• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders urges progressives to seek more electoral wins

I can agree with that, but I have doubts about the way Bernie wants to do it.

The Dem party is not as "homogenous" as you might think, and if Bernie lost the primaries it shows that not all Dems want "real, substantial change". (Which, yes, I agree is fundamentally necessary to take the US out of the stone-age of democracy.)

Progressives must have goals but understand that changing American mentalities is a long, hard slog.

For America, it seems that "success" is reduced fundamentally to one parameter. Called "Wealth". How much ya got relative to everybody else. Which is the foundation of our presently stark Income Disparity in the nation.

If you were to live in a truly Social Democracy, you'd understand that the calamity of concentration of Wealth, due to low upper-income taxation, is NOT THE PROBLEM. Yes, there are multimillionaires, but such an objective is not the mind-boggling pursuit of the entire nation.

Those living below the Poverty Threshold in the US are 14% of the population. In Sweden they are 7% - half that amount.

And a nation's goal should be 3/5%. Can we achieve that same reduced level?

Of course we can.

But not by voting Replicants in charge of Congress and the Presidency! And certainly not by voting Donald Dork as PotUS - a guy born with a 40Megabuck spoon in his mouth ...

I think you're seriously underestimating the thirst for real change.

The vast majority of Americans want money out of politics.

A majority of Americans actually support most of Bernie's substantive ideas on healthcare and education.

Beyond that, he was far more popular among the general populace (and remains so, as the most popular politician in the States) than both Hillary and Trump; significantly more popular among them in fact, than he was among the Dems during the primary. Fast forward from then till now, and I can only imagine that his vision for the party is now at better than 50% support among the Democratic party. Though it's true establishment types and the donor/consultant class/third way Clintonites continue a desperate stranglehold on its senior leadership and fight tooth and nail against necessary and meaningful change, I've no doubt that there's been substantive change in both the composition and predilections of the Dem rank and file since 2016.

Incrementalism isn't necessary to defeat the likes of Trump and the Republicans; in fact, it may well be actively toxic and counterproductive in this respect per Hillary's example and the historic recent electoral losses suffered by the Democratic party.
 
Mr. " I Could Never Hold A Job " .......................before finally getting a tax payer funded job and lecturing others about jobs and taxes.
 
I can agree with that, but I have doubts about the way Bernie wants to do it.

The Dem party is not as "homogenous" as you might think, and if Bernie lost the primaries it shows that not all Dems want "real, substantial change". (Which, yes, I agree is fundamentally necessary to take the US out of the stone-age of democracy.)

Progressives must have goals but understand that changing American mentalities is a long, hard slog.

For America, it seems that "success" is reduced fundamentally to one parameter. Called "Wealth". How much ya got relative to everybody else. Which is the foundation of our presently stark Income Disparity in the nation.

If you were to live in a truly Social Democracy, you'd understand that the calamity of concentration of Wealth, due to low upper-income taxation, is NOT THE PROBLEM. Yes, there are multimillionaires, but such an objective is not the mind-boggling pursuit of the entire nation.

Those living below the Poverty Threshold in the US are 14% of the population. In Sweden they are 7% - half that amount.

And a nation's goal should be 3/5%. Can we achieve that same reduced level?

Of course we can.

But not by voting Replicants in charge of Congress and the Presidency! And certainly not by voting Donald Dork as PotUS - a guy born with a 40Megabuck spoon in his mouth ...

As you well know the "poverty level" is politically defined and is actually only sensibly used as a populist tool. You realise that the average income of the population of the Land Meckenburg-Vorpommern (german State) in Germany's social democracy is below the poverty level of a nearby Land of Hamburg or Southern German Bavaria? You also probably know, as I found, when I ran the numbers a few years ago that the buying power at the bottom of the income ladder in the German social democracy is about the same as that of the American poor after transfers and adjusted for temporal swings. The difference in average income of the others is thus made up by the rest having less.
Were you to take the other countries, I suspect you would find similar hypocrisy hidden behind the pompous politicat tirades.
 
Mr. " I Could Never Hold A Job " .......................before finally getting a tax payer funded job and lecturing others about jobs and taxes.

People paid to laud the blessings of socialism led to the implosion of the Soviet system.
 
