The numbers behind how the Dems can win again
A couple days ago I showed how Dems that moved to the right have gotten massacred in the elections, while progressive candidates have survived the onslaught.
In that essay there was one study that stood out in my mind.
Libertarians and Post-Moderns are largely white, well-educated and affluent. They also share a relatively secular outlook on some social issues, including homosexuality and abortion. But Republican-oriented Libertarians are far more critical of government, less supportive of environmental regulations, and more supportive of business than are Post-Moderns, most of whom lean Democratic.
Disaffecteds, the other main group of independents, are financially stressed and cynical about politics. Most lean to the Republican Party, though they differ from the core Republican groups in their support for increased government aid to the poor.
I couldn't get over the Disaffecteds. They supported increased government aid to the poor, but still voted Republican. This seemed like a group ripe to be plucked from the Repubs by the Dems, if only the Dems would embrace an economically populist message.
That study was from 2011. Today I spotted this new study, and it becomes much more clear.
The chart is divided into squares depending on how progressive or conservative you are on two issue dimensions: left/right is where you stand on economic issues—left being more progressive; top/bottom is your take on “social/identity” questions, with more progressive on the bottom.
So you can see that most Clinton voters are in the lower-left quadrant: progressive on both economic and social issues, what the study calls “Liberals.” Trump voters, on the other hand, were split between two quadrants: He got almost as many votes from the quadrant labeled “Populist”—progressive on economics, conservative on social/identity issues—as he did from the “Conservative” quadrant, which is right-wing on both
As you can see, while liberals were more likely to vote "other" almost none of them voted for Trump.
Anyone hoping of Dems stealing conservative votes may as well be wishing for unicorns. It will never happen.
Libertarian voters are generally a waste of time for Dems as well.
So that leaves the “Populist” quadrant. These are the voters with progressive economic views and conservative social/identity views. How does the Democratic Party attract voters with that mix of views? Not by shifting its positions on racial and immigration issues to the right, as Chait suggests (if Democrats can get over their “moral commitments to social justice”)—such opportunism would risk alienating the voters in the one sector that strongly supports the Democrats, who could, after all, increase their third-party vote further. No, the obvious strategy is to convince “Populist” voters to cast their ballot based on economic rather than identity issues—in other words, to move left on economics, an option that Chait tells the party is “irrelevant to its electoral predicament.”
His evidence for this claim is actually evidence against it: that “the issue space where Clinton lost voters who had supported Obama was in the array of social-identity questions, revolving around patriotism and identity.” Of course it was! The voters who find both progressive economics and conservative identity politics appealing voted Democratic when they found the Democratic economic pitch convincing—and voted Republican when they didn’t find those economic appeals persuasive. The conservative social views of “Populist” Obama voters aren’t evidence that Democratic economic policies don’t matter; they’re proof that they do matter, and can make the difference between a winning electoral coalition and a losing one.
Or to put it another way, go after the Disaffecteds with economic policies that target everyone, not just individual identity groups.
Medicare For All.
Rejecting FTAs.
A WPA-style jobs program for the nation's infrastructure.
Do something for all the mentally-ill homeless people.
Break up the big banks.
And while we are at it, steal a social issue away from the Repubs by restoring the Bill of Rights. The 4th and 5th Amendments in particular.
Finally, end the gawddamn useless wars that aren't popular with any voting group.
Comments
Mostly agree - but
Two issues here.
1. Any populist program that is not smoke and mirrors will be resisted tooth and nail by the money interests that own the Democratic Party.
2. The country is anti-war but also anti-bugout. This was the dilemma of getting out of Vietnam. The public won't support a withdrawal that seems to be "cut and run". Thus all the kabuki over "a decent interval" in the withdrawal regotiations.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Of course
I didn't say it would be easy and painless. I only pointed out what had to be done.
Yes, I agree with that statement.
However, I think it very unlikely that the (D) party will be recaptured and not sure if a new party is any easier.
Color me "blue", but color my mood "black".
