There are a shitton of moral degenerates who thought it was okay to vote for the second coming of Hitler. The blame for that lies entirely with those moral degenerates, and they’re the ones who need to change because they’re the ones in the wrong.
If she were running against a Romney or a McCain (or a Kasich or a Jeb Bush or even a Rubio, I suppose), yeah, there are reasons where someone might legitimately disagree with me and vote for those two, and so if we’re not winning enough people over it’s probably a problem with messaging and operations.
But if you voted for Orange Hitler? Nah, you’re the one who needs to change, not the people who offered a viable alternative to the preferred candidate of the KKK. You were faced with a clear moral choice, and you failed.
Um, no they’re not. Republicans are viewed as out of touch by 62% of the public and 30% of their own members.Those numbers are better, but surely not good, and I can certainly attribute a 14% gap just to the difference between winning and losing the last election.
So it’s kinda like Communism, then. Nothing wrong with the system, it’s just people who keep screwing it up, what with their Human Nature and everything.
The DNC was faced with a clear moral choice, and it decided to cheat. How are you supposed to convince people that the Democrats are the good guys after that?
If you want to win elections, you cannot continue with business as usual. You can stomp your feet and stuff your fingers in your ears and shout “NO! YOU MOVE!” all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Democratic Party has a lot of soul searching to do if it wants to get us back to the polls.
Actually, no. The cold blooded, Leninist, realpolitik would be simply to stand aside and let Trump fuck things up so badly that the people rise in fury. That is a practical and effective strategy, but if they did that, they would have no souls left to search.
Wellllllll, not really. There might have been a wee bit of “cheating”, but I don’t think it made a difference. Sure, the rules favored Hillary over Bernie, but that’s not “cheating”. Everyone knows the rules going in, and there’s nothing wrong with the party setting things up so as to avoid the pitfalls of direct democracy.
I mean if you have direct democracy in the primaries, there’s a chance that one of the parties could nominate an egomaniac, so-called businessman with absolutely no political experience to speak of. Imagine if that happened!!! And worse, if that hypothetical person actually won the general election!!!
Well…it says in the linked article that 44% of Democrats believe the DP is out of touch. My own WAG on that is that this represents basically the loony lefties who are hurt that Sanders didn’t win and feel that if only he had they would have everything now. Couple that with the fact that 81% of Republicans feel the Dems are out of touch (shocking, I know) and 75% of Independents (ouch…that one is hard to hand wave off, though honestly Dems seem to despise Independents so I guess it’s not that big a shock) and the numbers make sense.
Mainly, there is a huge rift in the Democratic party between the left wing types and the centrists, and I think this poll reflects this. Note that according to the article the Republicans aren’t far behind here…62% of Americans feel THEY are out of touch, and that includes 30% of Republicans (not sure if this is the sane centrists or loony right wingers) and 68% of Independents (which, as with the Dems it’s not that difficult to see since, again, it seems both major parties don’t like Independents).
I would say both parties are walking out on thin ice, pulled by their respective lunatic fringe towards where the cracks are deepest and it’s going to be like WWI…which one will break first? And what will the fallout be when one of them cracks and the other declares victory?
Does the DNC even have the capacity to “cheat” in a presidential nominating process? Like, even if there was a conspiracy in the DNC to deny someone the nomination, does it actually have enough control to do it?
Some of the conspiracy theories about the DNC remind me of about ten years ago, when the Ron Paul types would accuse some random cross-border commission of being a plot to abolish the dollar. Even if they wanted to…
I’ve mentioned this before, but it occurs to me to ask if anyone else saw this. I Facebook to know what’s happening to my collection of misfits. Many of them, it may not surprise you to hear, are political. So, the pages I see are cats, dogs, babies, and politics.