I think you're seriously underestimating the thirst for real change.

The vast majority of Americans want money out of politics.

A majority of Americans actually support most of Bernie's substantive ideas on healthcare and education.

Beyond that, he was far more popular among the general populace (and remains so, as the most popular politician in the States) than both Hillary and Trump; significantly more popular among them in fact, than he was among the Dems during the primary. Fast forward from then till now, and I can only imagine that his vision for the party is now at better than 50% support among the Democratic party. Though it's true establishment types and the donor/consultant class/third way Clintonites continue a desperate stranglehold on its senior leadership and fight tooth and nail against necessary and meaningful change, I've no doubt that there's been substantive change in both the composition and predilections of the Dem rank and file since 2016.

Incrementalism isn't necessary to defeat the likes of Trump and the Republicans; in fact, it may well be actively toxic and counterproductive in this respect per Hillary's example and the historic recent electoral losses suffered by the Democratic party.

Yes, you may be right (though I think you are Left-of-center ;^)!

But Hillary did win the nomination (and did win the popular vote). Bernie has put together a fine program of Social Improvements. But most Americans are afraid of the world "Socialist", which exists nowhere in the world today except North Korea. Since socialist theory advocated the national ownership of all production resources. (That just doesn't work in a market-economy based upon Demand - the originator of all Supply.)

So, if Bernie has established a list of "Nice things to have in an American Social Democracy", getting there is still going to be the hard part.

There are two fundamental attributes of most Social Democracies, which are:
*National HealthCare Systems
*Free Tertiary Education

How many American support fundamentally*both ideas? (I can't find a poll that sought answers; but if I do, then I'll post it here.)

*In Europe, both are non-negotiable attributes of their Social Democracies.
 
I think you're seriously underestimating the thirst for real change. The vast majority of Americans want money out of politics. A majority of Americans actually support most of Bernie's substantive ideas on healthcare and education.

Incrementalism isn't necessary to defeat the likes of Trump and the Republicans; in fact, it may well be actively toxic and counterproductive in this respect per Hillary's example and the historic recent electoral losses suffered by the Democratic party.

Yes, you may be right (though I think you are Left-of-center ;^)!

But Hillary did win the nomination (and did win the popular vote). Bernie has put together a fine program of Social Improvements. But most Americans are afraid of the world "Socialist", which exists nowhere in the world today except North Korea. Since socialist theory advocated the national ownership of all production resources. (That just doesn't work in a market-economy based upon Demand - the originator of all Supply.)

So, if Bernie has established a list of "Nice things to have in an American Social Democracy", getting there is still going to be the hard part.

There are two fundamental attributes of most Social Democracies, which are:
*National HealthCare Systems
*Free Tertiary Education (which Hillary adopted into her platform)

How many American support fundamentally*both ideas? (I can't find a poll that sought answers; but if I do, then I'll post it here.)

*In Europe, both are non-negotiable attributes of their Social Democracies.
 
I put the question above, "Do Americans want a Social Democracy". The two most predominant aspects of such are National Health Care Systems and Free Tertiary Education.

Here is an answer to the first above. Note how the change is still very recent, and if more than half, not really at the amount that would be necessary to get it passed any time soon. (Trump would veto it.)

Nonetheless:
FT_17.01.13_healthCoverage_responsibility.png
 
Yes, you may be right (though I think you are Left-of-center ;^)!

But Hillary did win the nomination (and did win the popular vote). Bernie has put together a fine program of Social Improvements. But most Americans are afraid of the world "Socialist", which exists nowhere in the world today except North Korea. Since socialist theory advocated the national ownership of all production resources. (That just doesn't work in a market-economy based upon Demand - the originator of all Supply.)

So, if Bernie has established a list of "Nice things to have in an American Social Democracy", getting there is still going to be the hard part.

There are two fundamental attributes of most Social Democracies, which are:
*National HealthCare Systems
*Free Tertiary Education (which Hillary adopted into her platform)

How many American support fundamentally*both ideas? (I can't find a poll that sought answers; but if I do, then I'll post it here.)

*In Europe, both are non-negotiable attributes of their Social Democracies.

Agreed. Again though, I think you're underestimating the state of progressivism in the States, and getting far too hung up on the socialist label and Dem primaries.