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@The Voice In the Wilderness I think the country would
I think the country would be peachy with any withdrawal of troops framed as investment back home, with a New Deal style job creation, especially for veterans & their families, but also extended more broadly. Money spent on military presence abroad can be spent on job creation and infrastructure repair and upgrade here, including cleaning pollution out of the water. Also, bases overseas should be closed and the military there should be brought back here to help rebuild America's infrastructure. Rather than de-mobbing them, part of the military itself should be repurposed to do this work, although veterans should also be able to get those jobs. Military can be retrained for that purpose, if necessary (a la Army Corps of Engineers and the National Guard).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I agree based upon
my own anecdotal experience in a local Peace vigil. Very few people I met supported all these wars regardless of political identification. Self identified conservatives that we talked with almost all wanted the money being spent on wars to be invested here in the US, particularly in education and job creation. While I never heard single payer healthcare mentioned, I suspect most of the people I met would support that too in lieu of throwing money away on wars.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
A sort of corollary: Conservatives giving advice to Dems
Leave it to Dick Morris to tell Democrats how to win elections: run as Republicans.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bOpWtnssys]
Morris might be more interesting if he weren't so ignorant.
The toe sucker.
No wonder he got along so good with Clinton.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
'Dirty Dick' Morris should marry Donna Brazile
that guy won't go away either doggamnit. I'm pretty sure the source for this is right wing nutjobs, so kill the messenger first if you want. "The following article by Jeffrey Steinberg appeared in the Sept. 6, 1996 issue of Executive Intelligence Review." and it is a very accurate recount of history if you ask me. Morris, another extreme asshole never elected and still causing damage. Thanks.
'Dirty Dick' Morris Is Forced to Resign
Don't want to over quote, it does go on and on. Bill Moyers has reported for decades on the slimeball, I remember linking to him from the BNR (Bernie News Roundup) when Morris came up over there. Dick Fucking Morris is how I refer to him. Dick!
peace
Naw, Donna Brazile would be more likely
to marry Rachel Maddow. If we're trying to fix him up with someone of similar morality, ie a traitorous, amoral, unfaithful opportunist, I'd pair him with Paula Broadwell.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Looks like he's put on
some tonnage.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
It's a start anyway
link
I'm OK with her going.
But I put more blame on DWS. Much more.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
TOP has a new object of hate
Double-talking Democrat helps Trump lie about Democratic Party & Leader Pelosi—meet 'Toxic' Tim
How DARE wanting someone in the Dem establishment get fired for incompetence.
@gjohnsit What multiple legislative
What multiple legislative successes? Do we count the ones that were smashed on arrival by the Democratic Senate? Does she get credit for those, or do we believe that a veteran like Pelosi knew damned well Harry Reid's Senate was going to shoot jobs bills and climate bills down on sight?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
And she raised
millions and millions over the years just so the dimocrats could keep losing and losing.
The entire lot of them needs to be booted - they are all losers - HRC, BC, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer and so on.
The size of the egos of these losers and the delusions they hold is beyond stunning.
They are all clinging desperately to their gravy trains and could not care less about anything else.
dfarrah
@dfarrah Without a viable plan
Without a viable plan for removing them, there will be no reformation of the Democratic party. There's probably almost no chance that there would be, anyway, but if you don't remove the party leadership and most of the veterans from office you're not going to get anywhere.
Though, after one phone call from Obama fixed the DNC "election," I'm not really sure how we would reform the party even if we did somehow manage to remove them all from office. Phone calls from famous Dems with a lot of money and connections +superdelegates=no soap.
Not that Ellison would have been any good anyway; he's clearly neither a populist nor a left-winger. But he was too far left or maybe too Muslim for somebody, and they called Obama, and Obama called whoever arranges these matters for the DNC and that was that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You can imagine how that went over on ToP
There is a diary on the wreck list about this right now and the echo chamber is very upset that anyone would go after Pelosi and tell her that her time is up.
