than any other so far in the primary season, and it reflects the party’s growing dependence on female and minority voters.

The ideological splits between liberal and far-left candidates were predicted to be the focus of clashes this year, but voters have sent conflicting signals on that front.

The tribal trend has implications for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, where a historic number of nonwhite and female candidates are considering launching campaigns, including Sens. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). They will likely face off against a cadre of more traditional white male candidates, including possible bids by former vice president Joe Biden and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.

“The ideological part is only a very small piece. There is something deeper going on,” said Simon Rosenberg, a strategist at the New Democratic Network. “In this new social media age of politics, compelling, authentic candidates who can tell positive stories about themselves are succeeding over lifer politicians.”

At a rally in Nevada over the weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), another potential 2020 Democratic contender who never fails to mention her own hardscrabble childhood in Oklahoma, got cheers when she let slip that she wanted to see a woman occupy “that really nice, oval-shaped room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Many of the key Democratic House primaries this year have been competitions over biography, with a premium given to those who break new ground or remove old barriers. House nominees in key races to unseat Republicans include a black former NFL player turned attorney, a female retired fighter pilot and a lesbian Air Force intelligence officer, all of whom defeated more conventional opponents.

“You don’t want to run against a Democratic woman this year,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said Wednesday about the trend, citing the House primary in Kentucky won by that former fighter pilot. “Amy McGrath defeated a two-term mayor with a 70 percent approval rating. She did that because she was a fresh face who tapped into the new energy out there.”

This proved the case again in New York on Tuesday, when *Ocasio-Cortez toppled Crowley, one of the most powerful Democrats in the nation and one widely seen as heir apparent to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

On the same night, upstate in the Catskill Mountains, Antonio Delgado, an Oxford- and Harvard-educated African American lawyer, emerged from a crowded field of six white Democratic candidates, some of them more liberal, for the chance to take on Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.) in one of the most competitive House elections this cycle.

In Maryland, Democrats nominated Ben Jealous, the African American former head of the NAACP, making him the second black gubernatorial nomination this year, following former Georgia statehouse leader Stacey Abrams’s win last month. There have been only two African Americans elected governor in the 50 states in recent history — and at least two more black Democratic candidates, in Florida and Wisconsin, have a chance to win nominations this fall.

Through the end of June, 151 women have won House Democratic primaries, nearly doubling the 81 female nominees at the same point in the 2016 cycle, according to data collected by the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University. Republican nominations of women rose much more slowly, to 32 in 2018 from 27 in 2016.

“Historically, what we have seen, which could also be true in this cycle, is the association of women with something different, something new and something that represents change,” said Kelly Dittmar, a professor at the center. “In this year, women provide one of the starkest contrasts to the president and the party in power in Washington.”

For some Democrats, there is a clear logic to trying to elevate politicians who belong to underrepresented groups, given the threat many feel from the behavior and policies of President Trump, who regularly magnifies racial division and has been caught on tape boasting about the sexual assault of women.

“It’s not accidental that Donald Trump followed the first black president riding a wave of resentment,” said Steve Phillips, founder of Democracy in Color, a group that promotes youth and minority political activism. “And it’s not accidental that the people who are fighting back are the people who are being attacked.”

Polls show that Democrats generally place a far higher value on racial, ethnic and national diversity than Republicans. A Pew Research survey in late April found that 58 percent of Americans say increasing numbers of people from different groups makes America a better place. That included 70 percent of people who identified with the Democratic Party and 47 percent who identified with Republicans.

Ocasio-Cortez, who calls herself a Democratic socialist, ran on the left edge of her own party, endorsing many of the most liberal policies in circulation, including an abolition of the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Medicare for all, and a program to guarantee government jobs at $15 an hour for all Americans. Crowley, who has his own liberal record and co-sponsored a Medicare-for-all bill, countered by calling ICE “fascist” and saying he wanted reforms without abolishing the agency.

But policy was not the clear dividing line in the race.

Ocasio-Cortez spent much of the campaign, including much of the only one-on-one debate, focusing on Crowley’s decision to take money from corporate donors and raise his kids in Virginia while he worked at the U.S. Capitol. She argued throughout the campaign that Crowley “doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air.”