Again, it's important to note that Sanders was substantially more popular than Hillary among the general populace if not the Democratic party; we are talking about Americans, not Democrats (and since 2016 as noted, the Democratic party has itself become increasingly progressive). The 2016 Dem nominations are not nearly a finger on the pulse of American society and its desires by any means.


I put the question above, "Do Americans want a Social Democracy". The two most predominant aspects of such are National Health Care Systems and Free Tertiary Education.

Here is an answer to the first above. Note how the change is still very recent, and if more than half, not really at the amount that would be necessary to get it passed any time soon. (Trump would veto it.)

Nonetheless:
FT_17.01.13_healthCoverage_responsibility.png

Since you've shown that the American people do, and increasingly agree with Bernie's stance on health care (also noting that this wasn't actually recent; it's a sentiment that's been oscillating back and forth, largely in favour of it), other issues they agree with him on:

Do Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders? (INFOGRAPHIC)

Americans overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders? economic policies ? so how?d we end up here? - Salon.com
 
Agreed. Again though, I think you're underestimating the state of progressivism in the States, and getting far too hung up on the socialist label and Dem primaries.

You may be correct. I am looking at the US from abroad. That has its good aspects and its bad.

And I don't mind in the least being corrected when the correction is validated by factual evidence. (Which is sorely lacking on this forum from the Right.)

But, what I am keen about is making fellow Americans (Yes, I am one!) understand the difference between Socialism and a Social Democracy.

Socialism vs Social Democracy (from the Atlantic): Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist - excerpt follows.

Let us start at the well of the socialist renewal, the Vermont senator. Sanders, as everyone knows, calls himself a “democratic socialist.” The word “democratic” is fundamental here, because historically socialism has not, typically, come about as a result of free and fair elections. In most socialist countries, like the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic where your humble author was born, socialism was imposed at the point of a gun. Sanders, therefore, is wise to distance himself from the socialists of yesteryear and insist that socialism in America should be chosen, freely and fairly, by the electorate.

As many of Sanders’s supporters have repeatedly and rightly pointed out, socialism is not communism. In fact, for most of the 20th century, socialism was understood to be a halfway house between capitalism and communism. The latter was a utopian vision of the future characterized by classless, stateless, and money less communal living. Strictly speaking, therefore, no communist country was ever “communist”—not even the Soviet Union (a.k.a., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.

The difference brought about by Social Democracies in Europe is that - by means of higher taxation and government spending - the abuses of Unnfettered Capitalism are mitigated by the simple fact that Income Disparity is prevented. That is, more of the National Wealth that we all generate by means of our work - after taxation - returns to the common weal. Whazat?!?

That is, "The benefit or interests of all members of a country or community".

Not equally, but equitably ...
 
You may be correct. I am looking at the US from abroad. That has its good aspects and its bad.

And I don't mind in the least being corrected when the correction is validated by factual evidence. (Which is sorely lacking on this forum from the Right.)

But, what I am keen about is making fellow Americans (Yes, I am one!) understand the difference between Socialism and a Social Democracy.

Socialism vs Social Democracy (from the Atlantic): Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist - excerpt follows.


The difference brought about by Social Democracies in Europe is that - by means of higher taxation and government spending - the abuses of Unnfettered Capitalism are mitigated by the simple fact that Income Disparity is prevented. That is, more of the National Wealth that we all generate by means of our work - after taxation - returns to the common weal. Whazat?!?

That is, "The benefit or interests of all members of a country or community".

Not equally, but equitably ...

Well that, and Europe actually has stuff like publicly funded elections, and substantive limits on lobbying and money in politics which are largely responsible for the plutocracy that exists in the States today and suppresses expression of the population's appetite for progressive policy. In some European countries mass political advertising isn't even permitted.

Compare and contrast that to a SCOTUS that enshrined unlimited political spending in 1976 per Buckley v Valeo, deeming 'money is speech'.

In light of recent Princeton studies on this phenomena of an unspoken plutocracy ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ), the impact on federal American democracy, or what passes for it cannot be overstated.
 
Last edited:
In light of recent Princeton studies on this phenomena of an unspoken plutocracy ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...litics.doc.pdf ), the impact on federal American democracy, or what passes for it cannot be overstated.