They just won't admit that Pelosi has let them down since she refused to hold Bush and Cheney responsible for their war crimes and the Iraq war.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
She's a woman
and she represents a lot of minorities, and she means well, so who cares if she sticks a shiv in our back, and completely sells us out?
Or something like that.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@gjohnsit Hate to bring up the
Hate to bring up the question--
Who would take over from her? Which of those people do we trust to lead the party? They all seem to be moving in lockstep on Russia, on war--hell, the Black congressman who represents Ferguson actually voted against a bill to get military weaponry out of the hands of cops. The actual dissidents in the Democratic party have pretty well been purged. The only reason these people have a problem with Pelosi is they are tired of losing and they don't understand, apparently, that what they are involved in is pro wrestling, where it doesn't matter who loses--what matters is that everybody draws their paycheck at the end of the night.
There is not a single person in the House that I would trust to lead the House Democrats ethically and responsibly, and if such a person would exist, they would never be chosen by the current crop of Democrats who have been willing to follow Hillary Clinton down every shithole even after she lost.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Tag team legislation. Excellent metaphor! I hope it catches on.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
In wrestling, it’s known as “kayfabe“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe
Here’s an example in Germany, where national elections are now only 13 weeks away.
In reality, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats are closely-coöperating coalition partners. However, leaders in the two parties fear that a boring status-quo campaign with little drama, tension, or difference between them may prompt people to cast a right-wing populist protest vote.
Enter kayfabe.
Starting with the Social Democrats’ convention this past weekend, the two coalition partners seem to have agreed to work at creating the impression that they are divided and quarreling — with the mainstream media’s assigned role being to pretend to believe it.
Everybody knows both parties support more immigration, more NATO intervention, more powers for the E.U., more sanctions on Russia, and more trade deals like TTIP.
So I really don’t know who any of them, including the media, think they’re fooling with this phony-baloney “Oh, no, look, all of a sudden there are yuuuge differences between us! Really!” act.
@lotlizard
Sounds to me as though either way, it'd create distrust of both parties since, at best, it would create the impression of a coalition capable of achieving positive benefits for the people/country being unreliable...
Edit because I evidently can't read this early, lol - just to add GOOD, and I hope that everyone votes against these destructive pretend-social democrats! Somehow initially read your comment as that they were voting against, not for the corporate coups, etc. and then noticed how badly I'd mis-read.
Need to finish that first coffee...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
This little old lady doesn't want to vote for a party that
pretends to represent all the people while actually doing the bidding of TPTB. The scraps they throw us get smaller year by year. Voting for either party is heads, TPTB win, tails the 99% loses. Our political system needs a sea change, not fiddling with percentages here and there to favor a party that has abandoned us.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
With all the song and dance surrounding Pelosi's future
It still seems that most 'Democrats' identify with large numbers beginning with $.
I can't believe that there are posters out there demanding that the nation be grateful for this increasingly sorry individual guiding the Save Health Insurance Today (SHIT) Act through Congress a number of years ago. Supposedly the beginning of something, that turned out to be not so big. A dead end, with 'care' still dependent on the 'virtues' of insurance.
(Edited)
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
We were told that the ACA was a step toward
single payer, yet in the 7 years since it was passed, has anyone been working on it? Obama came on the tv and told people that the republicans are just being mean to us and that the ACA was a step towards single payer. The rubes on ToP ate it up and there were comments after comments saying they wish he was still president.
Just ignore the people he left behind and the millions of people who lost their lives and their homes in the Middle East.
He's just a swell guy if you can overlook those flaws.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Did he ever mention single payer?
Or mostly, just stop talking about ACA the minute it was signed? Done and done.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Many people thought he did run on single payer
During the debates people were upset because no single payer advocates were able to attend the hearings while it was being discussed.
Remember nyceve who wrote a ton of diaries during the debates? She was upset when no sp persons were included.
Then after the ACA was signed, democrats walked away from it and I haven't heard that anyone has been working on it. The next person who talked about it was Bernie during his campaign.