Two years after Crowley was elected to the state legislature in the late ’80s, Queens County, where he was born, was about 58 percent white, according to the 1990 Census. Today, it is 48 percent white, according to census figures. The district he represents, which includes parts of the Bronx, is 18 percent white.

“I think the district has changed very dramatically, and I think that she, from her ideas to her diversity, I mean she really reflects her district,” Booker said in an interview Wednesday.

The closest analog to Crowley’s downfall was Dave Brat’s unexpected 2014 Virginia primary defeat of Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican leader seen by many as a future House speaker. But that race, between two white men of similar age and background, hinged on the conservative dispute over immigration and a determination by voters to upset the ways of Washington

Several of the outside groups working to recruit and train candidates for the Democratic ticket have placed a premium on finding women and minorities. Amanda Litman, co-founder of the candidate training and support organization Run for Something, said candidates who broke the white-male mold were doing better because voters want to support people like themselves.

“The candidates that do the best are the ones who are most representative of their communities, and that’s women and people of color,” she said. “They’re able to represent their voters in an authentic way, much more powerful than gender or any other single factor.”

Maurice Mitchell, national director of the liberal Working Families Party, said electing more diverse candidates was “part of my mandate.”

Earlier this year, he became the first black man to lead the organization, which began as a left-wing political party and has grown into an organizing force for liberal candidates and set out to elect more nonwhite leftists.

“This is where the energy is. This is where our most idealistic thinking and strategizing on the ground is,” he said. “We want to break up the idea that the way you get folks elected is choosing middle-of-the-road white male business owners and veterans to run — people who will only say and do the most scripted things that polarize the least people.”

[Anti Federalist]

But were I to so much as suggest that white people, if faced with a choice of two relatively equally qualified candidates, one white and one not, to choose the white one because they are "one of us", the autistic screeching that followed would be heard on the moon.

Diversity = No white people wanted or allowed.

[Anti Federalist]

The result of recruiting more communist colored woemen will mean the end of the last two portions of the Bill of Rights that have any significant teeth anymore.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/images/free-speech-survey/images/cato-free-speech-survey-main-report-10.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ff/10/82/ff1082c1f52fcf07c87ff785cf5f0c7f--gun-control-principal.jpg

Of course, there is the inevitable economic collapse, that will have our grandchildren eating zoo animals to survive...but who gives a fuck about that, amirite?

[TheCount]

This just in: tribalists say that other tribalists' tribes are stupid, bad.

[Swordsmyth]

This just in: tribalists say that other tribalists' tribes are stupid, bad.

Whites and normal Americans of other races don't act tribal, keep pushing us until we do and you won't like the results.

[Anti Federalist]

This just in: tribalists say that other tribalists' tribes are stupid, bad.

I wish that wasn't the case.

I wish that we, as human beings, had evolved past that point.

Based on what the Bolshevik authoritarians are saying, it would seem that is not the case.

[DamianTV]

https://youtu.be/eXWhbUUE4ko

[TheCount]

Whites and normal Americans of other races don't act tribal, keep pushing us until we do and you won't like the results.

He says, "we"ing together the people that he identifies as his tribe and threatening tribal action against other tribes.

[Swordsmyth]

He says, "we"ing together the people that he identifies as his tribe and threatening tribal action against other tribes.

Sorry but "normal people" isn't a tribe until common enemies make it one.

[Wooden Indian]

Sorry but "normal people" isn't a tribe until common enemies make it one.

I agree. You know what, I have little doubt that the whole "them vs us" thing is a well orchestrated dupe, planned out by the powerful and carried out by useful idiots.
But here's the thing- that doesn't matter right now.

Longterm... sure the 'mastermind'(s) ID matters! But when the wolf is at your door, salivating like a droopy-eyed retard, frenzied by bloodlust and greed, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FUCKING WOLF AT YOUR FUCKING DOOR.

P.S. Lord, I apologize to all the droopy eyed retards.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree. You know what, I have little doubt that the whole "them vs us" thing is a well orchestrated dupe, planned out by the powerful and carried out by useful idiots.
But here's the thing- that doesn't matter right now.

