This new, slightly thicker Rihanna is...uh, not a bad thing.

I don’t think Hillary lost for any one reason but I do think a major one is that Democrats, all of them, had trouble getting united as a party behind any one message because so many people were going to huff if their one issue wasn’t treated as the one and only important issue.

It’s important to keep in mind that we’re speaking in hypotheticals here. We’re not talking about specific candidates or agendas.

If I knew how to effectively get across that this is a political tactic that needs exploring rather than an abandoning of core principals I’d be having more productive twitter conversations right now.

I’m blaming Trump’s election on the political ethos that led to Bernie Supporters pouting and staying home because Hillary didn’t give them 100% of what they wanted. If the only way the Democrats can win is if they nominate candidates that 100% of Democrats agree with on 100% of issues they will lose every single…

Again, I just don’t think that’s true. It’s like saying that if the Democrats have a couple of socialists in office that the Party is open to ending capitalism.

Well, 2-3 Senators can make a difference, sure. But what I’m saying is that 2-3 senators don’t drive a party platform or dictate the larger agenda. If Democrats had those 2-3 extra anti-choice Senators then repealing the ACA never would have gotten to a vote provided that said Senators weren’t entirely and only…

I’m pretty confident I’m not arguing in favour of a formless, shapeless blob of a political movement. I’m saying that the difficulty is in a situation where everyone agrees there needs to be compromise(how many times did we hear “BernieBros need to get in line and support Hillary”) but everyone also thinks that their…

That is true. But the reason we’re discussing this is that right now the tipping vote are guys like Mike Pence. Nobody is arguing a pro-life Democrat would be a perfect alternative.

Right, the party has to stand for something. But everyone is going to have their own idea of what that thing is. According to recent polling on the issue, 38% of people who identify as independents and 22% of people who identify as Democrats are on the other side of this issue from you and me? Should we wave goodbye…

But I think this is sort of where we lose track. Look at Republicans. They’ve elected some pretty fucking crazy Libertarians over the years. But, in office, do the 2 or 3 of them mean that there are no more local fire departments? No. Because electing a fringe asshole here or there doesn’t shift things much.

I think though that this is going to be a real challenge for Democrats going forward. Kamala Harris said just the other day that the only way for Democrats to win was to abandon the notion of purity tests and try to build a large coalition. I think people generally agree with that.

Chuck Schumer also knows way more about being part of a major political party that keeps getting their asses handed to them by a group of inbred fucktards than I do so I’m not quite as inclined to play wait and see with them.

Sure but I’m saying that whatever they do, I agree with the premise here that they shouldn’t make concessions just for appearances sake or for the notion of just getting things done. They sure as heck shouldn’t do so on the basis of being the side willing to compromise being something they can run on.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether there’s a political value in compromising so you can appear to be the adults in the room and if the Democrats record over that decade has told us anything it’s “fuck” and “no”.

Republicans weren’t interested in that. Any compromise on their part, in an attempt to win Democratic votes, is seen as high treason by their moron voters. How much have you read through this whole process of Republicans making any sort of attempt to win centrist Democrats?

I think you need to be able to eat it with one hand, while driving, and not have a bunch of shit fall onto your feet. Also, it should taste bad the day after but, somehow, taste great four days later.

I would really be concerned if the lesson the Democrats took from the last election would be that the way to victory is looking more mature than your opponent and win based on a superior ability to explain policy.

Right and my point is that if what they’d voted on last night had actually been a bill that anyone intended to be a law, it would have passed regardless. Voting for last night’s bill wouldn’t have been a wishy-washy compromise on the part of Democrats, it would have effectively been declaring themselves Republicans.

I don’t think there’s a single “what the GOP wants” when it comes to healthcare policy. If there were, they would have written a bill and presented it on its merits. What they want is to “win” by repealing Obamacare.