Not a word from Pelosi about it.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
But the mainstreamers will say
"But your chart really shows that Trump voters are nothing but misogynistic racists" and it's pretty true - except that people who can pay their bills are less racist, but greedheads are greedheads, secure or not.
On to Biden since 1973
@doh1304 The racism involved is of
The racism involved is of a kind people don't seem to understand. It's not that the voter is drawn to a politician because he says racist things. It's that a white person who's hearing other things they want to hear from a politician doesn't care whether or not that politician says racist things. That's why there was crossover between Trump and Bernie voters, and between Republican voters and Bernie voters generally.
Nobody who actually showed up to hear a bunch of racist things being said would go to Bernie Sanders for anything. He spoke against racism pretty much every time he spoke. And he got a crowd in WV to cheer for Black Lives Matter.
The sin here is not an avid desire to participate in racist discourse, but a lack of concern for anything beyond their own sufferings.
There's an easy way out of this: just address their sufferings too.
Or we could wait for them to get enlightened enough to start caring about other people, including people that don't look like them, while they are enduring great suffering themselves. That doesn't sound like a winning strategy. I prefer Bernie's strategy, while he had one. Too bad it was going nowhere.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Populists "lean R" because the "R" party allows
the politicians who at least pretend to be populists to win, rather than sabotaging their campaigns in full and obvious view of the American people.
I could count the number of actually populist federal politicians on one hand, and probably not use all the fingers. So what we're really talking about is how politicians talk, how their parties treat them depending on how they talk, and what people believe about them.
The difference here is that the fake populists of the Republican party are allowed to win. The people don't have to watch as promising (and supposedly populist) Republicans get sabotaged by their own party while the party leadership alternately smirks, scolds, and plays the victim card.
The Democrats don't care about the little guy--unless the little guy is a POC or LGBT, in which case, they will pander and smile and pretend to care exactly like the Republicans pretend to care about the white working class. But they are also pretending that the little guy of color and the little LGBT guy have no economic needs and no trouble with the so-called legal justice system, that racism has nothing to do with poverty or money, and that our cops, judges, and prison system are all A-OK. So even if they actually gave a damn about POC and LGBT people, they wouldn't be helping with their troubles with money, the cops, and prison, which leaves out a hell of a lot, for Black people at least. What's left is a very superficial anti-racism that focuses mostly on whether or not famous people say racist things where anybody can hear them. That kind of anti-racism barely deserves the name, and I can think of several of the Big Six who would scorn that sort of ally as no true ally at all. Malcolm X would also have some choice things to say about this, I bet.
Nobody who worries about economic issues in the bottom 90% of the economic ladder really wants to vote for a Democrat, but the Dems still manage to hold on to POC and the LGBT community, partly because the leadership of those communities is mostly in the Dems' pocket, but mostly because the other party is spouting insults at Black, Latino, and LGBT people at a fairly good clip. You're not gonna support a politician who openly insults you, which is why I wouldn't work for Tim Kaine's Senate or Governor races when I lived up there.
But that's a flimsy bullshit way to hold on to voters, and it's lucky for the Democrats that all this is a fake Punch and Judy show for the masses. If we actually had two competing parties, the Republicans would put a moratorium on openly insulting Black people, Mexican immigrants, other Latinos, and LGBT people, and talk a lot about empowering small businesses and tax cuts for working families, and that would be the end of the Democratic party.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
How many times have people said this about the democrats?
The answers to their problems are so easily fixed, yet the democrats never do the things that they should do.
Example 1- during the health care debates, the republicans went on tv saying that the democrats wanted to kill granny because they wanted doctors to get paid for discussing end of life. Not one democrat or anyone from the WH went on tv to discuss this provision and what it actually meant. No one from the WH did either.
The other things we kept questioning the democrats about were why aren't they running ads that call the republicans out for what they were doing.
Prime example. The republicans went behind closed doors to make up the new health care bill and with only 13 members, all males.