While back, while all this shit was brewing, this whole Bernie Hillary thing burst into it. “News alerts” posted by orgs with plausible sounding names that I never heard before. Hillary, the DNC, the liberals, conspiring to poison Bernie’s dog, slip LSD into his herbal tea, make Mitch McConnell a superdelegate, so one and so forth. And you google the .org and it goes nowhere, no such number, no such zone. Existed just long enough to sling some shit and then poof! gone.
It was the Russians. They were out to sow discord in the Dem Party (now, there’s a fucking challenge!). To fuck over Hillary, to fuckover us, and if it gets Trump elected, that would just be icing on the cake that is a lie.
Anyway, as it involves misfits, I was wondering if anyone else on the Board saw what I did?
Ah, that Vladdie ! A supervillain for the ages.
To the traditional motto of the Dems, ‘When in danger, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and shout !’ they need to add a line blaming those darn Russkies.
I tend to agree that Democrats need to be better messengers. I think they’ve lost that knack, too.
But the principles of the Party have changed, too. The Democracy of the 60s and 70s would NEVER have adopted the proposition that free trade was a good thing. In doing that, they sold their right to the vote of the rust belt workers, who everyone in the 80s and 90s predicted would indeed be hurt by free trade, and who’s votes were the reason that Donald Trump won. Similarly, Democrats have gotten quite weak about protecting unions, in the face of the prevailing winds that unions are bad things which protect incompetent workers and preclude business and government from providing a valuable and economically efficient product. Honestly, Ted Kennedy must have just been weeping most of the 90s and 00s. Remember his speech in 1980? That’s not the Democratic Party of 2016. And having made these changes, the Democrats have also lost a clear identifier of their basic core raison d’être.
We can quibble if you like. But the numbers show that almost half of Democrats have this feeling, whereas just over a quarter of Republicans have it. It’s a significant portion, but not as significant as the portion of Democrats. IMHO.
People seem to be assuming that the various Democrats unhappy with the party are unhappy about the same thing, and the answer is therefore to figure out what that is and move in that direction. But that assumption is not necessarily correct.
Suppose many party members are unhappy that the party is too strongly progressive and many others unhappy that the party is not progressive enough. What could party leaders do to increase satisfaction with the party? It may be an insoluble problem.
Right now, momentum is on the side of the progressives, because they’re the ones riled up, and the ones raising money and organizing and so on. But going in that direction may cost votes of middle-ground people in elections. Going in the other direction may get primary fights and so on. Not sure there’s an answer, other than wait it out and wait for the public to get tired of the Republicans. Will happen, inevitably.
Yes, it means some people will be displaced from their current jobs–but the solution to that isn’t to deny all of us (including them!) the benefits of free trade, but to equip those who will be displaced to play a role in the new world.
And that was exactly what the Democratic candidate offered.
In that case, the problem isn’t with the Democrats, but with the snowflake WWC who couldn’t handle the truth, and the reality-based solutions, that Hillary Clinton was offering, and instead took a “fuck you got mine” attitude and went with the pathological liar who sold them the lies they want to hear.
If the electorate isn’t interested in listening to reality, then it seems to me that it’s the electorate that needs to change, not the party campaigning on reality-based solutions.
The assertion I was responding to was that the Democratic Party had not changed its principles from days of yore when it was successful. I offered an example of a case where they had, indeed, changed their principle. Now you come along and say, in essence, “but that was a good and right principle to change.” How is that in any way responsive to the point being made?
As for the last sentence, you’ve asserted that statement in more than one post I’ve seen in the last few days. I’ll paraphrase it:
We the Democratic Party know what’s good for you, the voters of America. If you can’t understand that it’s good for you, you need to simply change your views so that you do understand it’s good for you, and will once again like us.
Yeah, that’s going to get you a LOT of electoral wins. :rolleyes:
Because of the very clear implication in your post that it was a bad thing.
Well, the alternative is to deny reality. Which is it going to be?
Voting is a responsibility, not a reward. It’s work, not vacation. It’s called “participatory” rather than “passive” democracy for a reason. The voter has obligations, too.