Agreed.

But until a larger majority of the American voting population understand "what is going on" in terms of manipulation of the American-democracy, I doubt much can be really done. Except in the long term.

It's the regeneration of an entire population with Other Cultural Values. That is,
with the belief that, after all, "becoming a millionaire is not the summum of human achievement".

This all happened once before a long, long time ago when a place called Rome had a Senate (populated by the rich) who refused the "plebians" any say in governance. That "empire" finally came to its dismal end.

The same could happen in America. There will come a time when parts of the population - plunged in abject poverty without issue - will "have had enough". Just like the Watts Riots in 1965.

Can't happen again?

Watch this space ...
 
From the Guardian here: Bernie Sanders urges progressives to seek more electoral wins

Excerpts:

It's time to prepare for the mid-terms, where the Dems take back the HofR ...

You have to wonder why Bernie would support a party that colluded with his opponent and media to make sure he lost. If thats not "the ruling class" I dont know what is. Until Bernie cleans up the party, I dont see why the next election would be any better for them than the last one, where 10 million democrats didnt even show up to vote. They are obviously turned off of the Party.
 
You have to wonder why Bernie would support a party that colluded with his opponent and media to make sure he lost. If thats not "the ruling class" I dont know what is.

It's called "politics" and not of the ruling class.

Of which, you are evidently not savvy. Perhaps you think the Dems are run like the Replicants?

Yes, it is THAT - isn't it!

Bernie lost the Dem-election. Period.

Moving right along! Bernie is trying to "improve" the party based upon the movement he was able to stimulate. Which does not mean for a moment, that all the Traditional Dems will follow him - and he knows that.

Unlike the Replicants who are fixated on protecting existing Taxation Rates, the Dems are a rainbow of political colours. Which is both their strong-point and their weakness, depending upon the objective.

NB: Bernie is the ONLY MEMBER of the Senate who belongs to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in which he finds many kindred-spirits amongst the predominantly Dem-group in the HofR.

Until Bernie cleans up the party, I dont see why the next election would be any better for them than the last one, where 10 million democrats didnt even show up to vote. They are obviously turned off of the Party.

Bernie is not cleaning up anything. Which would entail the following:
*Limiting financial support to a maximum $5K per voter,
*Ending definitively gerrymandering and
*Dismissing the Electoral College.

Expect none of that. The US does not want to change, so we shall continue to elect politicians "the old way". Meaning any Tom, Dick or Donald Dork can get elected PotUS and the popular-vote is manipulated in order to do so ...
 
Last edited:
From the Guardian here: Bernie Sanders urges progressives to seek more electoral wins

Excerpts:

It's time to prepare for the mid-terms, where the Dems take back the HofR ...

With Trump as president, the chances are good. But I also think to accomplish taking back the house, some common sense must be used. The question is do the progressives want to defeat a more moderate Democrat in a conservative district in the primary only to get trounced in the general or do they also back the more moderate Democrat who very well could win a conservative district in 2018 due mostly to an unpopular Donald Trump?

Remember history, the Tea Party in 2010 and 2012 did exactly what perhaps Sanders wants. The Tea party defeated more moderate Republicans in the primaries only to have them lose their senate seat in the general in states the more moderate Republican would have won. Aiken, Mourdock, O'Donnell, Angle comes quickly to mind. Far right candidates who defeated candidates who stood or would have won the general in the primaries.
 
With Trump as president, the chances are good. But I also think to accomplish taking back the house, some common sense must be used. The question is do the progressives want to defeat a more moderate Democrat in a conservative district in the primary only to get trounced in the general or do they also back the more moderate Democrat who very well could win a conservative district in 2018 due mostly to an unpopular Donald Trump?

Remember history, the Tea Party in 2010 and 2012 did exactly what perhaps Sanders wants. The Tea party defeated more moderate Republicans in the primaries only to have them lose their senate seat in the general in states the more moderate Republican would have won. Aiken, Mourdock, O'Donnell, Angle comes quickly to mind. Far right candidates who defeated candidates who stood or would have won the general in the primaries.

You are right. Just because Bernie lost the Dem Primary and Hillary (won the popular-vote but) lost the election does not mean that the duality-in-nature (Centrist and Progressive) of the Dem-voter is denied. There is a younger contingent that is decidedly Bernie and an older contingent that still likes Hillary.