This seems like a no brainer for the democrats to hit the republicans for. Instead, they are doing some kabuki theater type of protest that won't do anything to kill this bill. And who is in charge of the house and has the authority to do it? Pelosi. And people are saying it's time for her to step down, but people are upset about that because she used to bring in donations and she is a woman and anyone who wants her to step down is a misogynist, an ageist and the other 'ists they can think of.
This makes it seem like the democrats don't want to see the bill derailed, and I don't think they do. The money they get from the health, insurance and pharmaceutical companies is too much.
Besides, if they actually wanted a decent health care bill, they wouldn't have let the republicans water it down. They didn't need their votes and could have passed anything they wanted to. They had ways to get Lieberman on board. Take away his committee assignments.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
The GOP never needed a "supermajority" to get whatever they
wanted nor will they ever. That is only a requirement when Dems are in power.
When Dems are in power there are never enough votes to pass legislation the little guy wants.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Homelessness will skyrocket.
When the GOP get through destroying what little healthcare Americans have at present the economic health of our country will be further in the dumpster. Americans are losing their homes and when the GOP dumps Medicaid, seniors who run out of money will get kicked out of nursing homes. Don't the a**holes see the big picture? Yes , I am including the Dems as well as the GOPers.
"As California goes, so goes the nation"
thanks and I hope people don't look here for solutions. LOL Jimmy Dore and crew said "Normalised"! there it is again. Not hyper yet, not quite.
It's around the 12:30 mark near the end, talking about tent cities in L.A. We have tent cities all over up north too. For shame, our politicians are blind, deaf, and dumb. No solutions available, not even from one of our hundred California billionaires. The greed and cronyism disgust me. ick
peace
I read this comment on way of the bern
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Poll: Even a majority of Dems don't care about Russia
link
@gjohnsit There's that 44 percent.
There's that 44 percent.
You can usually count on somewhere between 30 and 45 percent of the American population to act like idiots.
Even some of the idiots, though, are starting to see through the idiocy and uselessness of the current garbage line.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Maybe the franchise was extended too freely,
maybe the Founders were right.
Maybe in order to vote now, people should have a graduate degree, or be able to solve complex math equations.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
What they need more is *common sense*
and it has never been anything like as "common" as it's supposed to be.
I also don't know of any practical test for it, unfortunately.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@dervish That was not, nor
That was not, nor has it ever been, what I mean.
Extend the franchise to everybody who's of age and in their right mind.
I can be in favor of that and still acknowledge the fact that around 30-44% of the American public seems more susceptible to propaganda than not.
Actually, I'm pretty impressed that around 56% of the population isn't buying it. The propaganda is at saturation point. (I'd be even more impressed if I didn't believe that some of those not buying it are doing so for partisan reasons, which doesn't count as thinking, really, being only a rather lame version of team loyalty. However, it's clear that doesn't account for all of it.)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Wait whuuuuuuttt?
Most Hillary voters are "economically liberal"?
My brain boggles at the tortured questions they must've asked to get that answer. This makes me think anything derived from that data is hopelessly out of touch with reality.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
"Economically liberal" is just another way of saying
neoliberal. Obama did more than any other President to push the Democratic party firmly into the neoliberal mold. Hillary, as POTUS, would have consummated the unholy marriage between the neoliberals and neoconservatives. She had been having trysts with the neocons during her tenure as SoS.
Neocons married neolibs, and Merkel is their German love child
Here’s groom Henry Kissinger, neocon, and bride Larry Summers, neolib, giving Merkel’s finance minister, Christian Democrat Wolfgang Schäuble, a shiny American prize bearing Henry’s name.
http://www.americanacademy.de/videoaudio/2017-henry-kissinger-prize/
@SnappleBC Here's how they are
Here's how they are "economically liberal:"
"I really really wish we could have a country with more economic equality and less poverty. I wish we could live in a country where the rich didn't run everything. But we can't have that right now. We have to deal with the world as we find it. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good--if we just get behind the Democrats right now so they can defeat this conservative extremist, then, in time, we will make the progress we need to get to where we actually decrease poverty, hunger, inequality, and the rule of the rich. You just have to be patient. I have to vote for Hillary right now to stop Trump, just like I had to vote for Gore to stop Bush, but I know if I stick with my team, eventually they'll have enough power to actually address these issues for everybody."