Longterm... sure the 'mastermind'(s) ID matters! But when the wolf is at your door, salivating like a droopy-eyed retard, frenzied by bloodlust and greed, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE $#@!ING WOLF AT YOUR $#@!ING DOOR.

P.S. Lord, I apologize to all the droopy eyed retards.

When someone orders an attack dog to kill you it does little good to try to point out to the dog that you don't have to be enemies, whining about "divide and conquer" is too little too late and aimed at the wrong party, we have no choice but to break the dogs neck and hope we exit the battle strong enough to take on the owner.

[nobody's_hero]

This just in: tribalists say that other tribalists' tribes are stupid, bad.

I think he's calling them out on the hypocrisy. AF knows humans are tribal. —Human nature and all that. There's a difference when drumming up this false utopian viewpoint that multiculturalism is good and that smashing together various groups of diverse backgrounds and beliefs isn't going to lead to tension and strife, and then going out and hypocritically voting along racial/cultural lines while trying to promote elitist "holier than thou" attitudes like they're above it all. Frankly, it's gotten stale. The leftist kumbaya club just as tribal as anyone else. Only they try to pretend like they aren't.

[timosman]

When someone orders an attack dog to kill you it does little good to try to point out to the dog that you don't have to be enemies, whining about "divide and conquer" is too little too late and aimed at the wrong party, we have no choice but to break the dogs neck and hope we exit the battle strong enough to take on the owner.

Who owns this shit and what can be done about it?

[timosman]

I think he's calling them out on the hypocrisy. AF knows humans are tribal. —Human nature and all that. There's a difference when drumming up this false utopian viewpoint that multiculturalism is good and that smashing together various groups of diverse backgrounds and beliefs isn't going to lead to tension and strife, and then going out and hypocritically voting along racial/cultural lines while trying to promote elitist "holier than thou" attitudes like they're above it all. Frankly, it's gotten stale. They're just as tribal as anyone else. Only they try to pretend like they aren't.

If this fails they can always fire your sorry ass.:cool:

[nobody's_hero]

If this fails they can always fire your sorry ass.:cool:

Not sure I follow you.

Here's a moment of honesty, and an example.

For the most part, I think we here at RPF 'get along' despite relatively minor differences in beliefs. But if SHTF and we have to head to survival camps, I don't think everyone here would make it into mine. Hell, for one, I'd be worried that some folks would be at the gate waving everyone else inside regardless of who they are or what they believe. That's not to say that I wouldn't be happy to have you set up a survival camp across the street or borrow a cup of sugar if times get rough. And if someone came in and tried to mess up our s*it, I'd be happy to band together and drive them off. But, y'all ain't sleeping in my bed.

[Anti Federalist]

When someone orders an attack dog to kill you it does little good to try to point out to the dog that you don't have to be enemies, whining about "divide and conquer" is too little too late and aimed at the wrong party, we have no choice but to break the dogs neck and hope we exit the battle strong enough to take on the owner.

This


I think he's calling them out on the hypocrisy. AF knows humans are tribal. —Human nature and all that. There's a difference when drumming up this false utopian viewpoint that multiculturalism is good and that smashing together various groups of diverse backgrounds and beliefs isn't going to lead to tension and strife, and then going out and hypocritically voting along racial/cultural lines while trying to promote elitist "holier than thou" attitudes like they're above it all. Frankly, it's gotten stale. The leftist kumbaya club just as tribal as anyone else. Only they try to pretend like they aren't.

And this

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Repeal the 19th.

[otherone]

“It’s not accidental that Donald Trump followed the first black president riding a wave of resentment,” said Steve Phillips, founder of Democracy in Color,

The Dems really are clueless.
Obama was elected TWICE.
Racism didn't put Trump in the White House (expect a name change, soon, btw). Trump was an indictment of DC by middle America due to years of frustration with DC.
The same can be said of Obama. Americans vote ideology, not tribes. The people who elected Trump, and who will elect the next POTUS, aren't sitting around saying, "what we really need is a lesbian latina". Minority issues don't resonate with people trying to put food on their tables.

[TheCount]

Sorry but "normal people" isn't a tribe until common enemies make it one.You don't actually mean normal people.

