will the democrats crash and burn in 2018?

[Moderate Right]

Again, your job is to lie, reject facts, contradict yourself (as you did repeatedly above), and to spin policies that demonstrably cost regular Americans real benefits and spin those costs as intangible benefits. Your role here is to tell people who lost their health insurance and their jobs are now "free." In other words, your role here is pure wealthy-Right propaganda. That is why you're irrelevant.

Lie? You say that Republicans want to eliminate Medicaid and you are calling ME a liar? The facts of the CBO report say that Trumpcare will be cheaper. Am I also lying that the American public has been rejected Democrats for the last six years, giving Republicans the most power of any party since 1928?

 

[LaylaWindu]

Its too early to make a solid guess by typically things always swing :shrug:
No matter what though they won't "crash and burn", neither party ever will unless more emerge.

 

[Phys251]

It's not that I'm being stubborn to spite the Democrats. I just agree more with the Green Party. To me it's not a hard decision. You look at the platforms and see who you agree with. I'm not concerned about other Americans. It's on the Democrats and the Green Party to sort out their messaging and select the right candidates. If the Democrats select a candidate that is for single-payer, ending regime change wars, transforming our energy system, campaign finance reform, etc. I'm sure they will do wonderfully.

My problem is not that you like the Greens per se. I'm actually quite close to them positions-wise. However:

1. Given that the Greens are currently a fringe party in the United States, what are you personally doing to make them become more viable? Are you volunteering for them? Trying to advance a candidate in a local or Congressional election?

2. You claim to want "single-payer, ending regime change wars, transforming our energy system, campaign finance reform," etc. Your decision to throw away your vote guarantees that you will not see any of these goals met for at least the next four years. You did realize this at the time, right?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

will the democrats crash and burn in 2018 because of their scorched earth policy and the left's constant attacks on trump.

i myself know of people who don't like trump however they cant stand what the democrats in government are doing

will the democrats succeed in following this path into the next election and pickup more seats in congress, or lose more seats?

cast your vote

I suspect that the democrats will crash and burn in 2018 as they still have failed to get over 2010, 2014, and 2016. instead of learning from those defeats, they are still doubling down on stupid. I don't think they can help themselves. They have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 seats, between national state and local races since 2010. One has to wonder how much more loss will it take to educate them.

 

[Cardinal]

Lie? You say that Republicans want to eliminate Medicaid and you are calling ME a liar? The facts of the CBO report say that Trumpcare will be cheaper. Am I also lying that the American public has been rejected Democrats for the last six years, giving Republicans the most power of any party since 1928?

Yes, you're lying, because you know full well that the only people that health care will be cheaper for are the rich, the young, and the healthy, in other words those least affected by the costs of health care anyway. As for how medicaid and medicare...

Proponents argue that a premium support system would make Medicare services more competitive, leading to lower costs and increased coverage. What it would really do is complicate what is currently a straightforward, essentially-guaranteed healthcare program for seniors. Seniors would have to shop for their own health insurance, defeating most of the purpose of Medicare: to simply provide health insurance to the older population who may have more trouble affording it.

States wouldn't get additional federal funds, which means that they'd either have to raise taxes to make up the difference, charge enrollees, or cut spending to programs. Paul Ryan wants to allow states to require adults to work or receive training before they receive Medicaid funds, and to charge Medicaid premiums. Under Mike Pence, Indiana's Medicaid system began requiring premium payments, a system that happened to be guided by Seema Verma, who Trump nominated to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Estimates predict that over the next decade, annual block grant increases would average 4.3 percent less than Medicaid's projected growth, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also estimates that by 2024, under Ryan's proposed plan, Medicaid and CHIP -- the Children's Health Insurance Program -- would be cut by 26 percent. The Republican course of action will result in one of two different outcomes: the residents of the state pay more (whether it's only the enrollees, or everyone in the form of tax hikes) or the most vulnerable population loses access to much-needed services – or both.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-price-plans-for-obamacare-medicare-and-medicaid-commentary.html

And

Speaking to National Review editor Rich Lowry at an event hosted by the conservative magazine, House Speaker Paul Ryan made the case for the American Health Care Act by presenting it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid spending.