What's really disgusting here is the amnesia about the years 2009-2010, and the bullshit excuses that start welling up if you push back and force them to remember 2009 and 2010.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I generally agree with your comment except about
Gore. I voted for him because he really cared about climate change. That's why he wasn't allowed to win IMO.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
@Lily O Lady I have a soft spot
I have a soft spot for Gore too, because of both his positions on climate and on the Constitution. He was a great voice for civil liberties and the rule of law...afterwards.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We'll never know what he would have done, since deeds
prove the truth of words.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Thomas Frank on the Demise of the Democratic Party
Why should we want them to
Why should we want them to win?
California just effectively silenced and killed their single payer bill...by a Democrat.
You could give every single government position in this country to Democrats and:
We would not have single payer.
We would not stop our wars.
We would not (effectively) deal with the issue of climate change.
We would not stop the slow destruction of our economy via financial institutions.
We would not fix our justice system.
And on and on.
@Strife Delivery I started typing a
I started typing a similar comment, and decided not to post it. I agree with you completely. I don't want them to start winning again. I'd be happy if they never won again.
If they went the way of the Whigs tomorrow, I'd throw a block party.
I don't need them to protect me from the fucking Republicans. They've spent 35 years proving they're not qualified to do so.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Can't Stop the
Can't Stop the Macedonian Signal hosts the following:
The Can't Stop the Block Party 2017
@Strife Delivery Don't tempt me!
Don't tempt me!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Strife Delivery The proof of the truth
The proof of the truth you stated is right there in the first 2 years of Obama's presidency.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
How many votes and how much money? Questions questions
I guess Berners think if enough people vote, then super-delegates don't matter. What is the plan to overthrow the unelected party members that are preventing progress right now? Wait 'til next year? How many people need to vote in order for the count to be accurate in California at the end? Other states had big problems too, all set to ignore once more. It's a pretty big elephant to ignore I'd say. Can't pour money down that drain again.
Speaking of which, how much money at $27 each or whatever is it gonna take? Going to soak the poor while also taking from billionaires too? Well alrighty then. Nothing has changed much, as far as I can tell. Really can't wait 'til next year. Thanks.
toxic
lol
@eyo Well, I'm sure if we get
Well, I'm sure if we get rid of Nancy Pelosi, things will get better. Like they did when we got rid of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well I feel better :-D
peace
Big Promises
let's wait and see
I'd feel more hopeful if he said "working class" instead of "middle class".
Agree.
With about half of all working Americans making $30K or less, there is no such animal called the middle class.
@gjohnsit A bold economic agenda
A bold economic agenda from Chuck "Wall St" Schumer?
I wouldn't believe it if he got on TV and sang his budget plans to the tune of the Internationale.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Though I would enjoy
Though I would enjoy seeing that.
He could get his banker buddies lined up behind him joining in the chorus.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No way is the party 'establishment' going to
allow her to be removed. She brings in money. Competency is NOT an issue.
There is no way they cal allow 'competency' be a basic requirement for Dims to run or hold a position in the 'party'. Most of them would be on unemployment as we 'speak' if that was a job requirement.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
To the Dem party leaders competence
is about raising money rather than getting things done for the little guy.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
@Lily O Lady
(Edit: And) even discussions from critics tend to revolve around the lack of 'messages'/(claimed) policy which could 'get voters excited' rather than any discussion as to why nobody from either wing of the Corporate Party is interested in working for the public good and, hence, that of the country - and instead consistently works against it. Even the concept of democracy seems to be forgotten in most analysis of US electoral campaign that I hear...
Re-edit: just came back to read new comments and noticed in passing that I'd missed the rest of the bracket around my edit... sigh...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
What does it mean Disaffecteds to be socially conservative
On which issues in particular? Is this like pro-union Catholics?
In other words...
...not what the Clinton Campaign was selling...
I want my two dollars!