A long-recognized flaw in the two party system has come home to roost. As long as the GOP was working to roll back a minority’s rights, the Democrats didn’t have to waste ant capital actually advocating for them. Example: 1980’s GOP “AIDS is God’s vengeance.” Democrats: okay gays, we can count on you in November (but not do shit otherwise).
This was exacerbated in the next decade with neoliberal Dems including the Clintons, who believed that a deregulated free market would do things (like develop AZT) for profit better that a return to the New Deal could.
(But we got a lot more Percocet than AZT. And private contractor wars. And artificial scarcity in affordable housing, etc. etc.)
So now we have no more Democratic constituencies, just vote-farms. They don’t yield a crop so they go untended, and because they go untended they don’t yield a crop. And as long as the GOP has a constituency that wants that crop off the market, that’s good enough for the Democrats.
I don’t believe there was any evidence of widespread voter fraud. There was evidence of foreign powers using social media to influence the election, but fraud as it’s classically defined? I don’t think so. I don’t want to fall down the same paranoid rabbit hole to find myself among Trump supporters.
That is largely because the Republicans (and Russians) were concentrating all of their fire at Clinton, and mostly leaving Sanders alone (or in the case of the Russians, helping him) because they saw him as a good way to split the Dems.
If Sanders was the nominee, then the guns would have turned on him full force. He would be tagged as a communist cranky old coot of a Jew whose loyalties lie more with Israel than with the good old US of A, who would be better of living in a Sanitarium that the white house. His election would outlaw personal property, and turn mid town American into 1970’s Moscow.
As opposed to most Demoncrats, who oppose Israel and openly root for it to be overrun by Muslims. The great thing about the QOP is that both supporting and opposing Israel are equally bad, when done by a Demoncrat.
Remember, if a candidate alienates progressives, and they don’t vote, it’s the progressives’ fault for insisting on purity tests. But if a candidate alienates centrists, and they don’t vote, it’s the progressives’ fault for being too extreme.
I suppose? But that doesn’t check against the record number of voters in the last few presidential elections. I understand it’s a human impulse, but we’re drawing national level conclusions off the results of relatively close elections in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (and maybe Georgia and North Carolina).
Thank you! I’m glad someone finally said it. Those damn, whinny progressives, always pissing and moaning about their rights and liberties, all “tax the rich” and “people shouldn’t have to die because they can’t afford insurance in one of the richest countries on Earth.” Give me a break!
you wanna crap in the GOP’s corn flakes although shed never do it … have Michelle Obama run for pres … I remember some people wanted her for VP over harris and she said thanks but no thanks
There’s two aspects to the job of POTUS. Clinton would likely do a good job at governing. The problem is that in order to get there, she would have had to do a good job at the running for office aspect of the job, and we all know how that turned out.
I agree. That’s why I hope Biden retires and Harris decides not to run in 2024. Let’s have a large primary (10-15 candidates is about right IMHO), and find out at the ballot box who Democrats fall in love with.