“We’ve been dreaming of this since I’ve been around,” Ryan says, before interrupting himself to clarify exactly how big of an opportunity this is, “since you and I were drinking out of kegs.”

Paul Ryan says he?s been ?dreaming? of Medicaid cuts since he was ?drinking out of kegs? - Vox

Medicaid and Medicare help Americans both liberal and conservative, but they don't help the rich so obviously you hate that. You spout talking points and noise because you're a wealthy-Right propagandist. Your role here is to disseminate disinformation and to tell people that their losses are their gains. You're irrelevant.

 

[Winston]

My problem is not that you like the Greens per se. I'm actually quite close to them positions-wise. However:

1. Given that the Greens are currently a fringe party in the United States, what are you personally doing to make them become more viable? Are you volunteering for them? Trying to advance a candidate in a local or Congressional election?

2. You claim to want "single-payer, ending regime change wars, transforming our energy system, campaign finance reform," etc. Your decision to throw away your vote guarantees that you will not see any of these goals met for at least the next four years. You did realize this at the time, right?

1. I don't support the Green party monetarily. I've supported Home Justice Democrats which is a fundraiser to primary establishment democrats with a ban on candidates taking PAC money.
2. Oh yeah, Donald Trump is stepping on the gas on destruction. I don't think the Democrats can contrast from the Republicans in a stark, clear way anymore. If they get off the corporate money, they can represent people again and I'll vote for them. I don't see it as throwing my vote away. I would rather vote for something that I believe in and not get it than vote for something I don't believe in and get it. I liked HRC's free college plan. I think that would have done a lot of good for our country but, there was too much I didn't like about her. The Green Party are one of the few good things about American politics right now and I was hoping to get them up to the 5% threshold.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes, you're lying, because you know full well that the only people that health care will be cheaper for are the rich, the young , and the healthy, in other words those least affected by the costs of health care anyway. As for how medicaid and medicare...





http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-price-plans-for-obamacare-medicare-and-medicaid-commentary.html

And



Paul Ryan says he?s been ?dreaming? of Medicaid cuts since he was ?drinking out of kegs? - Vox

Medicaid and Medicare help Americans both liberal and conservative, but they don't help the rich so obviously you hate that. You spout talking points and noise because you're a wealthy-Right propagandist. Your role here is to disseminate disinformation to tell people that their losses are their gains. You're irrelevant.

Liberal claptrap from a liberal. You're dishonesty is amazing. I'm surprised you didn't say that Republicans have implemented a policy of kicking children and babies.

 

[Phys251]

1. I don't support the Green party monetarily. I've supported Home Justice Democrats which is a fundraiser to primary establishment democrats with a ban on candidates taking PAC money.
2. Oh yeah, Donald Trump is stepping on the gas on destruction. I don't think the Democrats can contrast from the Republicans in a stark, clear way anymore. If they get off the corporate money, they can represent people again and I'll vote for them. I don't see it as throwing my vote away. I would rather vote for something that I believe in and not get it than vote for something I don't believe in and get it. I liked HRC's free college plan. I think that would have done a lot of good for our country but, there was too much I didn't like about her. The Green Party are one of the few good things about American politics right now and I was hoping to get them up to the 5% threshold.

But do you not understand why your voting Green, particularly in a swing state, is seen by mainstream Democratic voters as throwing away your vote?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The Republicans never paid a price for obstructing Obama's SCOTUS pick. Why should the Democrats make any consolations to them?

They were just taking Joe Biden's advice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo

Chuckie Schumer too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2WCG2bKQjg

 

[Winston]

But do you not understand why your voting Green, particularly in a swing state, is seen by mainstream Democratic voters as throwing away your vote?

I understand. I am a leftist though. I was never going to vote for HRC to begin with. I never even voted for Obama. Just because I'm a leftist doesn't mean the Democrats are entitled to me vote.

 

[Winston]

They were just taking Joe Biden's advice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo

Chuckie Schumer too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2WCG2bKQjg

I remember that.. they said honor the Senate traditions or something, it was some code of conduct. I don't care, I still think the Republicans obstructionism gives them no moral ground to stand on when they will inevitably moan about resistance.