The Dems need to understand that political-outlook duality in their constituencies geographically. The Dems are no longer an entirely homogeneous political party ... (especially in California)
 
It's called "politics" and not of the ruling class.

Of which, you are evidently not savvy. Perhaps you think the Dems are run like the Replicants?

]...

I guess youre more interested in name calling.
 
You are right. Just because Bernie lost the Dem Primary and Hillary (won the popular-vote but) lost the election does not mean that the duality-in-nature (Centrist and Progressive) of the Dem-voter is denied. There is a younger contingent that is decidedly Bernie and an older contingent that still likes Hillary.

The Dems need to understand that political-outlook duality in their constituencies geographically. The Dems are no longer an entirely homogeneous political party ... (especially in California)

The Democrats never were a homogeneous political party. Once they were known as the big tent party. Americans of all political ideologies identified with them. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party had its conservative wing and its liberal wing along with those in the middle. They would unite come election time and it was this big tent that gave the Democrats 40 continuous years of control of the House and 56 out of 60 years going back to FDR.

They would united come election time and then fight like Hades in congress against each other during congressional sessions. Will Rogers put it best when he said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

The problem is both political parties have become more and more ideological pure. That has left more Americans without a political home. In 2000 35% of all Americans said they were independents, today that number is 42%. In 2012 35% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats, 30% as Republicans, today those numbers are 30% Democratic and 27% Republicans. Both parties are shrinking. As late as Reagan the Democrats had 40% of the electorate that identified with them. Above 50% in 1964 and 1975. and in the 40's from FDR through Reagan.

The big tent has folded. I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle. Somewhere in-between their ideologies and perhaps begin governing as such. That is a dream that seems far out of reach. The big tent will not return.
 
Bernie, you know I love you and you were my man in the day when my vote was cast, but get with it.
They won those seats by standing up to the ruling class,"
Isn't that what people did when they voted for Trump instead of the same old insiders who feel, or felt, rather comfortable in their lofty positions?
 
LOOK IN THE MIRROR

The problem is both political parties have become more and more ideological pure. That has left more Americans without a political home. In 2000 35% of all Americans said they were independents, today that number is 42%. In 2012 35% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats, 30% as Republicans, today those numbers are 30% Democratic and 27% Republicans. Both parties are shrinking. As late as Reagan the Democrats had 40% of the electorate that identified with them. Above 50% in 1964 and 1975. and in the 40's from FDR through Reagan.

The big tent has folded. I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle. Somewhere in-between their ideologies and perhaps begin governing as such. That is a dream that seems far out of reach. The big tent will not return.

Very interesting resumé and thank you.

Let's not forget that we have just been through the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. This had to have an impact upon mentalities, both political and personal. Moreover, the higher up the Income Ladder a nation gets, in fact, the more people think that their standard of living is a fixed-condition repeatable ad-infinitum.

It isn't, of course, because a market-economy is a highly mutable variable and depends upon a great many events that are unpredictable. Like the subprime mess that would have been predicted had the FRB been doing its job investigating the fundamental basis of mortgaging at the time. (And snuffed it in time.)

Still, let's not forget a very obvious set of "blamable factors" that are attributable politically. (To Replicants, I hasten to add.)

First was the Great Recession handed to Obama on a Silver Platter by one of the most incompetent PotUSs in history. The second was the fact that Obama employed traditional economic measures to exit the recession. Namely, stimulus spending.

It worked - his ARRA-legislation bill upon entering office was the appropriate response to spike an exploding Unemployment Rate at 10% in 2010 passed by a Dem HofR at the time. (See that accomplishment here.) What was inappropriate from 2010 onward was the Replicant refusal of further stimulus-spending to expand employment creation. For four more years - from 2010 to 2014 - the American economy failed to create sufficiently jobs. (See that failure here.)

My point is simple. Rather than moaning about it, the American public should understand the reasons behind that lack of employment dynamic that caused much of the pain of the Great Recession. The Replicants, having taken control of the HofR in 2010 (from which spending bills issue) refused any further Stimulus Spending.

