Democrats Not Happy With the Party

Politics & Elections
81

Look, the assertion was made (again) that Ms. Clinton polled 3 million more votes than Mr. Trump, if one aggregates all the 51 elections that occurred on Nov. 8. This was made in an attempt to show that Democrats are not as “unpopular” as might otherwise appear to be. But the reply was that, if the states of California and New York are removed from the equation, the result shows that the Democratic candidate was not more popular than the Republican candidate in the vast majority of the nation. Cue the obligatory objection that this means the votes of the people of California and New York are “worth less.”

My point was simple. No one is saying their opinions are “worth less.” They have as much worth as anyone else’s do, if we are deciding who is more “popular” overall. But they have less IMPACT upon the result of a Presidential election. Saying that Ms. Clinton was more popular, for example, than Mr. Trump on Nov. 8 is a true statement. But a more nuanced statement would be that Ms. Clinton was more popular, but that popularity was based in large part on a significant concentration of popularity in two states; Mr. Trump was more popular over a very wide segment of the country. Presumably, the Democrats would prefer that they were more popular over a wider segment of the country, because that would mean a greater likelihood of winning not only the Presidency, but also Senate seats, House seats, etc.

So no, their “worth” is not their “impact.”

82

“Assertion”? Has something changed that wasn’t on any of the news feeds?

And why would we do that, other than to offer support for a flimsy rationalization? We should at least ask if that’s OK with them. Rather doubt it.

Well, if we view the nation as an conglomeration of abstract geographical entities, rather than a bunch of people. Gotta admit, pretty well stuck on the whole “people” thing. Perhaps that blinds me to the brilliance.

No, of course not, they simply have less impact. You make that entirely clear, this here is an aquatic bird with a silly walk and a distinctive sound, over here is a duck. Wait, was it the other way around?

Undeniably true!

Electoral College, yes, we know.

Ah, so we are back to using the commonly accepted terms. That’s a relief for me, a boor of little brain.

No, that’s an arbitrary distinction with no other purpose but to support a flimsy rationalization.

Especially those segments with less people in them. Apparently, you think that proves something very important. Why you keep saying it, I guess.

Yeah, that assertion is on pretty solid ground, being the bleeding obvious.

Not exactly “QED”. QE something. What’s the first letter in the Latin word for “faceplant”?

83

Yes, again you think you are cute, but all you do is establish that rational discourse is impossible with you. I’m done trying.

84

Mom is done – done like dinner, as washed up as a piece of driftwood. She was supposed to be a sure thing in 2016 running against a total doofus like Trump. Does anyone seriously believe she’s going to get another chance in 2020 against either a real Republican candidate or maybe – God help us all – against a New Improved Trump with presidential creds?

The interesting open question to me is Elizabeth Warren. I didn’t give it much thought until I saw her on Bill Maher the other night. If ever there was a candidate in campaign mode, this was it. I note that the comments here have not generally been terribly supportive, and I would have to agree that she wouldn’t have much appeal in the south and the flyover states but then, what Democrat would?

There something to be said for a right-leaning Democrat with broad mainstream support to avoid even the slightest risk of yet another four years of Trump, but if the economy is in shambles and foreign policy a mishandled disaster, as is likely, the timing may be right in 2020 for ANY president with a “D” after her name, and Warren would be a golden opportunity for real reform.

85

The two of you may well be arguing past each other but it still constitutes rational discourse. However, if you wish to give up that’s certainly your prerogative.

86

Not quite. They are to be re-educated as software engineers. That’s right; unemployed thirtysomething miners are to be introduced to algorithms, elearning and design. They need e-educated with a toolkit of interactive software development skills for a brave new role serving in Walmart.

87

That’s not “campaign mode”, that’s “pimping a new book” mode. The latter can be a prelude to the former, but I just don’t see her running for president. The Democrats need a governor from the South or Midwest.

88

Well I suppose they could feed one of the candidates the questions ahead of the debates.

I suppose they could try to help one candidate raise money over another.

I suppose they could make it known that one of the candidates is an atheist or try to harm them reputationally in some way. But that’s assuming that the party is not supposed to take sides.

89

Revolution is almost certainly how we will eventually achieve widescale communism.

You can inch your way to socialism, you can’t really inch your way to communism.

Communism isn’t going to get here until automation and AI have brought us to the point where the vast majority of human labor becomes essentially valueless and this accelerates the concentration of all wealth into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of capitalists. Then there will be revolution and we will have a universal basic income and the capitalists will be faced with funding this universal basic income or having their assets nationalized to fund this universal basic income. I’m eagerly awaiting the next issue of the comic book to see what happens next.

90

Its not a proposition, its a fact.

91

[quote=“elucidator, post:82, topic:785099”]

And why would we do that, other than to offer support for a flimsy rationalization? We should at least ask if that’s OK with them. Rather doubt it./quote]

Because Hillary spent a shitload of her time in states like California and the fact that she won California by a million more votes than Obama ever did should indicate that her “popular lead” might be the result of running up the score by pushing voter turnout in states that don’t count.

People generally don’t give a shit about turnout in states that don’t count. Unless you are the loser.

45% of the electorate didn’t bother to vote and frankly considering how many Hillary voters held their noses to try and prevent Trump really makes the word popular seem inappropriate when referring to Hillary’s election results.

92

It’s not surprising that the democratic party is seen as being out of touch. Given the fact that Democrats have focused all of their energy on using heavily populated blue states to win presidential elections and have, in essence, failed to have a local election strategy for the past 10-15 years, the only surprise is that this data is a surprise. The warning signs have been there all along.

And Trump is already winning the race for 2020. Don’t believe the polls – he’s way out in front in terms of connecting with his base than Democrats are with any of their constituents. Democrats don’t even know who their constituents are at this point. Now, can this change? Can Trump f up the economy or get us into a reckless foreign policy debacle that might change attitudes? Sure. But I wouldn’t necessarily count on it.

I’ve been a Hillary Clinton “centrist” (whatever that really means) but it’s clear that the energy is moving away from the polite and nuanced politics of the center. The right wing has made it abundantly clear that they stand for a society that is fundamentally unfair, a society in which their are only winners and losers. The democratic party does need a re-branding – it absolutely, positively does. But it has to be a re-branding with substance. I don’t necessarily agree with the fight for $15 or free college for all, but affordable apprenticeships and technical training for all and affordable, safe housing for all sounds like a start. Universal income might be another. I don’t know if we’d call it that --maybe a giant tax rebate at the end of the year in a lump-sum check that basically achieves that objective.

Whatever it is, that’s where the party needs to go. It needs something popular to sell to ordinary people who are struggling. Huey Long ‘sold’ free books to school children. FDR sold social security and public works projects. People don’t vote when there’s nothing tangible in it for them. Democrats need to get back to work and put something tangible in the pockets of voters.

93

The country is already awash in opiates. :smiley:

94

One thing that I believe most of you recognize, but is not being said is that both parties respond well to their constituents. But their constituents are the people who provide the money that decide elections. If Hillary doesn’t cozy up to Wall St., no money from them. Same with the drug companies and all the rest. Money talks and the supreme court has now adopted the official position that money is now protected speech. I see no way around this.

95

Opiates are the religion of the people.

96

Heh. A lot more truth to that than might appear initially!