 

[Fiddytree]

The odds are still more likely than not that Democrats will have a rough showing. It may not be as rough as it would have been under a Clinton administration, but when you're considering the internal party war *and* how that interacts with many of your seats being in vulnerable areas while Republicans are largely safe, it's not good.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Born Free]

The Democrats need to come left for me. If they don't come left for me I will vote Green the rest of my life.

The Dems are already leftist, that is exactly why you lost over a 1,000 seats across the country and the House, Senate and the White House. Obamas leftist policies are why your party lost over the last 8 yrs. Yes go more left and the Dem party continues to decline. What you don't get is why you lost all those seats, you think if the Dems go further left they will win. Your liberal leftist policies have been rejected going further left will result in further rejection. Have at it.

 

[Phys251]

I understand. I am a leftist though. I was never going to vote for HRC to begin with. I never even voted for Obama. Just because I'm a leftist doesn't mean the Democrats are entitled to me vote.

Here's the thing: If you're that far out there to the left, then both major parties seem to show up only in your rear-view mirror. I get that. But I also get that:

A. The Green party has never been battle-tested. We can go back and forth on the Greens' platform and whether it would work, but the truth is that because they've never had the reigns of power--hell, they don't even have a single seat in Congress or even a state legislature--we would just be theorycrafting.

B. Because of districting and first-past-the-post elections, entry into the political sphere for minor parties is very difficult. Take your state of Michigan, for example. Republican Representatives got 2.243M (48.0%) of the votes, Democrats got 2.194M (47.0%) votes, leaving about 5% of the votes for third parties. It is also important to note that because of gerrymandering, the GOP took 9 seats and the Dems only got 5.

You want to know what will give the Greens and other minor parties a chance? Proportional voting. There are several ways to do it; I for one would like to see something like the single transferable vote by party. That way, you could, for example, freely choose what party you wanted, and if you wanted to maximize your chances of having your vote count, rank as many parties below the Greens as you saw fit.

But how to get past the issue of Congressional districts? Abolish them. Make the entire state of Michigan into one single superdistrict. You guys currently have 14 representatives, so to get a Green into congress, you would only need about 7% of the overall vote, which exceeds the 5% minimum that, say, Germany puts into place. As a bonus, no gerrymandering.

That kind of political reform is what's going to move us forward and empower parties such as the Greens. But simply sitting out elections because you don't like your limited choices? Nah, no good. That won't help anyone except the Republicans.

 

[Winston]

The Dems are already leftist, that is exactly why you lost over a 1,000 seats across the country and the House, Senate and the White House. Obamas leftist policies are why your party lost over the last 8 yrs. Yes go more left and the Dem party continues to decline. What you don't get is why you lost all those seats, you think if the Dems go further left they will win. Your liberal leftist policies have been rejected going further left will result in further rejection. Have at it.

The Democrats poo-poo left/liberal/progressives in their party. If the Democrats can produce some progressive candidates, then we will see some contests that are interesting. I'm morbidly curious how a grassroots funded, no-PAC money, candidate running on a platform of income disparity, single-payer, climate change, campaign finance reform, criminal justice reform, and Wall St. reform, would fair against a Tea Party Republican. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't produce candidates that run on those platforms because their donors are against all those things.

Basically take a Kshama Sawant and run her against a Ted Cruz. Kshama Sawant is as left as you can get. She's a socialist councilwoman from Seattle.

Do you see the difference between a Kshama Sawant and a Hillary Clinton? There is a huge difference. Kshama Sawant is a leftist. Hillary Clinton is center-right on economics, and center-left on social issues. Kshama Sawant is flat out left.

 

[Fiddytree]

The Dems are already leftist, that is exactly why you lost over a 1,000 seats across the country and the House, Senate and the White House. Obamas leftist policies are why your party lost over the last 8 yrs. Yes go more left and the Dem party continues to decline. What you don't get is why you lost all those seats, you think if the Dems go further left they will win. Your liberal leftist policies have been rejected going further left will result in further rejection. Have at it.

I don't know if that's entirely why they lost most of those seats, but it's a large part of it.

The other part is cultural changes that stem more from geographical concentration than strictly political changes.

The Democratic Party is still seen as moderate, to some degree, but those who view them as "moderate" are more left-wing, and far more urban than rural. The former distinctions are meaningful, but the latter is significantly overlooked.