They offered as an excuse
patent nonsense about Austerity Spending - denounced by numerous American economists. (See Robert Reich' article titled The Republican Economic Plan Is An Austerity Death-Trap)

MY POINT?

We, the sheeple, don't understand when politicians (that we elect) get-the-economics-wrong. We first voted the HofR into the control of Replicants (2010), and then they sat back for four more years claiming "Budget Austerity" for not creating more jobs. Why? To sink Obama's reelection in 2012.

What did we, the sheeple, then do in 2016 for this craven ineffectiveness? In 2016 we gave them the White House!

When a people get that politically stoopid, there is no need to seek where the fault lies. It is within our political system, and to see the blamable person one need only look in a mirror ...
 
Last edited:
LOOK IN THE MIRROR



Very interesting resumé and thank you.

Let's not forget that we have just been through the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. This had to have an impact upon mentalities, both political and personal. Moreover, the higher up the Income Ladder a nation gets, in fact, the more people think that their standard of living is a fixed-condition repeatable ad-infinitum.

It isn't, of course, because a market-economy is a highly mutable variable and depends upon a great many events that are unpredictable. Like the subprime mess that would have been predicted had the FRB been doing its job investigating the fundamental basis of mortgaging at the time. (And snuffed it in time.)


MY POINT?

We, the sheeple, don't understand when politicians (that we elect) get-the-economics-wrong. We first voted the HofR into the control of Replicants (2010), and then they sat back for four more years claiming "Budget Austerity" for not creating more jobs. Why? To sink Obama's reelection in 2012.

What did we, the sheeple, then do in 2016 for this craven ineffectiveness? In 2016 we gave them the White House!

When a people get that politically stoopid, there is no need to seek where the fault lies. It is within our political system, and to see the blamable person one need only look in a mirror ...

You gave the GOP the White House mainly because of the person you nominated. You choose about the only Democrat, living or dead that could possibility lose to Trump. I am speaking as one of those who voted third party because I detested both Clinton and Trump. It is my opinion the Democrats have no one to blame on losing the White House but themselves. Many of us just wanted a decent candidate and none was offered.

The depression was in the makings many years before Hoover. It is true the makings for it began and continued under various Republican presidents. The policies or should I say no policies under Harding and Coolidge seeded the Great Depression. Then Hoover was out of his league in handling it. But that was an entirely different era where it was viewed by both parties that they didn't interfere with big business. That is except Teddy Roosevelt.

I don't know why we continue to blame a president when something like the Great Depression or any major event happens during their administration. It's easy I suppose, but usually whatever it was has been brewing for many years. It's like Vietnam, we tend to blame it all on LBJ, but it had its seeds back when Truman allowed the French to return and then sent to Saigon Americas first advisors/troops. The seeds had been sown. Vietnam, Southeast Asia had become part of Truman's containment policy.

I do think the Bush II tax cuts was ill-advisable, the same with the proposed Trump tax cuts. With 20 trillion in debt or there about, the last thing this nation needs is tax cuts. I also believe that this nation's number one enemy, its worst enemy is the national debt it has rung up. Our children, grand children and those yet unborn will pay for that and once we fall off into that financial abyss, the Great Depression will look like a walk in the park.

If I were president I would raise taxes and cut spending. I would look toward the future even if it meant some suffering now. But our politicians, elected officials never look into the future, never beyond the next election.
 
You gave the GOP the White House mainly because of the person you nominated.

Hillary WON THE POPULAR VOTE - which is the only measure of voting in every other democracy on earth. She won the popular vote by the largest margin of anyone who lost the election in the Electoral College - which was 2%!

Are you daft? Nobody can call that a "fair election"! Nobody in their right mind, that is.

(Meaning lobotomized Replicants ...)
 
The Democrats never were a homogeneous political party. Once they were known as the big tent party. Americans of all political ideologies identified with them. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party had its conservative wing and its liberal wing along with those in the middle. They would unite come election time and it was this big tent that gave the Democrats 40 continuous years of control of the House and 56 out of 60 years going back to FDR.