[timosman]

You don't actually mean normal people.

What do you think he means?:confused:

[Swordsmyth]

You don't actually mean normal people.

You wouldn't know a normal person if one hit you. (which any normal person is sorely tempted to do)

[timosman]

You wouldn't know a normal person if one hit you. (which any normal person is sorely tempted to do)

TheCount is a normal person. Please mind their safe space.:cool:

[TheCount]

You wouldn't know a normal person if one hit you. (which any normal person is sorely tempted to do)
If you had to guess, what percentage of non-white Americans would you say are normal?

[Swordsmyth]

If you had to guess, what percentage of non-white Americans would you say are normal?
I would admit it was beyond my knowledge or expertise but I know there are many, I have met many.

[Wooden Indian]

If you had to guess, what percentage of non-white Americans would you say are normal?

Normal... LOL
Lord, help me when I'm the "norm" in this twisted World.

Functionally intelligent, cares for their fellow man, not too proud to listen or back down when they're wrong, and a willingness to work hard for those they love.

When I say normal, that's what I mean, but in truth... that ain't exactly normal and is maybe 50% of the adults in this country... at best ...and that's likely pushing it.

[Brian4Liberty]

So in summary, Democrats are applying demographic facts to win elections. Shame on them. It's not the only parameter, but it's an important one.

I have suggested in the past that small-l libertarians should run as Democrats, and use demographics. Why not a hispanic female Democrat who is mostly libertarian? They could oppose the war on drugs, war in general, criminal justice and police abuse, and the crony establishment.

Of course this suggestion is usually met with silence.

[timosman]

So in summary, Democrats are applying demographic facts to win elections. Shame on them. It's not the only parameter, but it's an important one.

I have suggested in the past that small-l libertarians should run as Democrats, and use demographics. Why not a hispanic female Democrat who is mostly libertarian? They could oppose the war on drugs, war in general, criminal justice and police abuse, and the crony establishment.

Of course this suggestion is usually met with silence.

These are stupid ideas!:D

[euphemia]

false utopian viewpoint that multiculturalism is good and that smashing together various groups of diverse backgrounds and beliefs isn't going to lead to tension and strife,

This little phrase just jumped off the screen and smacked me in the face. I would like to interject the idea that this false utopian idea is not God's ideal. It is a natural result of man trusting in his own thinking to have an orderly society. After the flood the community grew and built the tower of Babel as a way to stay together, contrary to the command to multiply and fill the earth. God confounded their languages and drove them apart.

And what we see in society is that the more people are forced to intermingle and conform, the more they express their distinction. Sometimes violently so.

[Jamesiv1]

The Dems really are clueless.
Obama was elected TWICE.
Racism didn't put Trump in the White House (expect a name change, soon, btw). Trump was an indictment of DC by middle America due to years of frustration with DC.
The same can be said of Obama. Americans vote ideology, not tribes. The people who elected Trump, and who will elect the next POTUS, aren't sitting around saying, "what we really need is a lesbian latina". Minority issues don't resonate with people trying to put food on their tables.
^sensible

[Jamesiv1]

So in summary, Democrats are applying demographic facts to win elections. Shame on them. It's not the only parameter, but it's an important one.

I have suggested in the past that small-l libertarians should run as Democrats, and use demographics. Why not a hispanic female Democrat who is mostly libertarian? They could oppose the war on drugs, war in general, criminal justice and police abuse, and the crony establishment.

Of course this suggestion is usually met with silence.
Democrats are despised by those among us who consider themselves lovers of liberty.

[Pauls' Revere]

Not sure I follow you.

Here's a moment of honesty, and an example.

For the most part, I think we here at RPF 'get along' despite relatively minor differences in beliefs. But if SHTF and we have to head to survival camps, I don't think everyone here would make it into mine. Hell, for one, I'd be worried that some folks would be at the gate waving everyone else inside regardless of who they are or what they believe. That's not to say that I wouldn't be happy to have you set up a survival camp across the street or borrow a cup of sugar if times get rough. And if someone came in and tried to mess up our s*it, I'd be happy to band together and drive them off. But, y'all ain't sleeping in my bed.