Chuck Schumer has extreme difficulty talking about "rural people" in a way that is not similar to how a lot of conservatives talk about people of color. It's extremely stilted, like they are looking at an alien species, or perhaps better yet (because the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming the well-educated urbanites professional) an early 20th century academic describing an isolated tribe in Africa.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

Um...no. As much as you might like to think so, Democrat voters aren't having their environmental and financial protections removed while Republican voters are keeping theirs.

See, you seem to think that "the American public" in general favors liberal policies and sees these things as "losses" the same way you do.

it's this kind of inability to grasp what large swathes of the American people really do think, and how they really do see them, that have relegated the Democrats to the cheap seats.

You seem to think that most Americans are dying to be just like "progressive" urbanites if they only had someone to make it clear to them that they're "voting against their interests."

It's amusing that you invoke the "24 million" who will "lose" their insurance, without at all grasping that quite a few of them only have it because they're being forced to, and aren't at all happy about it. You're only capable of seeing it as them "losing" something. They see it as being rid of a costly burden they didn't want.

Until the Democrats start to figure this stuff out -- and many folks who think and post like you do lead me to think that's not going to be any time soon -- they're going to continue to be shellacked.

 

[Fiddytree]

See, you seem to think that "the American public" in general favors liberal policies and sees these things as "losses" the same way you do.

it's this kind of inability to grasp what large swathes of the American people really do think, and how they really do see them, that have relegated the Democrats to the cheap seats.

You seem to think that most Americans are dying to be just like "progressive" urbanites if they only had someone to make it clear to them that they're "voting against their interests."

It's amusing that you invoke the "24 million" who will "lose" their insurance, without at all grasping that quite a few of them only have it because they're being forced to, and aren't at all happy about it. You're only capable of seeing it as them "losing" something. They see it as being rid of a costly burden they didn't want.

Until the Democrats start to figure this stuff out -- and many folks who think and post like you do lead me to think that's not going to be any time soon -- they're going to continue to be shellacked.

In your middle point, the CBO (unsurprisingly) said that the bulk of the initial 14 million uninsured will be as a result of *either* purely opting out or being priced out of the system. Thereafter, the bulk of the losses will come as a result of destroying Medicaid Expansion and significantly (excuse my pun) crippling Medicaid.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

In your middle point, the CBO (unsurprisingly) said that the bulk of the initial 14 million uninsured will be as a result of *either* purely opting out or being priced out of the system. Thereafter, the bulk of the losses will come as a result of destroying Medicaid Expansion and significantly (excuse my pun) crippling Medicaid.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I didn't give a number of how many it would be. I did not say "all."

 

[Winston]

I don't know if that's entirely why they lost most of those seats, but it's a large part of it.

The other part is cultural changes that stem more from geographical concentration than strictly political changes.

The Democratic Party is still seen as moderate, to some degree, but those who view them as "moderate" are more left-wing, and far more urban than rural. The former distinctions are meaningful, but the latter is significantly overlooked.

Chuck Schumer has extreme difficulty talking about "rural people" in a way that is not similar to how a lot of conservatives talk about people of color. It's extremely stilted, like they are looking at an alien species, or perhaps better yet (because the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming the well-educated urbanites professional) an early 20th century academic describing an isolated tribe in Africa.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

hey Fiddytree. In my view the Democrats are way too moderate. Hillary tried to siphon a point or two off moderate Republicans, and that didn't work. She lost the election. If she would've spent more time sincerely healing the party divide she would've won the election. I already showed the numbers in previous posts. She lost PA, WI, and MI by 77,000 votes, but third party votes surged to 503,000 in those three states. If she could've healed the divide, instead of courting moderate Republicans, she would've won the election. It's my view that the Democrats need to move left. They need to embrace single-payer, green energy, anti-war, and build their message around Bernie's message of income/wealth disparity.

Doubling down on neoliberalism is going to destroy the party, because neo-liberal economics have destroyed the middle class. Right now we have real problems in the country that are fixed with progressive tools. Tax reform being chief among them.