They would united come election time and then fight like Hades in congress against each other during congressional sessions. Will Rogers put it best when he said, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

The problem is both political parties have become more and more ideological pure. That has left more Americans without a political home. In 2000 35% of all Americans said they were independents, today that number is 42%. In 2012 35% of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats, 30% as Republicans, today those numbers are 30% Democratic and 27% Republicans. Both parties are shrinking. As late as Reagan the Democrats had 40% of the electorate that identified with them. Above 50% in 1964 and 1975. and in the 40's from FDR through Reagan.

The big tent has folded. I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle. Somewhere in-between their ideologies and perhaps begin governing as such. That is a dream that seems far out of reach. The big tent will not return.

I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle.


That is not who the system serves.
 
Hillary WON THE POPULAR VOTE - which is the only measure of voting in every other democracy on earth. She won the popular vote by the largest margin of anyone who lost the election in the Electoral College - which was 2%!

Are you daft? Nobody can call that a "fair election"! Nobody in their right mind, that is.

(Meaning lobotomized Replicants ...)

It was a fair election according to the rules and laws that were in place since 1789. Every presidential election since adhered to those rules and laws. Anyone running for the presidency knows about the electoral college and the need to gather a majority there. You may not think the electoral college is a good thing and you may even deem it 100% wrong. But we live in a union of the several states. Each state one by one chooses whom they want or wish to be the next president. We don't live in an Athena Democracy, but a Republic.

Maybe one day it will be done away with. We now elect senators directly instead of letting state legislatures choose them. So change comes. I'm sure Hillary Clinton and her whole campaign staff knew she had to achieve 270 electoral votes in order to win. It isn't like she was blindsided by the electoral college out of nowhere. I also think with a different candidate, regardless of the electoral college that different Democratic candidate would be sitting in the Oval office today. The Democrats just happened to choose a candidate as much disliked by America as a whole as Trump was. A candidate that had problems getting her Democratic base to come out and vote for her. A candidate that may have lost this election by the DNC and state party leaders rigging the Democratic primaries in her favor.

Hillary won the Democratic base vote 89-8 over Trump. But she only won Sanders supporters by a 65-22 margin with 13% voting third party. How many Sanders supporters stayed home, no one knows. Obama defeated Romney 92-5 among the Democratic base in 2012. Also in 2012 the Democratic base made up 38% of the total electorate, in 2016 it was down to 36%. There are other key figures and numbers. But what was it about Hillary that caused the Democratic base to drop, to stay home and not vote? I personally think they, the Democratic base would have turned out for another candidate besides her. But that is my opinion. Another candidate didn't happen, so there is no way to prove that. But I think one could look at the unfavorable ratings, what I call the dislike factor of the candidates. 60% of all Americans, Americans as a whole had a negative view of Hillary. Trump was worse than Hillary with 62% of all Americans viewing him negative. So I call last years election the anti election. Where one voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose. Although most Americans wanted both to lose. But in a two party system, one or the other must win.

Sanders and Biden were both seen in a positive light by most Americans, so too O'Malley. I think the Democrats lost because of their candidate they chose. She ran a rather lazy campaign and failed to energize her base or supporters. Yes, she won the popular vote. But until the electoral college is done away with, the popular vote means nothing.
 

I keep waiting for either or both parties to realize most Americans are in the middle.


That is not who the system serves.

Absolutely correct. The system doesn't serve most Americans. I think it used to, but that was in the past.
 
It was a fair election according to the rules and laws that were in place since 1789.

It was a fair election according to the rules and laws that were in place since 1789.

Which means absolutely nothing.

There are plenty of statutes on the books that are idiotic from that period of time.

The Electoral College remains an anachronism. A true democracy would rid itself of it as well as gerrymandering.

How a nation of "intelligent people" could keep such electoral methods legal is beyond comprehension to even the most simple-minded.

From Pew Research, Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state - excerpt:
Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election this month – in particular, his winning a clear majority of the Electoral College vote despite receiving nearly 1.3 million fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton – prompted readers of another Pew Research Center Fact Tank post to wonder how the U.S. system compares with the way other countries elect their leaders.

The short answer: No other democratic nation fills its top job quite the way the U.S. does, and only a handful are even similar.

Besides the U.S, the only other democracies that indirectly elect a leader who combines the roles of head of state and head of government (as the U.S. president does) are Botswana, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Africa and Suriname. (The Swiss collective presidency also is elected indirectly, by that country’s parliament.)
 
Back
Top Bottom