LOL well that's right neighborly of you.

[timosman]

LOL well that's right neighborly of you.

An outbreak of paranoia? :confused:

[Pauls' Revere]

An outbreak of paranoia? :confused:

Live and let live. Good fences? that sorta thing.

[nobody's_hero]

So in summary, Democrats are applying demographic facts to win elections. Shame on them. It's not the only parameter, but it's an important one.

I have suggested in the past that small-l libertarians should run as Democrats, and use demographics. Why not a hispanic female Democrat who is mostly libertarian? They could oppose the war on drugs, war in general, criminal justice and police abuse, and the crony establishment.

Of course this suggestion is usually met with silence.

I've suggested many times we should do/say what it takes to get into office and then do whatever we want once we get there. If broken promises equaled political downfall, there wouldn't be any calls for term limits because only a few would even make it through a single term. It does require you to set aside your morality for a moment with the understanding that you're basically lying to people but, I'm gonna say it's a case where the means justify the ends.


Run on a pro-war, police state platform and then once you're in office, call all the troops home and end all federal grants issued to militarize police. I'm more than willing to bet that most people who voted you into office will agree with you without even realizing you changed. Either that, or they have to admit they were duped, and that's not easy for a lot of voters to swallow. Voters tend to be followers more than critical thinkers.

[nobody's_hero]

LOL well that's right neighborly of you.

"Stay off my lawn," lol.

[Brian4Liberty]

I've suggested many times we should do/say what it takes to get into office and then do whatever we want once we get there. If broken promises equaled political downfall, there wouldn't be any calls for term limits because only a few would even make it through a single term. It does require you to set aside your morality for a moment with the understanding that you're basically lying to people but, I'm gonna say it's a case where the means justify the ends.


Run on a pro-war, police state platform and then once you're in office, call all the troops home and end all federal grants issued to militarize police. I'm more than willing to bet that most people who voted you into office will agree with you without even realizing you changed. Either that, or they have to admit they were duped, and that's not easy for a lot of voters to swallow. Voters tend to be followers more than critical thinkers.

Most politicians have no problem with "lying" to the voters during elections. It's just what they do, especially during re-election as their actions don't match what they campaigned on.

But like my example, a candidate can tailor the things they talk about without lying.

[enhanced_deficit]

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523725-This-is-Fine&p=6646576&viewfull=1#post6646576)This is Fine...
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523725-This-is-Fine&p=6646576&viewfull=1#post6646576)
https://media.giphy.com/media/z9AUvhAEiXOqA/giphy.gif
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?523725-This-is-Fine&p=6646576&viewfull=1#post6646576)

[Brian4Liberty]

So in summary, Democrats are applying demographic facts to win elections. Shame on them. It's not the only parameter, but it's an important one.

I have suggested in the past that small-l libertarians should run as Democrats, and use demographics. Why not a hispanic female Democrat who is mostly libertarian? They could oppose the war on drugs, war in general, criminal justice and police abuse, and the crony establishment.

Of course this suggestion is usually met with silence.


These are stupid ideas!:D


Democrats are despised by those among us who consider themselves lovers of liberty.


I've suggested many times we should do/say what it takes to get into office and then do whatever we want once we get there. If broken promises equaled political downfall, there wouldn't be any calls for term limits because only a few would even make it through a single term. It does require you to set aside your morality for a moment with the understanding that you're basically lying to people but, I'm gonna say it's a case where the means justify the ends.


Run on a pro-war, police state platform and then once you're in office, call all the troops home and end all federal grants issued to militarize police. I'm more than willing to bet that most people who voted you into office will agree with you without even realizing you changed. Either that, or they have to admit they were duped, and that's not easy for a lot of voters to swallow. Voters tend to be followers more than critical thinkers.


Most politicians have no problem with "lying" to the voters during elections. It's just what they do, especially during re-election as their actions don't match what they campaigned on.

But like my example, a candidate can tailor the things they talk about without lying.

Yet Democrats have never had any problem running as Republicans.

The #WalkAway movement is having some effect on upcoming elections. Democrats now running as Republicans:

1016116968443826177
https://twitter.com/PeteHolmbergNYC/status/1016116968443826177