 

[Fiddytree]

hey Fiddytree. In my view the Democrats are way too moderate. Hillary tried to siphon a point or two off moderate Republicans, and that didn't work. She lost the election. If she would've spent more time sincerely healing the party divide she would've won the election. I already showed the numbers in previous posts. She lost PA, WI, and MI by 77,000 votes, but third party votes surged to 503,000 in those three states. If she could've healed the divide, instead of courting moderate Republicans, she would've won the election. It's my view that the Democrats need to move left. They need to embrace single-payer, green energy, anti-war, and build their message around Bernie's message of income/wealth disparity.

Doubling down on neoliberalism is going to destroy the party, because neo-liberal economics have destroyed the middle class. Right now we have real problems in the country that are fixed with progressive tools. Tax reform being chief among them.

I think this is an example of the geographical cultural divide.

Toward the end of the campaign Clinton made an "effort" at courting moderate Republicans, but it was mostly a rhetorical device to say "that Trump guy is batty." Her pick of Kaine, while ostensibly moderate to urban voters, was still quite urban in his policy focus.

Clinton did not speak to rural voters when she, nearly all of the other candidates (save Jim Webb) and the DNC were hammering firearms, coal, oil, and pipelines.

The Democratic Party's efforts to gain rural voters could have looked at Manchin or Heitkamp (or even, perhaps, the upstart Buttigieg) for inspiration. Instead, it entirely ceded that area of the spectrum. Blue Dog Democrats are the closest thing the Democrats had to moderate Republican candidates and voters, but were almost entirely ignored by almost the entire party. Instead, liberals and the burgeoning Democratic Socialist center of the Party were arguing who best fit the largely urban hipster crowd, tugging at either their educational priorities or their urban labor cries.

The DNC debate showed a lot of that continuing. Both major candidates represented the same debate: urban bourgeois liberalism or urban socialism.

The Democratic Party's pretensions for a 50 state plan are not going to work, because urbanism is the plight of the Democrat, not rural America. I see much of its electoral college problems continuing, because they continue to cede rural America to Republicans. Sure, they will eventually get back the Midwest by the (apparently needed) 70,000 votes, but this will continue to hurt them elsewhere.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Fiddytree]

I didn't give a number of how many it would be. I did not say "all."

But when the bulk of the losers will actually be losers, your point falls flat.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

If the Democrats don't figure out something different, they're **** out of luck.

 

[Risky Thicket]

The poll is a "When did you stop beating your wife" poll. There was no appropriate choice so I didn't respond.

Some of you are not aware but the United States is no longer a democracy. As such the two "ruling" parties concept is a myth. Both parties are have crashed and burned as far as the democratic republic is concerned.

 

[Winston]

I think this is an example of the geographical cultural divide.

Toward the end of the campaign Clinton made an "effort" at courting moderate Republicans, but it was mostly a rhetorical device to say "that Trump guy is batty." Her pick of Kaine, while ostensibly moderate to urban voters, was still quite urban in his policy focus.

Clinton did not speak to rural voters when she, nearly all of the other candidates (save Jim Webb) and the DNC were hammering firearms, coal, oil, and pipelines.

The Democratic Party's efforts to gain rural voters could have looked at Manchin or Heitkamp (or even, perhaps, the upstart Buttigieg) for inspiration. Instead, it entirely ceded that area of the spectrum. Blue Dog Democrats are the closest thing the Democrats had to moderate Republican candidates and voters, but were almost entirely ignored by almost the entire party. Instead, liberals and the burgeoning Democratic Socialist center of the Party were arguing who best fit the largely urban hipster crowd, tugging at either their educational priorities or their urban labor cries.

The DNC debate showed a lot of that continuing. Both major candidates represented the same debate: urban bourgeois liberalism or urban socialism.

The Democratic Party's pretensions for a 50 state plan are not going to work, because urbanism is the plight of the Democrat, not rural America. I see much of its electoral college problems continuing, because they continue to cede rural America to Republicans. Sure, they will eventually get back the Midwest by the (apparently needed) 70,000 votes, but this will continue to hurt them elsewhere.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Bernie's message of income inequality resonated in rural WV. He was also anti-TPP. If a democrat can run on single-payer, that is a very left wing policy, but would appeal to rural America. I think you can appeal to rural America as well as urban communities. But, you have to buck the corporatists and embrace real progressive policy.